Can you be the best at something without talent?

[Illmatic]

Discuss.

 

[sprinkles]

I think we must first determine if one can in fact be the best at something at all.

 

[wolfy]

I think we must first determine if one can in fact be the best at something at all.

I liked Seth Godin's definition of best. Best in the world. Best as in: best for them, right now, based on what they believe and what they know. And in the world as in: their world, the world they have access to.

A workable definition of best I reckon.

 

[sprinkles]

I liked Seth Godin's definition of best. Best in the world. Best as in: best for them, right now, based on what they believe and what they know. And in the world as in: their world, the world they have access to.

A workable definition of best I reckon.

Makes sense.

Under this context I say sure, it's possible to be the best at something.

Now we need to figure out what talent is.

 

[wolfy]

Makes sense.

Under this context I say sure, it's possible to be the best at something.

Now we need to figure out what talent is.

Talent is something discovered through work. The best idea I read on revealing hidden talent was in looking at what you like to do. What you like to do from a function sense. Function as in what you do, not the context in which you do it.

Actually, that is two ideas I combined into one in my head. Now that I think about it. The first idea is from, Now Discover your talents and the other is from Pathfinder.

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm so yes, I think it is possible to be the best at something without talent. For a given time and a given place.

I wouldn't expect it to remain, though.

 

[wolfy]

Hmm so yes, I think it is possible to be the best at something without talent. For a given time and a given place.

I wouldn't expect it to remain, though.

That is the funny thing with words like talent, success, creative. They sound like a state but are actually in a state of flux.

 

[Such Irony]

Hmm so yes, I think it is possible to be the best at something without talent. For a given time and a given place.

I wouldn't expect it to remain, though.

Yes. Find a really unusual niche that hasn't been occupied by anyone else.

 

[Orangey]

I don't believe in any bullshit about "talent," whatever that means. Being the best at anything is about willpower.

 

[Lexicon]

Standards for what's considered ''best'' are always apt to evolve, so that standard will only be met for a short period of time, unless the person evolves along with said standards.

Talent, I'm guessing refers to people for whom certain skills come to them relatively easily, initially. So sure, there's sort of an idea of talent there, but one must have drive and focus in order to do something great with it. If one's looking speficially to meet or exceed current standards, rarely does 'inherent' talent cut it, alone. In fact, I've seen talented people become lazy and complacent, and eventually whatever skills they have are kind of lost. Others who looked up to them in the past and pushed themselves, constantly, ended up exceeding the works of those who inspired them.

 

[xisnotx]

By talent, I assume you mean it with a degree of naturalism attached to it. Is it not possible to be talented at something having only worked hard at it?

 

[WALMART]

I believe Mozart or something stated it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to be incredibly proficient at something.

Or maybe someone said that about Mozart.

Idk.

 

[rav3n]

The concept of the best, has become a foreign concept to me. Achievement so fleeting, so meaningless once attained. Like a gaping hole of nevermore.

 

[Pinker85]

Honestly, once you get to a certain level, everyone is working their asses off and have tons of will power, the extent of a person's natural talent is what ends up setting those that do well from those that are great apart. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the person who is the champion is necessarily the most talented, but anyone competing at that level, that has an honest shot at being champion, is most likely someone that showed natural talent from the start. And I'm probably referring more to sports here. When I say 'champion' I mean in a competition regarded as the pinnacle of achievement for whatever sport.

I've competed at the national level for a few things, but never could make it past, despite great effort and will power, at least in my mind, being pretty mediocre compared to the other competitors. Maybe I'm just saying all this natural talent stuff from a place of sour grapes? I don't know. It seemed like no matter how much effort I put in, there was someone who just had that extra oomph bestowed on them by nature that could put in half the effort I did, yet excelled way beyond me. By the time I'd master this one technique, they had already mastered 5-7 techniques.

That isn't to say if you have a dream you shouldn't keep pushing to achieve that dream. Even if the odds are against you, if you really believe in devoting your life to whatever it is, you should pursue it. I just think the chances of your success are a bit slim. But I'm an NF, so I don't much believe we should be governed by hard probabilistic distributions alone, life is about doing the things that give our lives value and we find pleasurable. This is really something I've had to come to peace with as I've realized I won't ever be the best (or close to it) at anything.

 

[Illmatic]

Well the talent I have in my mind is reading people.

Like Patrick Jane. Like Cal Lightman. Making deductions. Reading people off facial expressions and all of that.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't believe in any bullshit about "talent," whatever that means. Being the best at anything is about willpower.

I disagree with this regarding some things that require physical components. For example, if you have no sense of pitch, you are not going to be a better singer than someone born with it, maybe even if you work much much harder.

 

[Orangey]

I disagree with this regarding some things that require physical components. For example, if you have no sense of pitch, you are not going to be a better singer than someone born with it, maybe even if you work much much harder.

Isn't that a matter of ability and not really "talent?" I mean, you wouldn't say that someone with no arms had less talent at throwing than someone who did, would you?

 

[Totenkindly]

Isn't that a matter of ability and not really "talent?" I mean, you wouldn't say that someone with no arms had less talent at throwing than someone who did, would you?

I consider talent to be "innate ability" -- something you're born instinctively knowing how to do. I'm not sure how one would define talent otherwise, since the point of the word seems to be to distinguish that aspect from performance level garnered through effort and willpower.

 

[kyuuei]

I said yes, but there are different levels of "Best".

I think someone can score the best in their class, or in their school even, without being talented in school and studying. Hard work trumps things like that. I think hard work can trump talent at work.

But I don't think hard work will make someone a better artist above someone with artistic talent. Hard work will get you pretty damn close.. but talent shines through in things like music and art in a way that is different.

I don't think I will ever be the best runner at anything either. Some people were just made for it.. I've put hours of effort into trying to perfect my run, only to see someone laze around for weeks on end and then leave me in the dust during testing times. It's just the way it is.

 

[sprinkles]

I consider talent to be "innate ability" -- something you're born instinctively knowing how to do. I'm not sure how one would define talent otherwise, since the point of the word seems to be to distinguish that aspect from performance level garnered through effort and willpower.

Yes. I'd say it's someone who naturally stands out. Just as some people have physical limitations where most people are just average, others seem to be the inverse and have some kind of super ability that can't be explained by mere practice alone.

Starting something at an early age also counts. For example, one is probably not going to be a Garry Kasparov or Bobby Fischer if they didn't start very young and have talent also. These two had an edge somehow it seems - they certainly were not the only ones who trained very hard at Chess from an early age, yet there was something that made them both arguably the best chess players in the entire world - not only when they played but still today.