Can Hard Work beat talent?

[Lord Guess]

There is no such thing as talent without hard work. Talent is something that is created throw dedication and effort and hard work. I wasn't talented at anything until I worked hard at it. When I worked hard at the things I'm talented at, I ended up going further than most of my peers. My natural inclination for these things would be meaningless without my hard work, and my hard work has been fueled by my love for what I'm doing and the connection I have with it that I suppose is the "talent" aspect. If someone with no talent works at something, they will become good at it, but without the connection/understanding and love that talented people have with their talents, they just won't achieve the same things and probably won't be able to work as hard without burning out or whatever.

You're confusing skill, which is indeed built up through hard work, with raw talent, which is inborn aptitude. Some people are better at learning and developing certain skills than other people; it doesn't mean that they are automatically going to be more skilled than someone with average talent who has been working at something for years.

 

[Mole]

Hard work poisons talent.

Can hard work beat talent?

Well, all we have to ask is, can Antonio Salieri beat Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

And yes, Salieri resented Mozart's talent and finally poisoned him.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Can Hard Work beat talent?

Depends, but I would generally say no.

 

[wildcat]

Can hard work beat talent?

Well, all we have to ask is, can Antonio Salieri beat Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

And yes, Salieri resented Mozart's talent and finally poisoned him.

Pinochet asked Milton in Santiago:
Is there a free lunch?
Milton said there is no such thing.
Salieri killed only one Mozart.
Pinochet was not so modest.

 

[ygolo]

Since the title only asks can hard work beat talent. I say yes.

But not just hard work, but the right hard work, for the right person is needed.

The whole "talent" thing is a complicated story, in my mind. I believe the use of the word "talent" oversimplifies what is otherwise an important set of complexities that deserves more study.

No baby is born with innate ability to do anything that requires "talent." The brain may have the capacity, the genes may have a predisposition. But without the proper nurturing, this doesn't become skill.

Every genius of note has been "manufactured" in some way. Perhaps, again, there were some predispositions. But I am not willing to call those predispositions "talent." They are too minute, and too fleeting. Unless there is well timed training that comes along to develop them into skills, these predispositions amount to nothing.

Mozart had his father, as did the Polgar sisters, the Williams' sisters, and Tiger Woods (speaking of Woods, did his "talent" just disappear, or did he just loose the champion golfer's mindset?). Neither Albert Einstein, nor Michael Jordan were recognized for being talented initially. But some would rank them as the greatest in their fields for all time.

To me greatness at anything is a combination of having nurtured the right predispositions at the right times.

There are techniques out there to (supposedly accessible to anyone with the dedication to make them stick):
1) Have amazing memory
2) Have amazing calculation speed
3) Read at incredible paces
4) Improve lateral and creative thinking

If these things are taught to a young person, early enough in age, they could all be Von Neumanns.

Also, ultimately, everything that is done, is done in some way. If one can replicate the way, then one can achieve the same results.

Then, of course, we come back to the question of whether individuals have the capacities to replicate the way that achieves results. Capacities can be developed with practice and hard work. But here early development and nurturing becomes key.

Like I said, it is a complex story, that I believe should be kept complex. The word "talent" cheapens it.

 

[Illmatic]

farrrrking hell why didn't my parents teach me a skill instead of just cheating on each other and shit.

Younger people adapt and learn quicker, too late for me now.

 

[alcea rosea]

Without reading the whole tread, I think that hard work can beat talent until certain point, after that a person without natural ability towards that thing cannot be learned by studying/hard work. Example: singing. Most people can learn to sing but only few are excellent in it/acquire the perfect "musical ear", another expample a world class athlete, or a genious kind of mathematician. My point is that not everybody can be anything they wish to be in every area: some talent/abilities are needed to be excellent in some area.

So, in my opinion: hard work cannot beat "certain" level of talent.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

I don't think you're "born" with a talent. You're just built to be more apt at learning that specific thing faster/easier.

 

[entropie]

The real question is: can talent beat hard work !

If I imagine a society composed to 90% of intellectuals doing head work, who feeds the cat then ?

 

[Octarine]

If I imagine a society composed to 90% of intellectuals doing head work, who feeds the cat then ?

Uh, the automatic cat feeding device?

 

[entropie]

Yea and what does the device if the cat is ill or wants to play. Can it clean its toilet too ? How does it notice if the cat feels alone for example ? How many more years of development do we need to technologically advance that much so we can spare us hard work ?

I will be definitly some and as long as that is so, substituting hard work is desireable, but the POV from which you look at it, shouldnt be: "your work is substitutable". it should be: "thanks for doing it"

 

[Octarine]

Yea and what does the device if the cat is ill or wants to play. Can it clean its toilet too ? How does it notice if the cat feels alone for example ? How many more years of development do we need to technologically advance that much so we can spare us hard work ?

I'm sure we'll be creating work for ourselves indefinitely. But you know that self cleaning cat toilets and automatic cat feeding devices have already been invented right? As far as the other points go, the aim is to minimise work, rather than diverting all the tasks of pet ownership.

 

[Illmatic]

so can i be one of the most skilled in a field if i practice really hard?

 

[Illmatic]

Well the specific talent/skill i really desire is observation and deduction. The ability to notice the smallest of the details and then make accurate predictions on the person. Kinda influenced by TV (The Mentalist, Psych) but i know these can be done in real life also. When i watch these shows i always think, 'shit....maybe i could do that' and i kinda feel like i could but i don't know.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SherlockScan

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HyperAwareness

Can hard work help me?

 

[Josephized_Joe]

Not so much hard work as "Perseverance trumps talent". The reward to always goes to the most persistent not necessarily the most talented. The persistent person could be very talented, but its not a prerequisite.

 

[entropie]

I'm sure we'll be creating work for ourselves indefinitely. But you know that self cleaning cat toilets and automatic cat feeding devices have already been invented right? As far as the other points go, the aim is to minimise work, rather than diverting all the tasks of pet ownership.

you know metaphorical skills can actually save you a lot of time, given the person you talk to has at least some competence and understanding for the bigger picture. at least its nice to at least pretend you'ld find the intercolutors attitude funny, running around the world and pushing everyone ones own attitude of factualness on the forehead, doenst indicate flexibility or at least the will to be able to tolerate the majority of mankind. at least !

 

[GZA]

You're confusing skill, which is indeed built up through hard work, with raw talent, which is inborn aptitude. Some people are better at learning and developing certain skills than other people; it doesn't mean that they are automatically going to be more skilled than someone with average talent who has been working at something for years.

I'm not confused. I just don't believe there is a dichotomy between hard work and talent, I don't believe one trumps the other, I believe they are interwoven, and they reinforce each other. Its like what Ygolo said, the idea of talent is really just a lot of other factors (i.e. love, hard work, dedication, and yes, aptitude, and probably a bunch of other things too really) thrown together in a nice little convenient word. I think acquiring "talent" no matter who it is requires a great deal of study to be synthesized. Hypothetically if I was an absolute "natural talent" at designing lamps or something, it wouldn't mean anything if I've never done ti before. No one just shows up and is great. The "talented" people are also the people who have put in the insane hours over the course of their whole lives, who have really studied what it is they do in order to create something new out of it or extend it in a new direction.

I think too much stock is put in this idea of talent, and not the fact that passion, dedication, and the right education in something goes a long way. I also think creativity can be learned and isn't an innate thing that just magically appears in some but not others. When people train for something and are dedicated to it from a very young age, amazing things begin to happen by the time they are adults. This is why, once again as Ygolo said, Tiger Woods, Hendrix, Mozart, ect were great. If you spent your time from the age of 12 or younger until you were 24 or 25 doing only one thing for like twelve hours a day, you're bound to come up with something new/be better than everyone else. None of those guys necessarily learned faster, they had just done waaaaay more work than their peers, and they did the right work, and they did it when they were young and their minds were still adaptable and whatnot.

If any of that even made sense hahaha

 

[amerellis]

There's no such thing as talent since everything is learnt. Hard work wins by default.

Couldn't some learn certain skills easier than others?

 

[Such Irony]

No one just shows up and is great. The "talented" people are also the people who have put in the insane hours over the course of their whole lives, who have really studied what it is they do in order to create something new out of it or extend it in a new direction.

I think too much stock is put in this idea of talent, and not the fact that passion, dedication, and the right education in something goes a long way. I also think creativity can be learned and isn't an innate thing that just magically appears in some but not others. When people train for something and are dedicated to it from a very young age, amazing things begin to happen by the time they are adults. This is why, once again as Ygolo said, Tiger Woods, Hendrix, Mozart, ect were great. If you spent your time from the age of 12 or younger until you were 24 or 25 doing only one thing for like twelve hours a day, you're bound to come up with something new/be better than everyone else. None of those guys necessarily learned faster, they had just done waaaaay more work than their peers, and they did the right work, and they did it when they were young and their minds were still adaptable and whatnot.

If any of that even made sense hahaha

I read in the book Outliers that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice in a field to become extraordinary at it.

Talent can only get you so far if you don't also practice.

 

[wolfy]

Can hard work help me?

Yes.