I've been observing my surroundings lately, noticing an interesting theme amongst people pursuing a higher skill. Those who are impatient or stuck in a rut tend to blame a chunk of their misgivings on the lack of skill due to talent, unless they give up and throw everything away in frustration.
“I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas.” -Albert Einstein.
I have two activities that I love to death: Starcraft and bowling. First, I've been playing SC:BW since 2002; I consider myself decent, but not too good for the length of time that I've been playing. My records for BW include a few CW wins that I don't even remember and achieving a high rank of B (late season) on iccup. The other, I've been bowling since 2006. I just officially started bowling in a league so I don't have official/sanctioned records yet, but my top three game scores are 258, 266, and 279 during casual hours at a local alley. As proud as I am of these scores, I'd like to remind you that these were accomplished over long periods of time where I poured time and effort constantly by an undying interest that propelled my level of skill higher and higher.
However, I honestly consider myself someone with very little natural talent at the things I try. I started Starcraft, which was popular at the time, by playing with the kids in my grade. I was easily the worst and I would make the most ridiculously illogical decisions and come up with the stupidest ideas. For example, I thought the key to winning any Starcraft match was the ability to produce 12 zealots as fast as possible and thus, would end up having suicided 12 zealots into a line of sunkens, cannons, or supply/bunker, which by today's standards would look like the Sargas Tribe trying to break a Fastest Map player's static defense.
In bowling, I learned that you were supposed to "spin" the ball to hit the pins more successfully. I ended up trying to twist my wrists and body in positions resembling a chimpanzee tossing a coconut downhill. I think that's okay if you were an absolute beginner just starting out. However, I've continued my charades for at least a year within my respective hobbies before eventually displaying the human trait of learning from your mistakes. My point in bringing these humiliating memories out is that it takes time and patience, for some longer than others.
A while ago, I wrote a simple but specific pm about skills to DJetterstyle who was responsible for the Progamer Power Rank at the time. Shortly after, he made this thread discussing the factors that go into skill. Not only was there no instance where skill was wholly attributed to talent, but it was also largely inferred that skills come from experience, hard work, and one's ability to hone his strengths to his advantage. If you're interested in that type of discussion, you should give it a read since there were many intelligent responses given by smart individuals.
In another recent thread, there was a good piece of insight on how talented people seem to truly enjoy what they do as described in the OP. I won't take anything else from that thread since it touched upon other personal issues, but that one insight mixes well with this quote:
“Passion is a positive obsession. Obsession is a negative passion.” -Paul Carvel
Indeed, I feel those who have a positive passion for things they like would do better than people who have an obsession. Why? People who have passion love doing what they do. People who have an obsession are usually caught up in either winning or getting to a certain level that they forget about what's important: enjoying the damn thing. That is not to say people who are skilled and passionate do not care about winning at all; there is a certain amount of a winning mindset desire required to compete amongst high levels, but did Michael Jordan not love basketball to practice many hours a day, every day before finally making his high school basketball team?
Personally, I'd keep it simple. Hobbies are the paths of life everyone should explore. I take a look around me at the people close by and I would find that most of them just hate what they do. Some are stuck at the office doing mountains of paperwork, others like myself are students struggling to maintain their gpa, and there are even those who must LIVE their work such as my parents who run and worry over their business (thanks economy!) Beside reaching for a specific goal, you should not put unhealthy, unnecessary weight on something you should enjoy. When your hobby turns into something to gain profit from, I believe you'll start looking at it like a job. What I wrote were subjects of my thoughts as I pondered, so if anyone wants to create a discussion, please feel free as well and thanks for reading!
I really can relate to these thoughts you've been having as I also find myself observing and reflecting on what makes one successful at whatever it is they pursue and I believe it is as you said, perseverance and passion. I find that whenever I'm completely failing in everything I'm attempting to do I have fallen into an autopilot state where I am merely going through the motions of a former self but because for any multitude of reasons, my present self is not focused and therefore not performing optimally nor, more importantly, happily. I always arrive at the conclusion that I have forgotten why I am trying to achieve the goal and that's why I am failing so hard. Thanks for posting, I always enjoy seeing others thoughts on this.
For a lot of people with exceptional talent, things are easy come easy go. Most people you find in the world who are at the absolute top of their respective professions did not display particular talent when they first started. What you'll find in all their cases is an intense drive and a TON of hard work, but usually not more than an above average natural aptitude.
there are lots of studies about expertise and what separates them from the rest
a fun result was that for the top violin soloists at at like Rice or something, they asked the average number of practice hours per semester or something. All of the top soloists had on average 50% more practice time put in.
In addition natural talent (like those little kids that can play piano like crazy) will not take you very far alone. Those kids never end up being the top performers.
sorry i don't remember that many specifics, but its pretty interesting.
Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
I think of those cases like (completely made up) a car that can, at first, accelerate very fast but cap at, say, 100 mph compared to a car that accelerates more slowly, but has a potential of 150 mph. I don't know anything about cars, but that's an example of how I picture natural talent. It would be good if others shared more on this, though.
Read "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell which is a book that discovers this idea, its a very interesting book on how people become successful/talented, and to sum it up its basically oppurtunityxtime inputted into the work x the time you do the work
Its quite a cool book and you might want to check it out
I enjoyed that Einstein line, if I have a pet peeve, its people mentioning "talent" as an excuse.
However, I disagree with the last part of your post, and that second quote, obsession isn't necessarily about wanting to win. It's just an irrational want of "something", which probably has a negative effect on everything _else_. That surely can never imply that the guy with the obsession on something doesn't love that something, on the contrary.
did Michael Jordan not love basketball to practice many hours a day, every day before finally making his high school basketball team?
That's obsession to me. Yes he loves it, But it's insane and no normal person without an obsession for basketball would do it, and for that reason I don't think his life outside basketball improved that much, at least while he was still a nobody. Then that obsession carried him to incredible success.
the concept of 'talent' is too romanticized, while hard work is seen as drab and something anyone can do if they just 'tried'. honestly, sometimes it seems that the ability to be determined and apply yourself is a form of genius in itself.
On October 25 2009 02:55 intrigue wrote: the concept of 'talent' is too romanticized, while hard work is seen as drab and something anyone can do if they just 'tried'. honestly, sometimes it seems that the ability to be determined and apply yourself is a form of genius in itself.
It is the mark of a genius, it doesn't "seem like it"
Totally agree that hard work > talent. I am extremely good at a lot of different things because I have put in endless hours of hardwork into it. I have no natural talent and almost every activity I start I am actually worse than most other people who are starting at the same time. Everyone thinks I am naturally talented but they haven't seen the practice that it took to get to that level.
I truly believe that most people don't really understand what it takes to be really good at something. Most people get frustrated because they "try hard" and practice for a couple hours...or even a hundred hours at something and don't notice a huge improvement. I play the guitar and piano and people know that I practice, but they think that there must be huge component of natural talent to play so well. What they didn't see is me practicing 5-7 hours a day (no joke) for an entire year. Anybody who practiced as much as I did would have similar results.
5 star blog. I'd read it again. In fact I'm gonna save a few lines. It's soooo very important to have something in your life (THAT'S NOT A GIRL) that will make you hoot, and cheer, and laugh and giggle, every single time you do it. Most people overlook this in their lives.... But having something like that and doing it even just an hour a day can really have a significant effect on your mental health and attitude. The benefits will pour into every other aspect of your life.
One case that always bothered me was in music, the genius composer Mozart. This guy's been considered a genius and using his musical talent, established himself as one of the best composers, if not, the best of his time. He was deemed competent at the violin and piano during an early childhood and even composed at the age of 5. From what I know, no one was able to even close to touch his musical skills.
Still, I'm not fully informed about this particular case. If anyone more knowledgeable wants to comment on this and the reason why this was an exception in the 18th century classical era, please do post with some good backings on it!
you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
Talented people see the world differently. You cant give someone less credit for working less then others to achieve same( or sometimes lesser) goals. Your "hard work" might disgust someone with natural ability who often doesn't even care much for the outcome. Everyone has a journey, for you its ant work and sweat, for someone its wandering and philosophizing while seemingly doing nothing. I give respect to both but i rather spend time with the latter.
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
I am sure you cant achieve what Dali or Picasso did by merely putting years of hard work into it. Theres many examples, i cant believe youre arguing against it.
On October 25 2009 02:15 ilovezil wrote: Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
Their parents force them to practice hours a day all the time. When they get older they get the feeling they've only been doing this to please their parents, and they've lost a significant part of their life because of it. They quit because the parents can't really force their now teenage/adult offspring to devote their life to something they don't feel is their own.
If a kid does something on his or her own, he'll get very good at it... But he or she probably isn't going to practice when he'd rather play with friends. That's why he or she becomes reknowned for it in adulthood, rather than right away like someone who is forced to.
In my opinion if there is such a thing as talent, it's not nearly as big a factor as anyone gives it credit. In fact it's almost completely negligible. A faster brain isn't going to give you the experiences you need to be predisposed to success in something. A faster brain isn't going to make you draw, or write, or play an instrument better either (though it might make your practice shorter?). Say a person who is very good at math and a person who isn't very good at math (because he doesn't take math or whatever, and other than that they're exactly the same) play StarCraft. After a week, who is going to understand StarCraft better? Not the more talented one, the one who is able to relate what they know about math to what they're doing now.
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
I am sure you cant achieve what Dali or Picasso did by merely putting years of hard work into it. Theres many examples, i cant believe youre arguing against it.
So you mention a couple of renowned "geniuses" from their respective fields. It still doesn't prove they can't be bested, because who's to say that a hard working individual couldn't find a higher skill ceiling and surpass them by constantly working at it? Although I do take a stance of arguing for people who work hard over people who are talented, I'm not against keeping an open mind to accept what the other side has to say. Your arguments just don't have substantial posting.
On October 25 2009 02:15 ilovezil wrote: Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
Their parents force them to practice hours a day all the time. When they get older they get the feeling they've only been doing this to please their parents, and they've lost a significant part of their life because of it. They quit because the parents can't really force their now teenage/adult offspring to devote their life to something they don't feel is their own.
If a kid does something on his or her own, he'll get very good at it... But he or she probably isn't going to practice when he'd rather play with friends. That's why he or she becomes reknowned for it in adulthood, rather than right away like someone who is forced to.
I can accept that, but like the Mozart example mentioned before, I'm really shocked when I hear they achieve compositions and musical talent at 5 years old, where it's hard to consider something other than some type of natural affinity. A poster stated that kind of example is once in a millenia type of deal, but isn't there another story behind that? I'd like to hear more thoughts on this, since the discussion's been great so far!
I'm just posting some thoughts I have on this, which don't really take either stance for or against natural talent. It's just been a long time curiousity of mine.
As far as people like Mozart... We're talking about mental disorders which happen to help them achieve something positive. If you want to call that talent, okay, but you should also recognise that it makes other parts of their life very hard. The reason we think they're talented is because they see the world very differently from us and create things we might not have been able to imagine because of that. But is a person who goes to war and write a war story talented at writing war stories? Or was it because he had different experiences?
I think mental disorders are an aid in some artistic professions, but not necessary and not a guarantee either.
I also don't think Motzart's childhood can be considered in any way average. How many people his age in that time even had access to musical aspiration?
I agree with Cloud's sentiments on obsession being fine but I don't think that a line should or even could be drawn between passion and obsession. Trying to do that would just be people throwing out their opinions on nothing but the english language, and they wouldn't even have much chance at being validated
This is really exactly what the author of the quote has done by submitting (between the lines) his personal claim of their being a difference between the two
This is really exactly what I have done.
But regardless of what people go on record saying about either word, I think we all see and understand the overlap between the two.
Kudos to the OP for joining the fight against the concept of talent ^^
Oh, I've had a stance leaning against natural talent while I was posting this, but I was also trying to keep an open mind so I see where the talent factor comes into play. Even now, I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's viewpoint on this topic, just as long as they don't merely state their opinions without substantial explanation or backing.
Seriously though, I forgot that the main reason I posted this is because I was trying to say enjoy what you do and relax with it, haha. It's better to have fun doing something you love rather than get caught up into making your hobby into a second job.
I don't mean to insult Mozart's music or talent. I'm just saying that even Mozart had to study and practice music for over 10 years before becoming one of the greatest artist of our time.
On October 25 2009 04:26 ilovezil wrote: So you mention a couple of renowned "geniuses" from their respective fields. It still doesn't prove they can't be bested, because who's to say that a hard working individual couldn't find a higher skill ceiling and surpass them by constantly working at it? Although I do take a stance of arguing for people who work hard over people who are talented, I'm not against keeping an open mind to accept what the other side has to say. Your arguments just don't have substantial posting.
Hard working individual wont know where the ceiling is to begin with. You can imitate a genius but you will never get his recognition just because you lack that creative( sensual, conceptual) talent. To dumb it down, if you are 5.4 you cant play basketball. There's Messi and there's Gattuso. Thousands of people play piano for a living while practicing non-stop and no one even heard of them. This one guy had superior reaction time compared to others, he started fencing and he became amazing within few years. You can try hard and become very good but someone like him will always be this much better. Its hard to give you a substantial answer because I dont understand what proof you are looking for. To me its everywhere.
Consider something along the lines of Nal_rA's comments in his recent interview for TL. He talked about how players used to have the time to think about their gameplay and innovate. Thought changes a lot when it comes to performance. You can do something the wrong way forever, and it does not mean that you were doing the same thing as someone else just because they were also doing a similar thing forever
This whole fixation (and measurements) on physical prowess is such a primitive thing that is really on its way out of human culture before too long. The mind, and the development of the mind, however, is both priceless and available. We just happen to revolve around a lot of physical things still where these kinds of differences produce obvious examples like height in basketball. Which of course just gets pulled out of context in the form of being an example, and used to nullify incompetency in any situation where skill is involved.
Yes, there are valid differences in us physically, and that is related to our thinking, but talent is almost always just an excuse, as well as the absence of gratitude for the endurance (physical and emotional) that have built a persons abilities
The concept of talent is disrespectful to everybody, yourself included.
On October 25 2009 04:26 ilovezil wrote: So you mention a couple of renowned "geniuses" from their respective fields. It still doesn't prove they can't be bested, because who's to say that a hard working individual couldn't find a higher skill ceiling and surpass them by constantly working at it? Although I do take a stance of arguing for people who work hard over people who are talented, I'm not against keeping an open mind to accept what the other side has to say. Your arguments just don't have substantial posting.
Hard working individual wont know where the ceiling is to begin with. You can imitate a genius but you will never get his recognition just because you lack that creative( sensual, conceptual) talent. To dumb it down, if you are 5.4 you cant play basketball. There's Messi and there's Gattuso. Thousands of people play piano for a living while practicing non-stop and no one even heard of them. This one guy had superior reaction time compared to others, he started fencing and he became amazing within few years. You can try hard and become very good but someone like him will always be this much better. Its hard to give you a substantial answer because I dont understand what proof you are looking for. To me its everywhere.
That's exactly what I was looking for, an explanation more than "geniuses can't be beat".
As far as basketball goes, yes it is true that most successful players are tall (over 6 feet tall). However, from what I know Michael Jordan was about 5"10 or so around high school before he grew to his height 6"6. If Jordan never reached that height, would he have never become the legend he is today? Surely, it would hinder with his ability to dunk from the foul line and may have had to change his play, but I still believe that the hard working Jordan would have made it work one way or another.
In my opinion, having talent in something just means that you get more out of your time spent practicing than someone with less talent. You're more efficient, so to speak. But it doesn't mean that someone with less talent who works 10x as much as you can't replicate your work or do something better. However, when you rise in a field even the most talented have to put obscene amounts of effort to stay there at the top. So that little edge that talent gives you matters more.
But really, does it matter? Let's face it, most people probably won't be the next brilliant thinker or rise to the very top of an intellectual field. And in that fat end of the bell curve, the amount of work that you put in is most likely more important than any talent that you may or may not possess. And that's where the drive to work hard and excel comes into play.
Yeah, in the end, it doesn't matter. You either do something at all or you don't. And since we're here and living, that is what we are doing and so we do our best and that's all the choice we have, unless you consider apathy an option. I suppose the problem comes from how depressing it can be to take something seriously and to not be the best. Contrary to popular belief, though, I believe that in most cases just about anyone is capable of being the best at something.
On October 25 2009 05:17 Lumi wrote: Yeah, in the end, it doesn't matter. You either do something at all or you don't. And since we're here and living, that is what we are doing and so we do our best and that's all the choice we have, unless you consider apathy an option. I suppose the problem comes from how depressing it can be to take something seriously and to not be the best. Contrary to popular belief, though, I believe that in most cases just about anyone is capable of being the best at something.
Mind and devotion.
I meant does talent matter.
But in any case, there can only be one person who is the best at any one particular thing. How can not being 'the best' at something that millions of people do be depressing? I'll be willing to bet that even if you think that you worked your butt off to get where you were, the guy who's sitting on top has worked even harder than you, for a longer period to get where he is, even if he has more natural ability.
Great blog to read, discussions about ability and how talent/hard work compare always appear to me as fun things to talk about (no idea why)
I hate reading interviews or anything that ask how to get good at a field, and somewhere they mention 'skill is mainly augmented by talent' (a StarCraft interview comes to mind, can't quiet remember the exact one) because it could make people believe that no matter how much effort they put in they won't be able to reach a desired level, play a certain song, whatever..
Having a passion to play and actually putting in hard work trumps talent!
On October 25 2009 04:26 ilovezil wrote: So you mention a couple of renowned "geniuses" from their respective fields. It still doesn't prove they can't be bested, because who's to say that a hard working individual couldn't find a higher skill ceiling and surpass them by constantly working at it? Although I do take a stance of arguing for people who work hard over people who are talented, I'm not against keeping an open mind to accept what the other side has to say. Your arguments just don't have substantial posting.
Hard working individual wont know where the ceiling is to begin with. You can imitate a genius but you will never get his recognition just because you lack that creative( sensual, conceptual) talent. To dumb it down, if you are 5.4 you cant play basketball. There's Messi and there's Gattuso. Thousands of people play piano for a living while practicing non-stop and no one even heard of them. This one guy had superior reaction time compared to others, he started fencing and he became amazing within few years. You can try hard and become very good but someone like him will always be this much better. Its hard to give you a substantial answer because I dont understand what proof you are looking for. To me its everywhere.
Don't compare sports to mental feats. Mozart was not entirely unique, his sister showed some remarkable prowess as well, but was shuned by her father for being a woman. Now it's true that a 5.4 person can't perform _physically_ in the same leagues as a 7 feet monster. But the brain is a much different organ, and you have absolutely no idea on its limitations.
Now, in another post you say that "natural talented people" would scorn at hard work. Yet have you ever tried telling one of those people that what they have is the result of a "gift" or whatever other crap and it was not _completely_ from their own will and hard work that they are as skilled?
Next,
Hard working individual wont know where the ceiling is to begin with. You can imitate a genius but you will never get his recognition just because you lack that creative( sensual, conceptual) talent. To dumb it down, if you are 5.4 you cant play basketball. There's Messi and there's Gattuso. Thousands of people play piano for a living while practicing non-stop and no one even heard of them. This one guy had superior reaction time compared to others, he started fencing and he became amazing within few years. You can try hard and become very good but someone like him will always be this much better. Its hard to give you a substantial answer because I dont understand what proof you are looking for. To me its everywhere.
You remark on the recognition on genius. Yet what do you define as genius? Van Gogh sold a _single_ painting in his life, Picasso who you mentioned, lighted his paintings to warm himself. Mozart himself died in a ditch if I recall correctly. Their work was recognized much, much later, they sure as hell weren't considered any genial or talented or gifted. Now, those people did what they had to do to live, they painted to feed themselves, they wrote music so that other assholes would steal their work by paying miserably and then pass them as their own work. What do you think they would have said, had you blurted out that they didn't work hard compared to others of their time?
If you cannot explain something, such as, why is Mozart so unique and so very few people along history have come close to his musical genius, don't be so fast to make up an answer and call it "natural talent".
i really don't care what you say about putting effort into shit, i could never become as good as jaedong even if i practiced 12 hours a day for years. why? cause i'm not talented enough, sure i could become very good, but most likely not even a progamer and certainly not jaedong.
On October 25 2009 06:58 nttea wrote: i really don't care what you say about putting effort into shit, i could never become as good as jaedong even if i practiced 12 hours a day for years. why? cause i'm not talented enough, sure i could become very good, but most likely not even a progamer and certainly not jaedong.
If you say it that way, that's how it will be, but I just want to point out that Jaedong himself was not a very particularly "talented" player just a couple of years ago. It was an upset for the underdog Jaedong to beat Nada a year or two ago in a match around the time Nada was still consistently good. Incontrol had beaten Jaedong ZvZ in a not-too-distant past, the very matchup Jaedong holds a 70+% win ratio in progaming. Only recently, as I would like to say, when Jaedong discovered his strength through hard work and dedication, that he's been recognized as the legendary zerg he is today. Plus, it's more likely for Jaedong to discover that skill because he's in Korea, where you have access to more proper resources to become much better.
Honestly though, I believe you can only surpass your limits when you can come to terms with the misgivings you yourself place upon yourself, whether that be a negative attitude, lack of hard work and discipline, or having the drive to maintain it for that matter. You say you can't be as good as Jaedong even with 12 hours of practice a day. You haven't tried, so you can't be sure of that. Granted, even if you do work hard or harder, you may not be guarenteed better than he is, but at the least, you can say you've tried. Even then, you can still work at it as long as you have the mindset of becoming better. Any tree can be cut down if you chop at it long enough.
EDIT: At the same time, I want to respect the fact that most people aren't going to be better, not necessarily than someone, but at anything simply because they'd have different priorities to attend, different resources to handle, unfitting environment, and a huge number of other factors. However, I don't like it when someone downs themself "just because he's X", or "because I'm not skilled enough".
On October 25 2009 06:01 Volta wrote: Great blog to read, discussions about ability and how talent/hard work compare always appear to me as fun things to talk about (no idea why)
I hate reading interviews or anything that ask how to get good at a field, and somewhere they mention 'skill is mainly augmented by talent' (a StarCraft interview comes to mind, can't quiet remember the exact one) because it could make people believe that no matter how much effort they put in they won't be able to reach a desired level, play a certain song, whatever..
Having a passion to play and actually putting in hard work trumps talent!
Regarding that last line you wrote, I actually think hard work creates talent. Disregarding the whole schpiel on "natural talent", the word talent does exist, as does the meaning it carries. Nevertheless, this does not have to be negative.
Remember, as I've stated before, Jaedong wasn't even considered that great not too long ago as he took down Nada, who was the favorite and while Jaedong was the underdog. So then, how did this no-namer become the best zerg and one of the best Brood War players today? Hard work. And through hard work, he produced the talent he probably didn't know he had by persevering to uncover his potential.
Bisu and Sea[shield] once lost vs ToT)Mondragon( and ToT)Testie( a few years ago in a CW in a convincing manner. I can't say what the winners thought, but I'm sure that they probably didn't see anything overly special in either bisu or sea at the time of the match. Just another good korean, but the potential Starleague winners and historic gaming figures? Probably not.
On October 25 2009 06:58 nttea wrote: i really don't care what you say about putting effort into shit, i could never become as good as jaedong even if i practiced 12 hours a day for years. why? cause i'm not talented enough, sure i could become very good, but most likely not even a progamer and certainly not jaedong.
No dude. You have never even tried playing seriously a single day for 12 hours straight. Don't think that you can remark on you capabilities on such strict terms if you haven't even tried getting close to pushing them that far. Jaedong himself has said that he got his skill from pure practice.
I think people are thinking that that was a coincidence, but if you saw the second link in my OP, I directly linked to that thread, where one of the posters that replied here actually bumped that thread back up. I deliberately used a piece of that thread to complement the material discussed here.
On October 25 2009 06:58 nttea wrote: i really don't care what you say about putting effort into shit, i could never become as good as jaedong even if i practiced 12 hours a day for years. why? cause i'm not talented enough, sure i could become very good, but most likely not even a progamer and certainly not jaedong.
No dude. You have never even tried playing seriously a single day for 12 hours straight. Don't think that you can remark on you capabilities on such strict terms if you haven't even tried getting close to pushing them that far. Jaedong himself has said that he got his skill from pure practice.
On October 25 2009 03:52 omg.deus wrote: mozart is an exception...the ability of mozart is something that we only see once every thousand years...
I doubt that, you have to realize that we live in a completely different day and age now with the internet and what not. Not to mention it doesn't take a genius to make great music, combine that with the vast improvement of general health and the chances to express yourself and I think that the Mozart's of today just don't stand out enough anymore.
You have to define exactly what makes Mozart so special, as far as I'm concerned Beethoven is vastly superior. :p
"The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in anything," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. "In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others do. But no one has yet found a case in which true worldclass expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."
This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example, famously started writing music at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his book Genius Explained,
by the standards of mature composers, Mozart's early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not com- posed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had already been composing concertos for ten years.
The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart, he argues, actually "developed late," since he didn't produce his greatest work until he had been composing for more than twenty years.
On October 25 2009 09:23 skyglow1 wrote: Someone earlier recommended the book Outliers, and I'd definitely recommend it too. Just a small excerpt from that book regarding mozart:
"The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in anything," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. "In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others do. But no one has yet found a case in which true worldclass expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."
This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example, famously started writing music at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his book Genius Explained,
by the standards of mature composers, Mozart's early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not com- posed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had already been composing concertos for ten years.
The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart, he argues, actually "developed late," since he didn't produce his greatest work until he had been composing for more than twenty years.
this is the worst thing ive read in a long time ahahahhaha the author, constantly suffering from being a piece of shit "psychologist", goes on a crusade to determine why he isnt a "genius". Turns out all it takes is 10k hours What a pathetic pile of steaming shit
On October 25 2009 03:52 omg.deus wrote: mozart is an exception...the ability of mozart is something that we only see once every thousand years...
You have to define exactly what makes Mozart so special, as far as I'm concerned Beethoven is vastly superior. :p
Arguing that Beethoven is " vastly superior" than Mozart is irrelevant because they aren't competing against each other like in Starcraft. Music is art and has the power to evoke strong emotions in the listener. If Mozart writes a piece of music that has that emotional power over someone and Beethoven also writes a piece of music that has the same effect, arguing which is better doesn't matter since they both achieved the same goal.
Music is subjective to a degree, yet most of us can still recognize excellence in other subjective arts such as in the Mona Lisa or The Godfather. What made Mozart stand out from everybody else is not that he was a child prodigy, which is indeed amazing but not wholly unique, but that other renowned musicians are unable to offer any kind of critique or suggestion to his music. His compositions also showed no signs of revisement or modification. He simply wrote down the already finished masterpieces that were playing in his head.
This is the best analogy I can give: There are many film directors that are considered great. Mozart is like a great director in which no other director can offer any kind of suggestion or critique to his work. Of course this really isn't realistic since we all agree these arts are subjective. There will always be someone who just has a different idea of what is best. Yes, there will be people who aren't great directors that will have problems with this "great director", but if all the great directors (scorsese, hitchcock, kubrick, tarantino, etc, etc,) could offer no critique or suggestion, I would tend to give more value to their judgment than someone who just sees a lot of movies. :p
On October 25 2009 06:01 Volta wrote: Great blog to read, discussions about ability and how talent/hard work compare always appear to me as fun things to talk about (no idea why)
I hate reading interviews or anything that ask how to get good at a field, and somewhere they mention 'skill is mainly augmented by talent' (a StarCraft interview comes to mind, can't quiet remember the exact one) because it could make people believe that no matter how much effort they put in they won't be able to reach a desired level, play a certain song, whatever..
Having a passion to play and actually putting in hard work trumps talent!
Regarding that last line you wrote, I actually think hard work creates talent. Disregarding the whole schpiel on "natural talent", the word talent does exist, as does the meaning it carries. Nevertheless, this does not have to be negative.
Remember, as I've stated before, Jaedong wasn't even considered that great not too long ago as he took down Nada, who was the favorite and while Jaedong was the underdog. So then, how did this no-namer become the best zerg and one of the best Brood War players today? Hard work. And through hard work, he produced the talent he probably didn't know he had by persevering to uncover his potential.
Bisu and Sea[shield] once lost vs ToT)Mondragon( and ToT)Testie( a few years ago in a CW in a convincing manner. I can't say what the winners thought, but I'm sure that they probably didn't see anything overly special in either bisu or sea at the time of the match. Just another good korean, but the potential Starleague winners and historic gaming figures? Probably not.
Talent usually means something that one has intrinsically, which may mean anything from the personality to the current skill level of said person to their ability to learn and grasp concepts.
Hard work creates talent - most easily seen at the top of every field when there is no clear-cut template of success to follow. Think BoxeR, Nal_Ra, YellOw during the times where few other progamers were around, and how they still managed to improve - they basically created that unknown talent which was nonexistent, which today we can name "talent". If muta micro/vulture micro was never discovered would we say "Oh XYZ is so talented in _____"? But only (inspired) hard work together with analysis and a passion for the game created (and/or uncovered) all this "talent".
Perhaps words like passion, talent and hard work get thrown around when laymen see successful people (who can be successful simply through marketing and publicity, see the balloon boy or any politician who wasnt worth his salt) and try to attribute years of effort and training to 1 single word. Simply put, to get good one would a) have a passion for something, b) have to discover where his talent lies (can be found in subaspects of virtually any field) and c) practice really hard once his rhythm of work, reflection and analysis has bee establised.
Of course theres no such thing as natural talent. Talent is just a term to describe somehow who has put the work into a certain field to become great at it.
On October 25 2009 15:00 Probe. wrote: Of course theres no such thing as natural talent. Talent is just a term to describe somehow who has put the work into a certain field to become great at it.
While I don't like the idea of natural talent, I must disagree with your statement. I do believe in natural talent and in fact, believe it's foolish to completely disregard it. There are people who display affinity in certain skills, whether it's a guy that never picked up a guitar in his life, yet musical notes come easily to him, or if it's a guy that never picked up a chess piece, but can easily catch on to the strategies and mechanics.
I believe that early age and environment play huge factors in these cases, where the person had at least some type of similar exposure from the past that is "built" into him or her and develops subconsciously as the person grows up. Some people even consider genes as a factor, but I don't have enough background or knowledge to touch upon that.
However, this natural affinity does NOT necessarily make you all that great. Surely, you've met people around you who have displayed faster learning capabilities than you even if you both had started the same new activity with no prior experience. That's only natural. It's not as if person A and person B will develop the skill at the same pace and same way. The point is that just because person A may learn faster and display his or her "natural talent" doesn't mean person B will always lag behind since everyone's learning curve is different. How the individual works will eventually depict the true differences in potential over a long term period of time. Even afterward, is it not possible to continue learning and developing? History has shown that human beings consistently demonstrate "impossible" feats where what once is known as the limit is broken by an outstanding individual.
To sum it up, natural talent is usually not that important in the long term. It does exist, but it has already been agreed upon by a vast majority of posters in this thread that it means jack shit amongst those who had reached the top and revealed what truly made them who they are.
Very important too is to have good training methods. Even if you had natural affinity into something and work a lot on it, you gotta know how to spend that time most efficiently.
Of course talent plays a huge part. Beethoven, for instance, never had the endless melodic inspiration of Schubert. If you read a book like "The Great Pianists" by Schoenberg, you'll find pretty much every great pianist was a child prodigy and touring by no later than 15. Then you can take individuals like Walter Gieseking or Glenn Gould who can 'practice' by just reading pieces away from the piano whereas everyone else needs to spend 8 hours a day. Most of them apparently have ridiculous abilities in memorisation (not just of music) as well.
Obviously practice is important, but it's nonsense to think you can get to the absolute top without talent.
On October 26 2009 16:22 Spinfusor wrote: Of course talent plays a huge part. Beethoven, for instance, never had the endless melodic inspiration of Schubert. If you read a book like "The Great Pianists" by Schoenberg, you'll find pretty much every great pianist was a child prodigy and touring by no later than 15. Then you can take individuals like Walter Gieseking or Glenn Gould who can 'practice' by just reading pieces away from the piano whereas everyone else needs to spend 8 hours a day. Most of them apparently have ridiculous abilities in memorisation (not just of music) as well.
Obviously practice is important, but it's nonsense to think you can get to the absolute top without talent.
Practice strengthens talent. No one is good at something until they put in the work to be good at something.