When someone says "You have talent", what does that mean really?

An article in the latest issue of Scientific American (The Expert Mind, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945) comes in support of what I already suspected: talent does not exist. What I mean to say is that there is no innate aptitude which makes it possible for one to excel at something. Whether we're talking about Mozart, Zinédine Zidane or Garry Kasparov, it is hard work and motivation which makes it possible to excel, and not an unspecified genetic advantage (or rather, it's impact is minor). Which does not mean that the more we do, the better we get. Regardless of discipline, the majority tend to reach a plateau where they progress very little if at all thereafter.

Take cinema. It is not a question of making film after film; it is rather a question of analyzing one's weaknesses and of trying to confront them. Many artists move into a zone of comfort where they rely on their strengths while avoiding their weaknesses; this results in stagnation. They put an end to the period of training and study too soon. I believe that a filmmaker always has things to learn, aptitudes to improve on, regardless of his age or experience. I have much respect for those who take risks, even if their films are not always successful.

If I wanted to make the best possible film now, I should concentrate on what I do best, remain in my comfort zone. Perhaps that would make a good film, but I probably would not gain anything from it. I'd rather work within self-imposed constraints and face my own weaknesses, at the risk of failure. One learns more from failure than from success. My best films were also the easiest to make, and somehow disappointed me for this reason: I have the impression that the bar could have been higher.

When I shoot, to make the best possible film is a secondary objective. The prime objective is to become a better filmmaker. What is encouraging, is to see the improvement. I know that I can do things today which were impossible for me a year ago.

I don't have a talent, but I don't need it.

Some people create art with film--that takes creativity. And talent.

Regardless of discipline, the majority tend to reach a plateau where they progress very little if at all thereafter.

And that is what we mean by talent, or an aptitude for a given skill or discipline. Those that have talent, don't hit that plateau except at the very highest level.

Depending on what you are doing, physical limitations can come into play, along with motor skills.

On an intellectual endeavor, there are some people who 'get it' and some who don't. The ones who get it are the ones we refer to as having talent for that particular endeavor.

-gb-

I've actually said this at times as well. I usually get lots of arguments.

I do believe that aptitude is involved. I was keenly interested in creative things when I was very young. My siblings didn't seem to possess quite the same level of keen interest. Is an almost innate keen interest "talent" or "aptitude"? If not, it's just about as good, because it kept me working, working, working.

Because I worked very hard to get somewhere with the creative things that interested me, it always has irked me a little to be told that it's all about talent—like I was born with it and my work and effort had nothing to do with it. I worked really hard. If I hadn't worked really hard, of course people wouldn't be telling me that I had "talent."

But getting back to the innate thing again—I've seen this over and over again. I've seen people just not GET it. No matter how hard they try, no matter how much work they put into it; they may improve, but they'll never be as good as someone else who has an innate sense for it. I've also come into a class where I knew nothing ahead of time about the discipline we were learning, and yet it just "clicked" for me immediately. For other students, it didn't. And other times, I'd attend a class where I understood (intellectually) what we were supposed to do, but I never could quite get it right. No matter how hard I tried, and how much effort I put into it. It was very frustrating, since it seemed so easy for everyone else.

No, I don't think talent is everything. I think it can at times be pretty minor. But there's something that makes some things "click" for us, while learning other things is torture.

I think it's easiest to see in an extreme example. Take Tiger Woods. He had a strong interest in golf at two years old. His innate skill level was also advanced enough to get on a late night TV show around 3 or 4 years old. Clearly, the talent (and the potential) was there from the get-go.

However, talent is not all that matters. To get to the top you also need work ethic and motivation and persistence and control of your emotions and the ability to concentrate for long periods of time and the physical agility and...and...and....

If you take Tiger's talent and mix it with average work ethic, you do not get Tiger Woods as he is. You get an average player. If you take Tiger's extreme work ethic (and other attributes) and mix it with average talent, you get an average or slightly above average player. But you do not get Tiger Woods. The people at the top have both extreme talent and extreme work ethic and extreme everything else on the list.

That's not to say someone can't discover their talent later in life. But their timetable of achievements will most likely be delayed, and probably stunted, as well. If someone with all of Tiger's attributes didn't discover golf until age 20, I think they could still get and remain at the top, but they would hit their peak years quicker and so the lifetime achievements wouldn't hold up to Tiger's, who started at such a young age and achieved so much so early.

I believe we each have different degrees of an inborn capacity of talent that we start with. People with greater degrees of talent advance quicker and easier to high performance levels. They can also stay there, live there, or return there with more ease. People with lesser degrees of talent have to work harder to reach the higher levels of performance. And they have to work harder to stay there. And most likely they can't. Even with their hardest efforts, they may rise for a burst, but then fall quickly, rise then fall quickly. They have their moments, but they don't stay at the top. For others, the inborn potential is just not there. They can work their asses off and maybe eek out a living. But they hit a wall and even with all the hard work in the world, there are limits to how high a level they will ever achieve.

Talent definitely does exist.

"Take Tiger Woods. He had a strong interest in golf at two years old."

IMO a 2 year old doesn't becomed interested in golf unless one's mother/father/somebody is putting the club in a 2 year olds hands ..

my 4 year grand daughter was just visiting .. so was it just a natural "thing" for her to become interested in putting on makeup at age 3 .. or for her to want to take cheer leading lessons 6 months ago ????? i think PARENTS play a huge roll on what a 1-5 year old becomes interested in ...

Agreed. Parents play A role in introducing their kids to things. But the drive to excel at something comes from within.

I think there's a certain degree of destiny in life. Certain conditions exist that make something more or less likely to happen. But it still takes the actual doing and the proper decision making on behalf of the person for the full potential to be realized.

A parent can put the golf club in their kid's hands, but they can't swing it for them. A parent has a lot of influence over their child when they're young, but eventually the world broadens, and the kid either has the fire inside them or not.

I took a look at the article and I have to say that I am skeptical of a model extrapolated from chess to other areas, espcially complex artisitc tasks.

My wife is a Suzuki violin (method mentioned in the article) teacher and often starts young children on the instrument. After some years of watching students begin and progress, there is little question in my mind that "talent" makes a big difference. Some kids have perfect pitch, others a tin ear. Some have the small motor and aural (listening) skills needed to percieve if they are playing in tune and others, believe me, do not. Some can bring emotions to music in an immediate and personal way, and others play a in flat, technical way. Without these abilities there is little to build on, however hard the student works.

One of her current students, who she started at the start of the summer is now at least a year ahead of another student she started teaching a year ago. The parents of the student who is behind are both professional musicians. The student who is ahead is able to teach herself pieces in matter of days. Her father is a medical doctor.

If the author of the article thinks there is no way to pick out talent at a recital, he's not been to very many recitals.

If the author of the article thinks there is no way to pick out talent at a recital, he's not been to very many recitals.

Yes! Agreed.

Actually, as a child I was actively discouraged from pursuing my creative interests. At times the discouragment was pretty aggressive. At one point I seriously meant to give it up, because of all the grief I got. (I didn't give it up, of course! Couldn't stay away!)

Parents can certainly pave the way, but even if they don't, sometimes it's just inside of a kid and it will come out.

I'm not certain how anyone could deny that there is an inherent, genetic propensity toward "talent," for lack of a better word, in certain artistic arenas. Quoting Mozart as an example of the argument, is very odd, despite the fact that he had a domineering parental influence. My parents could have pushed me as hard as they liked, and I would have never been able to write operas as a child. However, I will cite one of the greatest, most prolific American writer of the 20th century, William Faulkner -- no education, no parental involvement, just a rip-roaring alcoholic, who was possessed to write. And Absalom, Absalom! is widely regarded as one of the greatest American novels written. When he had no paper, he wrote on his walls. When Hollywood came calling, he ran away (literally). This is a very odd debate, IMHO.

Yes! Agreed.

Actually, as a child I was actively discouraged from pursuing my creative interests. At times the discouragment was pretty aggressive. At one point I seriously meant to give it up, because of all the grief I got. (I didn't give it up, of course! Couldn't stay away!)

Parents can certainly pave the way, but even if they don't, sometimes it's just inside of a kid and it will come out.


I would agree, Ruth. My parents had no influence on what I actually became in the professional world. I always had a natural curiousity about how things worked and I destroyed many toys as a child by trying to figure out what made them tick. Luckily, as a young adult, and with proper training, I became just as good at putting things back together.

I would say that my 'talent' if you will is the ability to look at a piece of machinery and know how it works, indeed how it must work. That ability propelled me to become a technician because if it's not working, and you can figure out how it should work, then you know what must be done to repair it so that it works again.

Another talent that I've been told that I have is the ability to take a concept and translate it into laymen's terms so that others can understand. That's the main reason I am here on this forum, to help and teach others those things that seem to come natural to me.

This is a good discussion and I think we pretty much agree that we all have our strengths and weaknesses as individuals. Those strengths are commonly labeled as 'talent'

-gb-

a very interesting article, entitled "The Myth of Talent"--by a very successful digital photographer, so i think the parallels are exceptional--can be found here:

http://www.radiantvista.com/archive/articles/1/

i think this might be aligned with what you are saying, jean-francois....

Oh my goodness, that is a fantastic article! Thank you so much for linking to it. I'm going to have to spread that link around . . .

Especially this part (been there, done that, especially the bolded sentence):
Over the last few years I have heard myself being labeled as a talented photographer. Knowing what that means to most people, my impulse is to offer some kind of a clarification because I know better than anyone about the truth of my humble photographic beginnings and the national park sized “failures” those beginnings contained. I can only laugh at myself because I am in on the unintentional joke contained within the myth. Being labeled talented only means we have survived being untalented.

Isn't that the truth! I experienced this exact same thing—I decided I wanted to learn a particular artistic skill, but was the worst in the class, and remained the worst. The teacher gently hinted that I give up trying and stick with other things were I more obviously excelled. But I didn't want to give up, and after a lot of hard work I got better—only to be called "talented"!

But even though I agree with everything in that article, I still think there is a special "something" that gives people the drive and passion to work and work and not give up. (If that is not a part of "talent," it makes a pretty good substitute.) Also, as others have mentioned, some people have a tin ear; others don't. Some have no color sense (and it only gets marginally better, no matter how many color theory classes they take), while for others it's innate. But also I suspect that there's often a lack of passion or drive amongst the ones who display less aptitude.

I certainly think 'talent' exists and I think Greg illustrated the point of what talent actually is best. To me, there are two basic differing variations.

1) Learned. I think that's been the focus of this thread so far, as well as all of the myth PDFs and such. Learned talent is also the easiest for most people to recognize. Yeah - passion about something, time and energy and devotion, and you can become quite proficient at that something, which then gets labeled as you having a talent or aptitude for that something. Why that label happens can be attributed to any variety of reasons.

2) Instinct (for lack of a better term). These are fundemental personality traits that are built in - not learned. While practice can get you far, ultimately it's still a foreign subject. As dumb as it sounds, it's like Harry Potter speaking parcel tongue and not even knowing how or that he could.

Take programming - anyone who works at it long and hard enough can learn to program. It's just syntax and eventually you can memorize the rules of a language. Thinking like a computer, inborn problem solving, more abstract 'knowing' and design, etc - to a large extent these are things that just have to be intuitive. These are a lot harder to learn. While not completely direct and lots of room for error, it's the difference between one of those Microsoft certifications and a comp sci degree. One is based on a learned skill set, the other is where you create your own skill set.

A better example, and one that I consider myself to be very talented in, music. Yeah, I'm HIGHLY technically proficient at 'music' (been at it for 20+ years): playing, writing, practice, performing, whatever. I've always known how to make things sound 'good'. But I'm also a very good improviser and that's something that I've had long before I had technical proficiency and any music theory. Hell, for as much background as I do have in music, I don't have a lot of music theory simply because I've never really needed it. To use that phrase, anyone can learn to play any instrument and even play it well, very few people know how to make it really sing.

While I don't think I illustrated them terribly well (again sorry, tired and didn't get enough sleep so brain is fuzzy), those two examples are things that [if I may toot my horn] are instinctive talents for me. Learning and passion in those subjects have taken me very far, but from day one I've had unique skills I needed to really excel with them - problem solving personality, creativity and imagination, hell I've even got perfect pitch - born with it - definitely a HUGE factor in music for me.

That being said, while I consider myself to be talented in videography I wouldn't consider myself to be instinctively talented in it AT ALL. Everything I know I've had to learn or emulate. My various instinctive talents (creativity, problem solving, etc) come in handy with video, but none of them are directly attributable.

Talent exists it a variety of forms and I mean no disrespect to those who think otherwise. My inclination is that those people who think the only talents out there are learned talents (and consequently isn't really talent - which I agree with - I personally consider it proficiency) either don't have or aren't aware of their own instinctive talents to know the difference between the two.


Hope that made sense.. I don't function well on 5-6 hours of sleep (which my wife tells me is sometimes a luxury) :-)


PS: I don't mean to sound like a major tool extoling my virtues, but I know myself well enough to use me as an example in this thread.

To me it is the difference between being 'proficient' and 'inspired'. Inspiration implies imagination, improvisation, being able to interpret not merely mimic or follow rules. One can learn to paint like Rembrandt but few learn to successfully create a style on their own.

I’ve enjoyed everyone’s comments so far and the two articles (thanks) and this discussion…I happened to be fascinated by the subject of excellence.

While I agree with just about everything in that photographer essay, the one fault might be that he’s trying to say that a high skill level is not ALL talent. But, of course it’s not all innate talent…just like it’s not all training either. It’s a combination of both. It's not nature VS nurture. It's both.

Both of these articles kind of indirectly imply that anyone can learn a certain skill through training and practice and hard work alone. And to a degree that is true. But the excellence of the people at the very top requires more than training and learning.

I can’t understand why people have a resistance to the idea of inborn talent, except maybe to entertain the notion that we can do anything we put our mind to, even at the highest level. And, believe me, no one is more in favor of the idea of no limitations and a positive outlook and the power of believing in yourself, and the ability to overcome shortcomings through hard work. But the fact is there are people in every field that things just come easy to. That is talent.

But I also believe, coupled with talent, there’s an inborn capacity for that talent to grow. To put an image to it: we all have seeds inside us. Some people have giant Redwood seeds waiting to sprout, others have Oak tree seeds, others little Birch trees. Of course it takes sun (training) for them to grow. The more ideal conditions the bigger and stronger it will grow. Some trees don’t get good water (encouragement…) and struggle, but if there’s enough nourishment from the soil seeping in (your own persistence), the tree will grow anyway. The journey in life is a process of discovering what kinds of seeds we have inside us, and how big of a tree we’ll become. Society may tell us that big trees have more value that the smaller trees, but that’s just false. Part of the journey is a discovery of who we are, another part is discovering why we are, and a third part is accepting who and what we are (and not necessarily in that order).

It seems to me that trying to deny innate talent is a way of saying “I too start at the same level Tiger Woods did.” It’s a way keeping the hope alive that “I can do anything” and “it’s all in my control” and “If I just put the time in, I can achieve the highest level…” But even if I picked up a golf club at the same age as Tiger, had all the same training and coaches, all the same opportunities, and even if I worked exactly as hard as he did, and still does, (down to the last minute), I still wouldn’t be as good as Tiger. There’s more to a skill than the technical stuff you can learn. How someone thinks, how they perceive, their imagination, their ability to improvise in tough situations and solve problems, handle pressure…all the personality stuff (and in sports that includes body type, muscle structure…) separates the good from the bad and the great from them all. That’s talent.

I do believe in talent, that some people just 'have it'.

Some actors follow years at a professional school, and they get out and they act 'okay'.
Others never followed any exercise, and just play, and it comes out marvelous.

I for myself, I've never had any music lessons, I even can't read notes, but I just play on a piano. Many people say they think I play better and which much more emotion then people who have been following piano lessons for 10 years, although I just learned by pressing on keys and listening to what I liked, and moving from that point on.

Instead of saying "Talent does not exist" (I think most of us would disagree with that absolute statement), would it be more accurate to say, "Talent is overrated?"

I am quite sick of hearing the phrase, "Oh, [he/she] is so talented!" when in fact I know that the person (including me) worked very, very hard. It's like they think that we sit back and do nothing, and it comes to us with no effort. (I've been treated with veiled contempt for this—it's assumed I didn't work hard, because it's all just a "gift.")

It's also true that some people use the assumption that they have no "talent" as a cop-out. They'll use a lack of talent as an excuse for never going anywhere with a skill, while all the time it was probably more a matter of them being not motivated/lazy. Someone else (with similar aptitude and circumstances) might very well become extremely good, simply because they worked harder.

I agree with the "seed" theory (so eloquently explained by Jeff). We all have a "seed," but some don't let it grow—either because they are not interested, lazy, scared, unmotivated. But if they were to give it a chance, they'd find that the "seed" was there all the time, and that it could be called "talent."

I have talent. Going through High School, in band, I NEVER practiced. Never, never, never practiced my Sax (I mean NEVER). I was ALWAYS first chair. I could sight read better than the others could play after weeks of intense practice and study. I guess I had to learn the notes... but I never practiced back then either.
Then, when the quad player (4 tom toms) was sick for a parade, so I took his spot. The band director asked if I could replace him for the rest of the season. I never played quads before that day.
I just have a natural ability, or talent, for music. My autistic son has the same talent.
Now if I could just get off of my lazy butt and practice, I could be great!

Yeah, you still have to work for it.
Taking my example of music playing, see my post above, I played on my keyboard (later piano) for maybe an hour a day, sometimes more, sometimes, on the weekends, for hours at once.
Much more then people who went to music school, but I did it because I really enjoyed it. So I maybe learned quicker because of that too.

Much more then people who went to music school, but I did it because I really enjoyed it. So I maybe learned quicker because of that too.
Definitely. If you love it, you will work harder, and then of course the hard work pays off. My theory is that part of what we call "talent" is loving to practice and loving the whole process.

Definitely. If you love it, you will work harder, and then of course the hard work pays off. My theory is that part of what we call "talent" is loving to practice and loving the whole process.

Yes, the frontman of Muse, Matthew Bellamy (hope I spelled his name right) is, for me, a very talented guy: plays lovely piano, lovely gitar and has a great voice, but he doesn't believe in talent too: he says he only believes in 'interest' : people have certain interests, things they want to do, and then they'll just work very much for it (if they have discipline) and in that way, develope some skill.
I think it's an interesting angle, but I still believe in a certain amount of 'natural gift' too.

my friend told me a story why he quited from proffesional judo. It was because of younger and more talented rival. He(the rival) was faster, he learned faster, his grip was stronger. Despite of having much less experince he won everyone on his way. So my friend quit and just said this pointless to achieve anything having such rival. Later this talented guy got champion of the country.

I'll use this topic to make my first post on this board. Please forgive me, as I have a tendency to use very loose analogies.

I like to think of "talent" as being a substance that has different consistencies (physically), even in one person.
For example: One may be excellent at videography, but not as good in photography. Therefore the consistency of their talent is more like water in video and more like a slow-moving gel in photography. Water has the knack of finding cracks and ways of moving much more fluently to whatever step there is to follow, whereas a gel takes a little longer to do the same.

Hehe...

My post got quite a reaction. I think it's a very important discussion to have. Ok, when I said that "talent does not exist", I didn't really mean it in the absolute. I guess I was trying to get a reaction with that statement (which I did). I just think it's an overrused term that doesn't mean much (I'm a very pragmatic person).

What most people see as "talent", I see as a simple, basic, yet very flexible aptitudes, combined with interest and motivation. As many have suggested, these basic ingredients will come to nothing if they aren't properly nurtured. Mozart would never have become a great composer if his father hadn't spent all that time shaping him into one. But of course that all that effort wouldn't have amounted to much if Mozart hadn't had his passion for music.

To me, the main ingredients are the interest and the motivation, as they are absolutely required for one to reach a high level of excellence. As far as innate aptitudes go, I believe they're non-specific: the same level of artistic inspiration that made someone a great painter could have made that same person into a great musician if only he had taken that path (which would have required a keen interest in music in the first place). Life is so short that one cannot explore all the possibilities and must choose a path (or more likely life chooses for them). Personnally, I have explored multiple artistic paths, and I think I'm getting very good at some things. Other things I have tried and can feel the potential, but lack the time to invest in it. For instance, my experiences with music indicate that I could be a good musician, if only I took the time.

As for why some become great at something without any traditional training, while others go to school and never become good at it, doesn't that support the point? The former did it on their own because they were passionate about it; the latter just went through the motions, without the motivation put real effort into it. While many see talent as the discerning factor, I think that passion is far more important. Studying at the conservatory won't necessarily make you a great musician; going to the actor's studio won't automatically make you a great actor. It will only work if you have the appropriate drive.

Yes, some people have "it", and some people don't, but by that I don't mean talent. It's passion and the motivation to work hard enough to get "it".

I used to draw a lot when I was younger. In fact, I could spends hours every day on my drawing board, and the progress was lightning fast, from day to day. Much later on, I didn't spend as much time drawing, and I realized that I wasn't getting any better at it (my new drawings weren't much better than my old). It looked as though I had reached a peak, so I mostly stopped.

But years later, I started drawing again for different reasons (I started doing animation). After a few months, I realised that I was getting much better than I used to be. My drawings felt more alive, more expressive. I hadn't reached a peak after all; it's just that I was doing the same kind of things over and over again, and it was impossible for me to improve that way. But by exploring new styles and work methods, I blew away the limits. And I got something very important from that: you can always get better at anything, but

- doing things the same way over and over again will not let you improve
- you must look into new ways to develop your skills and creativity

and that "insight" (how pretentious does that sounds) is guiding me in my experiences in filmmaking. In fact, I went through the same kind of dead period I went through with drawing, but I've tried to eliminate the mind-barriers that kept me from getting better, and I'm very pleased with my current progress.

So much for being brief...

But by exploring new styles and work methods, I blew away the limits.

And that, Jean-Francois is one of the biggest reasons for the existence of forums like this one. Where we can all teach each other how to break out of the mold and explore new styles and methods, helped along by our forum associates. That in itself can have a catalyst effect on an individual. Take an idea from here, add your own 'spin' to it and come up with something completely different that you in turn, come back to the forum with for sharing and teaching others.

It's a good thing!

-gb-