Can Hard Work beat talent?

[Illmatic]

Title asks all.

 

[wolfy]

Yeah. The Tortoise and the Hare

 

[FDG]

Only in specific cases, mostly where peak-performance isn't necessarily rewarded.

 

[Illmatic]

observation/deduction.

 

[Elfboy]

yes, with a very small number of exceptions. one such instance is opera. let's say there is a classical singing competition and one of the contestants is a light, canary bird coloratura soprano. on the other end, you have a huge, rich, heroic dramatic soprano voice who can effortlessly fill the Metropolitan Opera House. if both singers have equal or close to equal artistry and technique, than frankly, the dramatic soprano is going to win. she just has a better voice.
however, even this example is relatively inconsequential. the lighter soprano can still get hired for more roles, build and excellent career and be more successful in every sense of the word, she just won't have as good a voice. one such example of this currently is Renee Fleming. while she does have a nice voice (I'm not intending to bash her) her vocal capabilities (range, power, agility, etc) are rather average and there are thousands, no, 10s of thousands of unheard of sopranos out there with more stunning voices. Renee is more successful though because she works hard on both ends and it both a great singer and a great self promoter/manager. others may have better voices, but, in the end, she wins
in the long run, discipline, determination, technique and constant (relevant) learning and improving beat talent with energy to spare.

 

[Nicodemus]

I am inclined to answer in the affirmative but, of course, it depends on the magnitude of talent and work in question.

 

[redcheerio]

It seems to me that hard work almost always beats talent. The exceptions might be in highly creative endeavours that require high levels of talent, but hard work is still required to achieve mastery in addition to talent. A lot of highly creative talent is wasted for lack of business skills (eg undiscovered artists and musicians).

In corporate America, it seems to me that you need hard work and social skills more than talent, but you probably need all three to get to the top.

In LA, you need political skills more than anything else, but that is my cynicism speaking.

 

[chickpea]

yes, but knowing the right people beats both.

 

[Lord Guess]

It depends what level you're on: the higher the level of expertise, the less meaningful raw talent becomes. [MENTION=7991]chana[/MENTION] is right though: knowing the right people gets you further than both.

 

[Totenkindly]

Typical, hard work will beat talent because talent is static but hard work is incremental... so it the talent has nothing else going for it or no way to express itself effectively, the hard work will move ahead. There's also a problem where talent at first relies on talent and doesn't really know what "hard work" is... so when a difficult situation arises, talent flounders. Again, hard work has a mechanism in place by which it can plow ahead.

yes, but knowing the right people beats both.

Yeah, that can be even more powerful... although more volatile, since at that point there is little of the situation that is under your control -- all your power resides in another person, and if you lose that relationship, you are toast.

 

[Billy]

Hard work plateaus and probably wins on the lower ends of the spectrum, but when it comes to master performance talent is essential to win.

 

[Nicodemus]

It can.

 

[FDG]

It depends what level you're on: the higher the level of expertise, the less meaningful raw talent becomes.

Well, only because only talented people reach higher levels of expertise, so when considering the whole population, talent matters a lot.

 

[Lord Guess]

Hard work plateaus and probably wins on the lower ends of the spectrum, but when it comes to master performance talent is essential to win.

Uh, I'd say it's the other way around... raw talent always wins on the lower end, but the higher you go, the harder you need to work to stay afloat. With all things equal, talent will always come up on top, but since we have the Peter Principle, eventually you'll reach a level where your talent is equal to everyone else's hard work, which would make your talent worthless without the hard work to progress further.

Well, only because only talented people reach higher levels of expertise, so when considering the whole population, talent matters a lot.

It depends; obviously some talent is necessary, but in the higher levels of anything, you have people with a lot more experience that makes up for a lack of as much raw talent, which means that your hard work needs to make up for that difference.

 

[Billy]

Uh, I'd say it's the other way around... raw talent always wins on the lower end, but the higher you go, the harder you need to work to stay afloat. With all things equal, talent will always come up on top, but since we have the Peter Principle, eventually you'll reach a level where your talent is equal to everyone else's hard work, which would make your talent worthless without the hard work to progress further.



It depends; obviously some talent is necessary, but in the higher levels of anything, you have people with a lot more experience that makes up for a lack of as much raw talent, which means that your hard work needs to make up for that difference.

I think its silly to assume the talented person doesn't also work hard, the higher you go the more you will see people who work hard and are exceptionally talented, you rarely see some hard working bean counter at the top, although if the talent is grand enough you may just see some savant at the top excelling at what they excel at. Some things just make more sense to some people, to me the movie Rudy epitomizes this struggle, that hard work will get you just so far, but at some point you need the talent to be truly exceptional. If you dont have it you get to a certain plateau and stall out. Much better to be super talented and then work hard to increase your talent reserves at what youre good at, then it is to just plug away at something you will always be unnatural at.

 

[Lord Guess]

I think its silly to assume the talented person doesn't also work hard, the higher you go the more you will see people who work hard and are exceptionally talented, you rarely see some hard working bean counter at the top, although if the talent is grand enough you may just see some savant at the top excelling at what they excel at.

Yes, but that's because they have talent in combination with hard work. The question was, does talent beat hard work in the long run, and the answer is no. Someone with a lot of talent who doesn't work hard will eventually (due to the Peter Principle) advance to a point where his talent will mean nothing without the hard work to go along with it. An example would be someone who was naturally talented at basketball, but never went to a day of practice, since they were far much better than everyone around them. Eventually, coasting by on their talent, they would make it to a level where everyone has been going to practice, and was much more comfortable with the drills and plays than the brilliant, but lazy, talented player. At this point, his talent will only make him an average player at best; with the right amount of work, however, he will become the best player on the team if he is indeed the most talented. His talent just won't do him any good unless he works hard from this point on.

 

[Billy]

Yes, but that's because they have talent in combination with hard work. The question was, does talent beat hard work in the long run, and the answer is no. Someone with a lot of talent who doesn't work hard will eventually (due to the Peter Principle) advance to a point where his talent will mean nothing without the hard work to go along with it. An example would be someone who was naturally talented at basketball, but never went to a day of practice, since they were far much better than everyone around them. Eventually, coasting by on their talent, they would make it to a level where everyone has been going to practice, and was much more comfortable with the drills and plays than the brilliant, but lazy, talented player. At this point, his talent will only make him an average player at best; with the right amount of work, however, he will become the best player on the team if he is indeed the most talented. His talent just won't do him any good unless he works hard from this point on.

Yes and with some work, not even hard work he will become better then those who work hard but have stalled out because truth is that no matter how hard one works at something they do eventually hit a peak, which requires natural talent to get you past. Talent ultimately at the higher levels trumps hard work because talent gives that extra boost, the phrasing of the question was rather vague so I dont think its fair to say that 1 person who is talented is also lazy, as in order to even compete he/she would have to put in at least SOME work, even the competition itself is work and improves skill, so what is being argued is the amount of work put in. I think an average amount of work with talent will always trump TONS of hard work with no talent. Especially if we are talking about physical sports or something where being 6'5 and able to slam dunk and nail just about any shot will always beat the hard working guy who is 5'8 and practiced every day. There is a reason why they dont troll suburban basketball courts looking for short white kids to scout for the NBA even though they practice every single day and can nail 10/10 free throws etc, they pick the guy who was always good at it and probably spent more time partying and showing up to hustle those kids on the weekend because he was just better off the bat.

 

[Lord Guess]

Yes and with some work, not even hard work he will become better then those who work hard but have stalled out because truth is that no matter how hard one works at something they do eventually hit a peak, which requires natural talent to get you past. Talent ultimately at the higher levels trumps hard work because talent gives that extra boost, the phrasing of the question was rather vague so I dont think its fair to say that 1 person who is talented is also lazy, as in order to even compete he/she would have to put in at least SOME work, even the competition itself is work and improves skill, so what is being argued is the amount of work put in. I think an average amount of work with talent will always trump TONS of hard work with no talent. Especially if we are talking about physical sports or something where being 6'5 and able to slam dunk and nail just about any shot will always beat the hard working guy who is 5'8 and practiced every day. There is a reason why they dont troll suburban basketball courts looking for short white kids to scout for the NBA even though they practice every single day and can nail 10/10 free throws etc, they pick the guy who was always good at it and probably spent more time partying and showing up to hustle those kids on the weekend because he was just better off the bat.

Well, if the question here is whether or not, all things equal, talent can get you further than hard work alone, the answer is yes, only because the hard work at that point isn't enough to make up for the difference in raw skill. If the question is whether choosing a highly talented person who doesn't work very hard is better than choosing a person with average talent who has worked extremely hard to improve their skills, and develop new ones then the hard worker will likely be better than the highly talented one. The reason behind this is because, simply put, raw talent doesn't mean anything without putting any work toward it. I could have a lot of natural potential to be, say, a UFC fighter; I might have a natural feel for how to fight, as well as an idea how to throw punches, do joint locks, wrestle and generally break someone down in a fight; however, would I want to fight someone who had been practicing MMA for years, though they were just an average fighter when they began? Of course not. Incidentally, I used to take kickboxing, which I was naturally talented at; however, the higher up I went, the less of a difference my talent actually made with people at my level, since other factors like the opponent's size came into play as the others became better and better at it the more they came to class. Obviously, when I had just started, I would never have dreamed of fighting people who were a lot more advanced than I was; even though they didn't have as much raw talent as I did, their experience would have meant I would have lost pretty quickly.

 

[entropie]

sure, except its a talent in some sort of self defense

 

[Lord Guess]

sure, except its a talent in some sort of self defense

Not quite sure what you mean. If you're saying what I think you are, though, I think you might be getting raw talent confused with skill. Someone with a lot of skill will always come out on top, but raw talent just means natural inborn skill. Experience lets you a) develop existing skills and b) learn new ones, both of which will beat someone with raw talent alone easily.