The existence of talent

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Instead of going into an already-tumultuous existing topic and making things worse, I decided to just start my own. ^^;

So, does talent exist? I'd say it does. Everyone has an affinity for certain things; things they don't have to try as hard to be good at. I don't know how you could justify saying that it doesn't exist (although I have a feeling that someone will soon tell me...).

It's like when my ma asks me if anyone in my class got an A on a tough exam, and I say "yes, one or two people" and she immediately follows by asking me why I'm not one of them. Even if 90% of the class got Cs and Ds, the fact that even one person got an A means that I should have gotten one, too; no excuses.

That's what the denial of talent sounds like to me. It sounds like a refusal to see that some people just have a natural advantage for certain tasks. It's not that I could NEVER have gotten an A, it's just that I would have had to work that much harder to do it. And it's possible that the amount of work that would have taken wouldn't have been worth it (I do have other classes to worry about...).

On the flipside, in my psychology courses, I'm that one person who just looks over her notes an hour before the exam and gets A's almost effortlessly. Meanwhile, there are other people who study their brains out and talk to the professor after class and still just barely manage to get C's. Would it be fair to tell them they're "just not working as hard" as I am? Clearly, I'm the lazier one in this scenario. It'd make more sense to just admit that I have a talent for it that they don't.

My point is, I believe things like genius and talent exist, and they do make people better at some things than others. I don't believe they're the most important things-- there's nothing sadder than wasted potential-- but to say that they're meaningless or nonexistent invalidates the struggles of those who aren't "as good" yet; telling them "if they just worked harder" and "if they just did more"...

They're probably doing the best they can! It's just that, without the talent that others have, it's going to take them a little longer to get where they want to be.

[Azifri]

I don't call it talent, I call it physical capacity (with "physical" including your mind, which is part of your body) that aligns with the person's interests. For example, someone can be born with a better than average memory, and this will save a lot of time when studying, if the person decides to study. Same if someone is by nature physically fit and does sports, etc. It is pure luck. Fortunately our bodies are plastic, and effort can compensate probably in most cases.

[ZoeBlessing]

Totally agree. People DO have natural inclinations toward certain subjects or activities. It all depends on the special way your brain was wired when you were born. Does that mean you can't do activities you weren't wired for? No, it's like you said. You just have to work that much harder to achieve it.

Recently saw a movie called Greater, about this guy who LOVED football but was built like a bowl of jello. The coaches and other players all told him he would just be bench warmer because he didn't have the natural talent for the game. But he worked hard. Literally day and night, training and practicing and doing whatever it took to become good.. He eventually gained the talent for football and became MVP for his team. Talent can be learned in order to bridge that gap due to a lack of natural talent.

[ScribbleJay]

Talent exists, and expecting someone making Cs to suddenly jump to the 90th percentile makes no sense to me, haha. Still, I personally feel that hard work is often more important, at least for a lot of skills.
For one, talented people often tend to do a lot of work that isn't acknowledged. That kid who effortlesslessly gets As may not have studied much for that particular exam, but their natural interest in the subject may have driven them to do research in their own time, so they already had a storehouse of knowledge to draw from. They just didn't think of this research as "studying". Talent in these cases is really just a drive to practice.
Then you have cases where a kid is repeatedly told that they are talented, so they stop trying to improve -- why should they? They're talented! They'll see big gains early on, but they'll eventually get left in the dust by their less talented peers.
Then you've got the idea of neuroplasticity, where the connections between neurons in your brain are reinforced or lost in response to your behaviour. Put enough work into something and you will literally rewire your own brain.
Then again, it depends on the skill too. Almost anyone can become a master at drawing if they've got the time, but athletics might be tougher, since you need to change your body as well as your brain, and you can only change your body so much. And where do intellect and personality fit in?
All in all, it's a complicated topic, and there are so many factors that drive success. It's interesting!

[unknown_user]

The question posed here is complicated, and I thought about it before, too, from time to time. So I'll try to share my experience (mostly using the example on the calculus), conclusions and thoughts. But please remember that they may be quite subjective.

TL;DR: I admit, that brains of different people are working in not the same way. Rate of learning of different things is different for different people. But I still believe that the person with more-or-less healthy brain can learn anything, if they are investing enough efforts into it.

---

I want to start my story with some noticeable observation: when people talk about the talent in some field, they tend to overgeneralize things. For example, I've heard about "talent in mathematics" many times. But what does it ever mean?
I myself had almost no problems with number theory, analytic geometry, discrete mathematic and logic in the university. But I had very huge problems with understanding calculus and partial equations. Those all are the different branches of math, and you can see here, that the same person can be "talented" in one of them and "not talented" in another.

Here is more detailed story about how I dealt with it if anyone is interested:

When I started to learn calculus, it just... didn't fit into my brain. My intuition and imagination worked good in geometry, but they were helpless here. Every time, when I was reading the proof of the new theorem from calculus, I strained myself hard to understand every single line, every logical conclusion. But every time, when I had reached the end of the proof, I forgot the beginning of the proof! So the general meaning of proof slipped away from me. It was painful.
Professors wondered, why I'm able to solve complicated geometric, logic and number theory problems, but don't understand anything from calculus. Calculus professor tended to think that I have no talent in math and should try another department. Number theory professor argued with him and said him that I'm talented and that he should give me more chances to pass calculus (this professor was so kind for me and helped me so much... I will never forget it )
I've understood that calculus is important for better understanding my favorite math branches, and for furhter learning of more complicated fields, too. So since I liked math and wanted to learn it deeply, I should learn calculus, even if it is hard.
I have spent two last months of the summer between the first and second years of the University, learning calculus to pass the exam on it (I've failed it several times at the June session). As I said, every time when I reached the end of the new proof for the first time, I forgot the beginning. But when I kept to re-read proof again and again, thinking very attentively about every logical step, at some point it fitted into brain, and stopped to slip away. So, usually at the third or fifth time I usually started to understand what's going on in it. And every time when I was able to extract and understand the idea of the proof, I wasn't need to remember the whole proof anymore. I remembered the idea and was able to reconstruct the details. I repeated this hard work again and again with every calculus proof.
At the end of the summer I've noticed, that I started to understand new proofs from calculus more quickly and to extract the main ideas from them more easily. Moreover, I've learned finally how to use my geomertic intuition and imagination to understand those theorems. I learned how to draw some objects from calculus in the way, which is helpful for understanding them. So I illustrated theorems and proofs with a pictures, every time when it was possible and had a meaning. It helped me additionally. Finally I had drawn a big scheme with the connections between different definitions and theorems, and it helped to understand a bigger picture. By the way, my father was helpful, too. He had only very basic knowledge in calculus, so he was able to explain me anything only on the early stages. But I've still continued to explain him the proofs every evening after learning them, so we discussed them until we both had catched at least the main idea. It helped me a lot as well to understand them and fit them into my head better.
As you have probably guessed, I've passed the exam on it at Autumn. Moreover, I even started to understand new math fields better and learn them more quickly after doing that hard, but useful work.

What conclusions did I done from this experience:

• There is no thing like "talent in math". Sometimes the brain can perform some particular types of thinking and learn to manipulate some particular types of objects easier, than another. But math is very big, so it require different way of thinking in different fields. You can use those ways of thinking which are easier for you first, and then develop those which are harder.
  Now, how this result is appliable to the art... I think, that "talent in art" is overgeneralization, too.
  I've noticed, that when I draw the comics, there also some things which are harder for me, and some things which are easier. For example, I like to draw very neat lines and make coloring. It is more-or-less easy for me to draw weapons. But it is hard for me to draw motion and people's emotional expressions on their faces. Also I don't understand which things I should draw more attentively, and which can be done less neatly. So I'm drawing everything neatly just in case.
  But anyway, I believe, that those hard things will become easier with experience and attentive learning and thinking how to do them, since this worked with calculus... which take us to the next point:
• Brain is very flexible, you can teach it many things if you will try hard and spend enough time. Again: you can try to lean on things which are easier for you first, and then learn hard ones step-by-step.
• Don't hesitate to reach for others for help! For example, in my case, talking with number theory professor and my father greatly clarified things and speed up the process of learning.

---

Well I feel that I should stop myself. Sorry for turning this forum into math forum
I just love math, so I used it as an example of the complicated thing, some parts of which can be harder that other, but you still can master those hard parts with constant efforts and persistent attentive thinking... and I carried away too much...

[Spaceburger]

Talent absolutely exists, it took me much more years and hardwork to be on the same level as my brothers until I finally surpassed them after they quit drawing altogether. They would be an exceptional artists if they continued but you don't owe your talent anything, desire is stronger.

[shazzbaa]

Something that could be described as "talent" exists, but it's not what people think.

I don't think you start with a talent for Drawing. or a talent for Calculus or a talent for Writing. You may have an intuitive sense of colour, you may have a good grasp of motion, you might have an affinity for solving problems within a set of limitations, or words might be something your brain translates easily to and from ideas. And that little boost gives you an edge, and often you can sort of tell -- there's something in the world that you can understand just a bit of, and it's interesting to you. But that talent could take you in so many different directions -- at that point, it's about how you cultivate it.

But when a lot of people think of talent, they think of it as, "drawing is easier for you." They think "I can't get as good because I don't have that talent." And so creative folks move away from "talent" as a word to describe what we experience because.... the word is too fraught and means different things to different people, and you don't wanna spend 5 paragraphs explaining what you mean when you say "talent." If you say "some people are just born with talent" a lot of folks will cringe. If you say "some people are born with affinities for certain things," few people would disagree. It's about what the word has come to mean.

I do believe in talent, but not in the sense that I was just born better at drawing than other people. I was born with affinities for certain parts of art and an eye for motion. Because of that, I found drawing fun. And because it was fun, I practiced and practiced and practiced and practiced. It's tough to draw that line -- how much of it is "drawing since you were a year old" and how much of it is "talent?" How much of talent can be chalked up to simply that desire to do a thing? That desire is still a gift, after all.

And I've seen folks who didn't start with that gift, but cultivated it because they wanted to. I've seen people teach themselves the principles that come more naturally to folks with "talent" and rise to the point that anyone who didn't know better would call them "talented." And, heck, even "talented" people have to do that -- for example, I have an eye for some things, but colour is absolutely not one of them; I had to learn how colour works and it did not, does not, come naturally to me.
And like, I don't think anyone moves at the same pace, talented or not. Saying "talent doesn't exist" isn't saying "everyone moves at the same pace and two people who are working just as hard will be just as good, therefore anyone who isn't as good isn't working as hard." I don't think any artist would agree with that.

It's a mess of factors -- natural inclination, physical ability, time spent practicing, energy for practice, mental understanding of artistic concepts, natural eye for artistic concepts, disability or lack thereof, ambition to try new things, etc etc etc. When someone looks at all of that and calls it "talent," the natural response is to say that such an idea of "talent" doesn't exist -- it's much more complicated than that.

TL;DR, I don't disagree with what you describe! Some people do have affinities, and for some folks it is simply not worth the effort to put in the amount of work to do something when it doesn't come easily to you -- it depends on your priorities. BUT, at the same time, I think there are a lot of good reasons why some creators don't like to use the word "talent" to describe those affinities.

[Luminosophy]

If talent exists, show me the gene that makes you draw well. That's all I ask.

[GusC]

Hard work beats talent every second that talent fails to work hard.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Seeing as "drawing well" isn't a biological function, I doubt there would be a gene for it. ^^'

However, there are lots of biological components built by genes that could give someone an edge when it came to drawing: the way their eyes develop, the way their sensorimotor cortex develops (to help with hand-eye coordination), the way their occipital lobe develops; probably more stuff I'm not thinking of.

My point is, just like someone can be born with higher muscle mass that could help them with sports, someone can be born with a particular neural configuration that could help them with drawing.

[SleepingPoppy]

I agree that talent, in some aspect, exists. But it is more valuable to emphasize a person's effort. Doing well at anything requires some degree of effort, and the best thing about effort is that it is within our control.

Since talent is innate, it's not something we have control over. So it will always be more helpful to talk about and focus on effort in relation to our ability to achieve. (Attribution theory, if anyone finds that interesting)

[MariMontoya]

If you're speaking about the idea of prodigies then yes those things exist. Due to brain development and well science there are people that are born with a talent. Child music prodigies, child artists, child mathematicians those things exist. Doesn't mean they have an advantage. I knew a math prodigy, his logic is insane, but unfortunately he had no interest to use it. People who worked hard can easily equal the playing field compared to a person who hasn't honed their natural skill.
Talent could also mean affinity. If you have an affinity for drawing, playing the piano, learning another language etc. those things are something that can come i don't want to say easily because it still requires work, but can come more naturally to a person, depending on their personality, background, etc.
But again anyone can equal the playing field with hard work, and the mind set to succeed. It's really how you train your brain.
Music is a hard one though, it's like the grey area of having a natural talent and not (because biological makeup/vocals have a heavy influence on this) same can be said for sports too.

[zuggarts]

Yeah, as everyone else mentioned a degree of natural talent exists in everyone. Replying to add a very explicit example:

There is a condition called stereoblindness. As the name implies, it is an condition where your two eyes are out of alignment, causing your depth perception to be lacking in comparison to the normal person. A study done in the early 2000's of a collection of Rembrandt paintings led a pair of neuroscientists to believe that it is possible that the Rembrandt himself may have had this condition due to a common (albeit slight) misalignment in the way that his eyes were portrayed within his self-portraits. A few years later, a further study on the topic revealed the possibility that this condition is overwhelmingly more persistent in artists than non-artists. The natural inclination of the brain to view reality two-dimensionally translates to a greater ability to draw reality on a two-dimensional plane. In many other professions (esp. certain athletics), this condition would be a major weakness--but in art, it can be a big boon for the sufferer.

It does not guarantee that that the person with this condition is better off as an artist than one who doesn't, however. Maybe it prevents them from visualising a object three-dimensionally as well as a person without it, for instance. There are advantages and disadvantages to every one of your traits, and the best thing you can do is take advantage of the aspects of it which are helpful for you, and know what disadvantages you suffer from so that you can accommodate them to the best of your ability.

There is a Mozart in every field. But the beautiful thing about the modern day is that there are so many fields that we can converge together to suit our strengths. There are so many tools we can choose from that can help us mask or improve upon those weaknesses we seek to avoid and showcase our strengths in turn. Drawing isn't just about painting the children of your rich patrons or the various saints that best suit the Church's fancy. You can combine it with math, with science, with anything you can think of. And within the context of digital storytelling, you will always have something that nobody else has in the form of your past experiences. Talent is nothing in comparison.

[yozhikisblue]

I love all the thoughtful, nuanced ideas floating around in this thread <3 I thought I might contribute with a slightly different angle:

Brain is very flexible, you can teach it many things if you will try hard and spend enough time. Again: you can try to lean on things which are easier for you first, and then learn hard ones step-by-step.

I was born with affinities for certain parts of art and an eye for motion. Because of that, I found drawing fun. And because it was fun, I practiced and practiced and practiced and practiced.

I feel like this is key to understanding the concept of talent as it operates in reality, rather than the more romanticized ideas many seem to have about it when looking on at artists and athletes from the outside (or any other field where the word "talented" tends to be passed around)

Talent- or what should perhaps more accurately be called predisposition- is one of my favourite topics in neuroscience today because of it's implications for the human learning process. (I once specialized in developmental psychology, and the subject still fascinates me) I think this is a pretty good peer-reviewed overview article that speaks to the topic without using too much jargon. It's free to read and relatively accessible to those without background in the field, if anyone's curious: http://www.drbettinahohnen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Hohnen.pdf

The full article on this next one is behind academic database passwords, but the abstract does speak to the topic: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/585

"... Indices of neural sensitivity to certain stimulus features have been shown to predict individual rates of learning; individual network properties of brain activity are especially relevant in this regard, as they may reflect anatomical connectivity. Similarly, numerous studies have shown that anatomical features of auditory cortex and other structures, and their anatomical connectivity, are predictive of new sensory-motor learning ability."

Much of the research I've seen in this area focuses on musicians (like this article), but the point still stands.

What's interesting is that the current literature also appears to support the possibility of "learning to be talented"! - which is to say "neural sensitivity to certain stimulus features" is theoretically something that can develop over time. When we study it in musicians and other professionals, there's no way to know for sure how much of their mental receptiveness to learning is caused by in-born factors, and how much is the product of experience relatively independent from such factors (although whether any experience is truly independent from in-born factors is a question in and of itself, and the reason why the nature-nurture "debate" is not a real thing)

It's not just that we're not yet at a point where we can tell them apart. It's that telling them apart in an adult human being may actually just be impossible!

I think this is a cause for hope. There's a good chance it really is true that anyone can learn anything if they really put their mind to it. The real enemies are not our predispositions or lack thereof- they are personal insecurities, self-doubt and frustration with one's own mistakes. And when we see people doing better while we struggle, or someone puts down our efforts, it sends a message that "this isn't worth trying for" that is almost overpowering.

I can't tell you how many kids I've seen decide they're "stupid" or "no good" at something because some fool of an adult convinced them of it, and their peers mocked them. It's been my observation that instances of "I worked hard and succeeded because everyone told me I couldn't do it!" are the exception, rather than the rule. (even though it's a popular narrative in art circles) And that's perfectly natural. We are social creatures, after all. If we are receiving messages from other members of our species telling us "don't bother with this, it's not your role to play"- as a child, it's very natural to be tempted to agree, without even really thinking about it. And most "talent" is nipped in the bud right at that moment. Some people go through a lengthy recovery process to get back into it later in life, because they were surrounded by the wrong people at the wrong time, and took their words as gospel. But I really wish we lived in a world where that wasn't necessary.