• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Can you be the best at something without talent?

Simple.

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • Total voters
    24

Illmatic

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
240
Well 50/20000 got the talent to spot a lie. I want that talent. I want to be the best. If I can't be the best fuck life.
 

Wolfie

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
552
MBTI Type
xNxx
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so
Depends what the people with talent are doing. I've been naturally very good at something and seen my ass kicked by someone who ends up working a lot harder at it because they have to. Meanwhile I'm just relying on my talent. Other scenarios, someone who is naturally talented and also works hard at it.. it's hard to catch up with them.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
The simpler the activity, the more talent matters. Being the fastest runner is based on a single item: being the first to cross the line. It takes innate ability to run a 9.42sec. 100 meters.
Most other things can be learned.
Thelonius Monk was a jazz pianist. He was considered a joke for over 10 years. Then suddenly he was a genius. It took that long for the world to catch up to his music.
There are many pianists who have more in-born skill than he had, but he had a vision and stuck to it, and that made him a genius.
So what is 'best'?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, I think drive and perseverance is equally (if not more) important than talent. If the driven person is hanging around with a bunch of talented but lazy people they are still going to be the best.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
The simpler the activity, the more talent matters. Being the fastest runner is based on a single item: being the first to cross the line. It takes innate ability to run a 9.42sec. 100 meters.
Most other things can be learned.
Thelonius Monk was a jazz pianist. He was considered a joke for over 10 years. Then suddenly he was a genius. It took that long for the world to catch up to his music.
There are many pianists who have more in-born skill than he had, but he had a vision and stuck to it, and that made him a genius.
So what is 'best'?
Right.

Or in very abstract things such as Go, talent can also matter in the form of having an overarching metaknowledge of yourself and the game.

You can learn Go but mastery cannot be taught. It's gained through experience, but to gain it requires metaknowledge and awareness, since seeing where you went wrong in a specific game is quite academic but applying it to a future game that plays out differently requires a sense of endless iterations and even some psychology.

It's a game with 2 × 10^170 legal positions, after all. This is comparable to say, the number of particles in the known universe - possibly more than.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
Hard work really does go a long way. Don't let your perception of your own talent stop you from doing what you feel passionately about.
Don't worry about not being a genius. Geniuses are often as insecure as anyone, for similar reasons.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
i'm going to go with no.
 

ilikeitlikethat

You're unbelievable ...
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
2,158
MBTI Type
xNTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think with anything, practise makes perfect.

You can be naturally gifted but... Practise will always, I mean always, make perfect, to be the best however; I think that's just opion based so, no, no one can ever be 'the best' - with music... Unless you get accolades like trophys and awards for best this or best that or number one on the charts but... I still think that that's opion based too.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Integral of interest and pedagogy over time

I have a tendency to use mathematical analogies in my thinking, so I apologize if this confuses people.

I think of talent as the integral of interest and pedagogy over time.

To clarify, I believe that what most people call talent is actually the historical result of the amount and type of "training" done so far.

At birth, there is certainly a difference in abilities of all babies born (even here, I wonder how much influence the mothers diet and environment affects things). But after that, the baby, the child, the teenager, etc. have experiences that shape both their motivations and the strategies they use to pursue what they are motivated to do.

So, I believe, at any given moment, the quality of the training depends on two factors:
1) The nature of motivation. A strong intrinsic motivation seems best. This, to me, means a self-chosen desire to master a skill, fulfill a grand purpose, or achieve some autonomy. External motivation can also work to some extent if it is strong enough, but I think there are other psychological costs to this sort of motivation.
2) The quality of instruction, coaching, or mentoring. Although there are many self-taught talented people, I think you will find that even these people have studied role-models that they wanted to become more like. Being talented in the more competitive endeavors relies heavily on being well coached.

I believe that the result of all your past training (and skills can transfer from one domain to another), is what people refer to when they talk about "talent."

With that, it is almost a tautology that the answer to poll question is no. If you are good at something it means you are talented at something, and vice versa.

I suppose notable exceptions are when there are distinct physical advantages. For instance a 7' person is more likely to become good at basketball than a 3' tall person. You may call this "talent", but most people would not...it is just a physical advantage. With this, someone may be the best at something not competitive(imagine if basketball were a brand new game with no analogous games around, then a 7' tall person could be the best without talent).

I didn't answer the poll, because, I believe my use of the word "talent", although based off of the common usage, is not based on a common understanding of what talent is.
 

metalmommy

so ready
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
718
Well, one could argue that the ability to focus and persevere in the face of significant obstacles (i.e. work hard) is, in itself, a talent...not everyone is naturally adept at that.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
I have a tendency to use mathematical analogies in my thinking, so I apologize if this confuses people.

I think of talent as the integral of interest and pedagogy over time.

To clarify, I believe that what most people call talent is actually the historical result of the amount and type of "training" done so far.

At birth, there is certainly a difference in abilities of all babies born (even here, I wonder how much influence the mothers diet and environment affects things). But after that, the baby, the child, the teenager, etc. have experiences that shape both their motivations and the strategies they use to pursue what they are motivated to do.

So, I believe, at any given moment, the quality of the training depends on two factors:
1) The nature of motivation. A strong intrinsic motivation seems best. This, to me, means a self-chosen desire to master a skill, fulfill a grand purpose, or achieve some autonomy. External motivation can also work to some extent if it is strong enough, but I think there are other psychological costs to this sort of motivation.
2) The quality of instruction, coaching, or mentoring. Although there are many self-taught talented people, I think you will find that even these people have studied role-models that they wanted to become more like. Being talented in the more competitive endeavors relies heavily on being well coached.

I believe that the result of all your past training (and skills can transfer from one domain to another), is what people refer to when they talk about "talent."

With that, it is almost a tautology that the answer to poll question is no. If you are good at something it means you are talented at something, and vice versa.

I suppose notable exceptions are when there are distinct physical advantages. For instance a 7' person is more likely to become good at basketball than a 3' tall person. You may call this "talent", but most people would not...it is just a physical advantage. With this, someone may be the best at something not competitive(imagine if basketball were a brand new game with no analogous games around, then a 7' tall person could be the best without talent).

I didn't answer the poll, because, I believe my use of the word "talent", although based off of the common usage, is not based on a common understanding of what talent is.

Yeah, that's a really good post, I endorse ygolo's views almost completely. There might perhaps be a slightly stronger influence of genetic factors on aptitude, but their development is nonetheless strongly tied to environmental ones.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Yes, I think drive and perseverance is equally (if not more) important than talent. If the driven person is hanging around with a bunch of talented but lazy people they are still going to be the best.

Uhm, well, in my experience they really need to be lazy. Lack of talent and lack of discipline both act as strong bottlenecks (you might say there is a kind of "multiplicative effect" where if either terms equals zero, the whole result will be zero aswell), so both very untalented but driven people and very "talented" but indisciplined people have a tendency to hover around the lower levels of ability.
 
Top