Why The Importance of Talent Is Overrated
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2024
- Many believe that talent is something you either have or don't, but there are plenty of scientific studies that debunk this myth. In this video essay we will take a look at two key factors which prove that talent is highly overrated and misunderstood and that the importance of talent is actually a myth.
Check out the next episode from the series of Journey To Mastery here: • Why Follow Your Passio...
#Talent #Mastery #VideoEssay
This video is highly based on the amazing Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" which you can check out here: amzn.to/33hfc2h
Did this video make you question the importance of talent? What personal insights do you have about this subject?
I think you might want to look at the counter arguments made by sapinker, primalpoly et al. on twitter.I remember one of them pointed out there was a study that found the amount of time it took for people to achieve a given level of mastery on the violin varied from 2000-20000 hours, contradicting the 10000 hour claim. Also, you should check out this, which refutes the idea the most talented people spend 10000 hours on just 1 thing: www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialist-david-epstein-interview/
You forgot to mention another important thing, that is preference, you are more likely to work hard in somthing that you like to do hence become a genius on that pirticular field.
Thank you Zeke! I am always very interested in good counter arguments! I'll absolutely read the whole book by Epstein.
PS: Also too the idea that's presented in his book appeals to me, since I'm definitely quite multifaceted in my endeavors at times 😁
@Al-Imran Adore - 100%! I actually even thought about adding this thought, but I wanted to keep this video around 8 minutes long, so I didn't include this argument anymore. I'm thinking now though that maybe in the future I should make a longer, more rounded video on the subject :) But it's my first try/video in this realm, so... I gotta start somewhere 😊
Other than that, yeah, I personally feel that this is where "passion" comes in - or something that you just love doing. It's my experience too that it's much easier to excel at something you enjoy doing, since you won't have as much trouble spending many hours doing it. That doesn't mean the grind won't kick in once in a while, but yeah, I think it really helps :)
@@Rokasleo Also, primalpoly shared this today: cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/05123527/Article-GCQ-Lubinski-Benbow-2020.pdf
I cannot tell, as someone who works in academia, how many PhD graduates I have come across who barely got in to university in the first place, and then achieved mediocre results in their undergraduate degree.
They didn't give up, stayed patient, worked hard and got better and eventually earned the title of Doctor.
Having intention and a vision/goal, hard work and perseverance will see you succeed in almost any field of life. Be it getting a PhD in Computer Science or getting a black belt in BJJ.
Awesome!
Weird coincidence, one Karate pioneer said, paraphrasing, "One can not be called a Karateka, until he performs the Naihanchi kata 10000 times".
Nice. I just remembered after reading your comment that Mas Oyama also said: ""1,000 times, a beginner. 10,000 times, a Master""
Good stuff! Talent alone isn’t enough as you pointed out. By my observation some people have an affinity for certain things and can have “raw” talent. But even those people need refining, or hard work.
While I tend to agree, I am still questioning the aspect of "affinity". As IQ can make a difference in how quickly a person picks something up and genetics play a factor too, we often tend to ignore the background of the individual in question. Let's say if someone is talented in football from the get-go and we are all amazed by that person saying that he is "raw" talent, maybe he was spending hours upon hours running around and doing physical stuff his whole childhood with his older brothers? To further promote this idea, in Daniel Coyle's "The Talent Code" he gives an example that almost all best runners of the world were the younger brothers, AKA. they were always trying to keep up in speed to their older brothers, thus eventually gaining an advantage in speed which later helps build them their careers. I could go on, but basically this aspect is still in my area of questioning. Other than that I agree 110% that even "talented" people still need to put in the work as all studies show. That's why I love this part most: "Ericsson’s study couldn’t find any “naturals,” musicians who floated effortlessly to the top, while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did. Nor could they find any “grinds,” people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn’t have what it takes to break the top ranks."
The Journey Good points. From my own experiences, my affinity and raw talent for art made certain things come to me very easily. I just “knew” how to do it without any explanation or practice. And I couldn’t explain why those things came easy to me. I think this is where genetics plays a role. Whether or not I become successful enough with my talent to make money or be recognized in the larger world utterly depends on practice. This is where hard work plays a role. In my martial arts practice, much of it doesn’t come easy, again I believe this is genetics. I have to work really hard to be successful in a technique, or practice hard. My IQ (which is above average) really doesn’t play that much of a role. My IQ comes in handy for problem solving, which can be helpful in either scenario.
@Feliĉa Porko I would be curious to take a look at the case studies of individuals who tried equally as hard as the "geniuses", but haven't reached any significant success. Yet that aside I agree with you and appreciate you bringing up these points. The realm of talent and genius is one I am still only starting to investigate and I have many unanswered questions at the moment, but so far I do have a hypothesis (presented in some books too), that what we are genetically good at (even let's say if someone is tall from an early age) we are naturally suggested to try out suitable endeavors and once we show some good results: naturally we are praised, which then leads to the growth of our motivation to do better, what eventually becomes a repeated cycle toward success.
I also appreciate you bringing up the point of luck, which to a degree may be related to timing too. If we won't meet good coaches/teachers, get the circumstances to practice our desired practice or won't make it in time, there is little chance of great success, that should not be denied. Malcom Gladwell explores this subject really well in "Outliers" too.
Those are really great points Felica! I appreciate you sharing them. I've recently started developing a theory of the importance to be very diligent in learning both sides of the arguments (arguments favoring your opinion as much as the counterarguments) in the field that we are trying to excel at. I feel too many people are victims to conscious bias, which lead to limited progress and discovery. That is why I would really love to dig down even deeper into the possibility of importance of genes and circumstances.
I am very much with you on when you said: "it would be more productive to overemphasize agency than to overemphasize genetic determinism" and it's actually pretty much how I motivated and justified the making of this video (and ones that I am intending to create next). It was made with an intention to inspire people to be less prone to determinism. Yet I am also very much with you on the dark side of the other side of this picture. Indeed: what are the limits of working hard? When is it too much? Should everyone be encouraged to do it? How about a person who is fulfilled living a simple family life with little ambition? All these questions are extremely important I think and and a round peg surely shouldn't be forced into a square hole.
I am still inspired to consider that a person who "just can't make it" maybe is taking the wrong approach, as to put it into an extreme allegory of a person working hard to break a wall with his head, not giving up. But yet again, there are so many factors to this... I think though that is all the more reason that I am really interested in this subject and would love to find and discover quality answers to both sides of this picture :) Hopefully with my future attempts I will be able to articulate the limitations well too, to make sure the message does not end up being toxic, but yet instead - balanced.
Talent is just a bonus not a magic pill
I have to respectfully disagree.
First, I believe talent is rarely associated with IQ. I even had to lookup definition of talent to make sure my understanding is correct, which it is. Yes, some people may be talented simply to absorb knowledge, which helps increase their IQ. But most talents have nothing to do with IQ. There are artistic talents (painting, acting, musical, writing, etc), physical talents (muscle and bone structure, strength, endurance, etc), social talents (leadership, influencing, etc), just to name a few. None of them have IQ as a prerequisite. Talent is simply your natural predisposition to certain activities. Even a complete idiot may be talented at something.
And second, I don’t think talent is a myth when it comes to success. Yes, hard work is what ultimately defines our level of skill in any field. But what fuels this hard work? Motivation. And what fuels motivation? Many factors, of course, but the most common one is natural aptitude to certain activities, which is a core definition of talent. Without this natural aptitude, hours of training in something that does not spark any interest quickly turn into a boredom, which is often described as one of the greatest human sufferings. On the other hand, people with talent experience enjoyment, not suffering, in endless hours of training in their favourite activities, no matter how excruciating painful they might be. So more often than not it is talent that carries a person through 10,000 hours of training to become a master, not the other way around. Without talent, many people quit too early to escape mental suffering from boredom, which, by the way, is a very wise thing to do. Because being successful at something doesn’t mean being happy. But this is a whole new topic, so I better stop here. Hope my arguments make sense though.
Hi VoidedTea,
It's actually interesting that I don't think you disagreed with me at all. We are just expressing similar points in different words. My message in the video was also that talent and IQ are not directly correlated (although may be related at best), but what I meant is that many people think that IQ, or in other words "inherent intelligence" (not by definition maybe, but how people perceive it), that it's essential in being a talented/genius individual. This belief of inheritance is essentially limiting, since it can make someone with a lower intelligence feel hopeless, and I wanted to dispel this line of thinking with this video. To put what I want to say here in different words, I was focused more on perception than definition and the potential results of it.
Regarding your second argument I don't think we are on entirely different pages either, but at the same time is a good exercise for debate to clarify our thoughts. First of all I agree that a liking to practice a certain skill is a big difference maker and that it often sprouts from someone being a bit better at it than others, but how much that correlates with talent I think is still a question. As it was discovered in Ericsson's research, there were no individuals who were naturally gifted and did not need to put in 10.000 hours. Many people though consider that a talented person is one who is much better with significantly less effort and that is yet again a limiting belief and that is what I am concerned by. Also as it is explored really well in Gladwell's "Outliers" is that this "natural aptitude" at many times may be dependent on circumstances, as in an example of the importance of the age difference of children who start hockey in Canada and being a bit older are slightly superior because of it, which motivates them to practice harder and in the end the great, great majority of pro hockey players in Canada are born at specific months. This particular example debunks the idea of talent itself, as a definition and focuses more simply on someone's motivation to practice a skill and the importance that plays.
All in all though, yet again, I don't think we are on different pages, but I always appreciate good counter-arguments and discussions to sharpen our edges, so thank you for bringing this up :)
Hi Rokas, I am glad you are finding our views not too far apart, and I can see your both points. In the end, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle as there are so many variables to consider when it comes to individual circumstances. What kind of talent, what kind of activity, and even social environment, all may play vital role in the success of each individual. One personal example - my daughter was taking recreational tennis lessons for three years since she was five. She became the best in her group and the coach kept telling us that she has some natural qualities (talent?) to be very good at tennis and insisted on switching to competitive training. Unfortunately, competitive training schedule was so demanding and conflicting with our work schedules, that we had to decline the opportunity. So our daughter never played tennis after that. Who knows who might she become if we found the time to commit to her development in sports. No matter how talented she (or any kid) might be, their environment might be very prohibitive in developing this talent. Just another angle in this complex subject, I would say.
Tbh the best way to describe "intelligence" is "a learning multiplier". Some people learn stuff faster, but they still have to actually learn and practice it, even if ultimately they get a bit more out of a practice session than the average person.
I agree with you. I also think it's important to take into account the "exponential" nature of learning. When you learn something early on, it drives your future learning progress. In this way, the more you learn, the more you possibly become better at learning even more in the future. I think this still needs smart learning. For example just learning the same things over and over without any challenge may lead to slow learning. But in general, the principle of becoming a good learner can create a huge benefit.
Ok speaking of Sports and ESports.yes im grouping them together to be at a top level we need to spend countless hours practicing. The higher the level the harder one has to work.study and hone your craft whatever it is.
This gives me hope 😊
Me too Bro! 😊👊
It is actually unrealistic, and somewhat foolish for an average person who shows no particular aptitude, to pursue "excellence", as in very many cases it will never come no matter how determined or driven the person may be. By definition, based on their genes and subsequent biological makeup, they are inherently average, and there is no reason to expect them to accomplish above average feats. No, you cannot choose to excel at some particular thing, as most factors contributing to your abilities are beyond your control. At least 50% of all your physical and neurological abilities were determined before birth, and by the time you are an adult and really making decisions for yourself, your brain has lost about 90% of its plasticity, and there remains only the possibility for very modest adjustments to the functioning of your mind. Practice no longer causes the same changes to occur in the brain as they do for a child, and it becomes essentially futile to pursue those things that gifted people began doing at 5 years of age. To excel you must have a very particular neurological makeup, recognise the aptitude before 10 years of age, and then train very long and hard every day. if there is no aptitude, there is no possibility for success. If the training begins too late, there is no possibility for success. Most accomplished musicians were highly gifted from the outset, then have on average 15 to 25 years of daily training beginning in early childhood. Being a rock star or sports star are both highly unrealistic goals. 99.9% will never achieve it irrespective of any effort they put forth.
It's a hopeful message but I have to say I am a little skeptic on this one. You always hear of some people being 'naturals' and who pick something up quite late but still end up being among the best ever at what they're doing. Take BJ Penn who picked up Bjj super late but ended up getting his black belt and winning world championships in three years or so. That has to be more than just hard work!
It's a good point and one which I will explore in future videos. Absolutely just hard work (or 10.000 hours of it) is not enough. Apparently based on research it's also based on what's called deliberate practice, always learning things which are challenging, while many people they do something which is already coming to them easily or they already know it and it's mainly just repetition. Another part of it is self observation and correction, since many just do their practice, while apparently those who become high level masters always observe and correct themselves. This can be of course also done with a good coach who points out those details. One more aspect would be to also investigate what such individuals as BJ Penn did before. It is very likely that he did some sort of sports beforehand which layer a foundation in the ability to absorb the new information. I could go on, but simply put my message is that there's definitely more to it than just hard work and lots of practice and I'll do my best to cover this subject in future videos :)
@@Rokasleo Ineteresting points, I'll be waiting for the next video then. Keep up the good work!
🙏
If someone told me their IQ was 115 I'd probably say "I don't really care"
Can you explain what you mean exactly?
testing some ones IQ level to me is kind of dumb the person might not be brain smart but really creative. To me creativity is more important but the public school system destroys that kind of thinking
I wouldn't disagree. The problem though is, that many people do think that IQ level indicates how capable the person is, so that's why I think it's important to make the point that it's not only an opinion that IQ isn't as essential, but there are also good arguments/proof to make the point :)
Actually, science has debunked the myth that Talent is a myth! In fact I can say with absolute certainty that most people are incapable of doing those amazing feats we see talented people doing. Even training 18 hours per day with the best coach in the world will not get you even remotely close to their skill level. A talented person can learn in 10 seconds that which takes an ordinary person 100 hours to learn. Anybody who does not believe in Talent is a fool! Why can I find 4 year old children that can do what an adult with 15 years training under an expert coach still cannot even hope to do? Do you really think it is not Talent to be virtually born with superhuman abilities?
I think genetics can play a role, that's why it's important to choose a fitting field for yourself. If you're a tiny person and you'll try to become the best in basketball - you may not get very far. What scientific research are you basing your arguments on though?
@@Rokasleo
He didn't reply because he has no evidence..