Is a persons interest in developing skills more important to long term success than whatever natural talent may be?

I think a person's interest is probably the most important factor. If you don't have an interest in whatever you're doing, you won't last, talent or not. You could be a brilliant pianist who just "gets it" and can play Chopin like nobody's business, but if you don't care about music or wanting to perform, it's pointless.

Sometimes stars can align and someone who is naturally talented in an area (mechanics, artists, musicians) also enjoy the field their talent lends itself to. In that case, the passion and interest helps them build on top of their natural talent, or augment/enhance it with the thirst of learning more.

Rex, do you think though that someone with a talent in say mechanics, has more long term potential than someone with an interest in mechanics if they both develop equal time to developing skills further?

I don't know where the line is drawn, but it strikes me that the type of talent you have may be a factor in whether or not you have more long term potential than one of your peers who puts in the same effort as you do.

Interesting question. I think applying oneself has immense power. We've all heard stories of people becoming something from nothing. I don't think it'd be fair to call all of those cases an example of "natural talent". There is something to be said for hard work, determination and passion.

I'm picturing two distinct kinds of people. For the sake of conversation I'll outline them.

A. Someone born with a natural understanding of mathematics, and doesn't have to try very hard to understand complex problems. This person is also passionate about math.

B. Someone born and raised purely with a passion for math, but does not have as easy of a time learning it. Perhaps this person struggles, but through hard work and determination is an expert.

At the end of the day a person with natural talent and interest will always be better than the person with interest who focuses just as much? So there would be varying levels of competence based on your natural aptitude?

I'm not sure who would come out on top, but I don't think it's impossible for person B. to get just as far or farther than person A. The world is not black and white, there are many levels of gradation that make it possible for anyone to achieve.

There's just too many factors. I would say that natural talent does give you an upper hand, but I think passion and determination could get you damn close.

I think that what we perceive to be talent may not even exist. Like you say there are so many factors and we never truly know ones road to success. But if it does I think it only extends so far. I think that hard work and focus take over at a point, giving a person with talent and a person with drive the same overall long term capabilities.

I would agree. I think savants and "talented" individuals may have a bit less friction in achieving their goals though.

I think passion and determination can get you even further than a less determined, but more "talented" person. I see people who I perceive to be less talented than myself do a lot more/get a lot further than me because they're more organised, present themselves better, are more professional, etc etc etc

Rex, I think we might find that Savants have a strong attractor to something and less distractions to focus on it. Leading to multiplied increase in the amount of time they spend developing a skill.

Prekesh, for sure. I would agree, it is about the lengths one is willing to go for their interest.

Natural talent doesn't really count for anything unless you have interest in pursuing skills that build on your natural talent. Someone who's really good at math but who doesn't *like* doing math is not going to pursue a career as an Accountant, for example.

Erica, exactly. I always knew I was good at art and visual stuff (in school etc), but I wouldn't have been a designer without trying and learning the skills required to do so.

I think "natural talent" is something that grows with experience. Especially in technical fields where you have to constantly learn new things to keep up.

You can see people who don't let themselves grow and progress because they're "good at what they do" This guy's is talented but he's stuck in 2001 LOL theskinsfactory.com

I think if someone doesn't have that instinctive talent within them, they'll just recycle the same shit over and over again till they force themselves to learn new things.

(this probably doesn't make sense)

A big myth persistent through our cultures is this idea that there are special people. These "special people" are somehow endowed, blessed by some almighty being, or luck of nature, with certain genetic factors that make them amazing. We are all to happy to cultivate the idea of genius, innate talent and overnight successes because they make great stories. People like stories more than facts

The reality is that when you begin to look at genius and you pull back the mythologies, you discover something extraordinary, that these "special people" aren't extraordinary at all. They're just like you or me. They haven't been blessed, they haven't won the genetic lottery or even been granted some secret knowledge from Ancient Aliens, they're normal

I wont re-iterate the studies on this but I will simply point you in the right direction. My favorite examples are;

1. The Polgar Sisters: en.wikipedia.org
2. Boris Sidis en.wikipedia.org
3. The Beatles youtube.com

I find the idea of talent a fundamentally toxic idea. It creates an environment where children start to think "oh I'm just not good at Math" or "Science is for male brains" and society as a whole is far too happy to reinforce the labels. It's very sad to me that people give up on things or never even try simply because society has told them they wouldn't succeed. Labels are fundamentally a way society victimizes people until they fall in line with culture.

If successful people can be said to have anything "special" about them it's simply their unwillingness to accept the status quo. They're as Steve's Jobs famously put it "The Crazy Ones".

Want to be successful? Don't believe what others tell you about you, be a bit Crazy and never ever let them label you "talented".

The best book on an anti-talent approach to learning that I've have read is The Art Of Learning by Josh Waitzkin. Read it amazon.com. It's sort of like Timothy Ferriss' writings on learning but for people that want to actually learn.

From experience in a corporate design world, usually the ones with the drive to succeed will outperform the ones who come in with natural talent.

More often than not the ones with natural talent will be lazier since they know they are good rather than striving to get better.

Ken, thanks all are great points. Also very inline with the thoughts that led me to this discussion. I worry more about the detriment the focus on 'talent' will have on young people who have all the ability in the world to be just as successful as the next person.

Ken, I felt that way till I tried something totally on my own and was successful at it. Now I want to do so many things I never had the balls to do because I was scared I'd be shit at them LOL. In my schools we always had groups of "gifted and talented" students who were specifically picked out by the teachers and they were always given special treatment etc. It was so strange to me.

Bryan is so right, I always feel slightly annoyed when I try something and it just goes right the first time round. I really don't want to end up like the lazy designer. (Which I think is happening already :C)

Good examples of designers who I think are super talented and have shit load of determination are people like dribbble.com he's constantly putting out great work

Prekesh, I think that is a matter of level of interest. Do you want to keep growing or do people reach a point where they are happy at the level they have achieved. For me, I see no end to any path. It's a matter of how long one will pursue it.

Take a look at thedanplan.com dude went from never really having played golf to a 6 handicap with 3300h of practice. Drive is the only thing that matters. All that "talent" is is the spark to make you want to practice a thing.

Stefan, that is amazing. Precisely what I am talking about. Thanks for sharing that.

Prekesh, I was the same way when I was in school. The lazier you get though the less you actually learn. What ends up happening is the world around you evolves, but you stay the same. You end goal should be infinitesimal. There should never be a finite end, especially in design.

I had a art prof. that used to say "Aim for the stars and you will hit the moon." :) There is always new stuff to learn or discover so don't short site yourself.

Also take a look at this article in NY Mag – goes to the same subject that @bryan is hinting at. I find this especially meaningful as I was always a "smart" kid in school, so ended up not trying too hard. Now that I'm raising my own kid, I especially want to avoid this sort of thing with her.

And here: ccsf.edu is a link to the sciam article that so many pieces on this topic end up referencing.

Over the years I've taken a few courses at Seattle's Gage Academy of the Arts. There was a saying, that I've often repeated that was almost Gage's montra: Artists are trained, not born. I'm paraphrasing here since it's been awhile, but the truth of it still rings true.

At Gage they believed that only about 10% was natural ability, with the rest training. Now, they are in the business of selling instruction, so we need to take this with a grain of salt.

I personally think that there is a difference between natural talent and ability. I think that anyone can learn to do anything competently with enough practice and dedication, but I think we all have things we grasp more easily than others. I think talent may have little to do with success, but I do think it has a lot to do with greatness.

A great book on this topic is The Rare Find by George Anders. One of the book's main points is that raw talent or intelligence has some value of course, but "character attributes" such as persistence and resilience are actually more predictive of an individual's success at a job or task.

My opinion is that character attributes can get you 98% of the way there, 98% of the time; but that talent limitations do ultimately represent achievement limitations, at the most elite margins. For example, with that Dan Plan golfer ... he could well practice golf every waking hour for the rest of his life, and never win a PGA-level event. But a 6 handicap puts him in the top 10% of all male golfers with a handicap, which is pretty darn remarkable.

But at that point is Dan's limitation his lack of practicing in such a high level competition. That brings who new challenges. To play in PGA events with those kinds of crowds is pressure. Something that many elite players have many more hours of practice in. In time can he gain the experience to achieve the same success? I tend to think that if talent does exist, it doesn't push you to the limit, it just builds a better baseline.

If we find it obvious that there are physical attributes that we are born with, that give some a strong advantage over others, the same should hold for mental attributes, i.e. talents.

What a Lance Armstrong can do with a certain amount of drive, a lesser physically endowed person with same amount of drive wouldn't.

Much of what's being said are opinions, rather than facts, specially when we talk about percentages, like in "Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration."

I would say such opinions are intensely personal, and if one has to be objective, let's split it 50-50 between talent and drive.

The world of physical traits varies much more widely than our brains. With the exception of mental disabilities we are on a much more even ground in that regard.

There are many studies that show that those who put forth the effort can achieve great success in a field that they possess no talent in.

The mind is a powerful thing, and does not share the limitations of our bodies.

I don't know if we have evidence that the mind can be expanded more beyond what we are born with, than a corresponding expansion of a physical trait. It could be, but I haven't seen evidence of that.

I don't disagree with the fact that drive is much more important than what we have traditionally believed. But I have yet to see evidence that it's more important than talent. Even though I would personally like it to be.

I think the evidence our mind can be expanded is everywhere. We grow rapidly beyond what we are born with, and anyone can learn a new language for example. Drive is the determining factor of the expansion of the mind. It is down to hard work to see just how much you can learn.

As I said, I haven't yet seen any evidence, that compares people with different abilities and drive to determine which factor was more important in their relative success. Only that if you put in more effort, you perform better.

When you say "grow rapidly beyond what are born with" that growth itself may be bounded by the mental capabilities we are born with. So, if you learn a language quickly, that may be due to what your born-with mental capability. That is, another person with the same amount of work, but different language acquisition talent, may produce different results.

I don't think our mind is divided up like that. There may be no such thing as language acquisition talent. But perhaps what hinders someone from learning another language is a type of learning disability.

I believe what scientists have observed is a spectrum of mental ability: starting from very acute on one side to being a disability on the other.

I wouldn't say I am hindered by a disability in learning languages: I know three. But I know people learning the same language along side me, who can pick it up much, much faster than me, with less effort. I am sure I could outpace them with more drive, but they have always outpaced me with a similar amount of effort.

Obviously, anecdotal evidence. But I am sure we observe this around us.

When we are born we receive an 'energy stamp' a set of skills and disadvantages which will follow and challenge us throughout whole life.
There are several methods which are able to measure this energy stamp, one of the best is Chinese Five Elements methodology, which I study for over a decade.

By time of our birth our 'destiny' is 30%-40% set. Another 30%-40% we get from surrounding, a certain luck of getting good education and meeting right people. The rest, 20%-40%, is the open space which is determined by our own will, determination and personal goals and how keen we are to reach them.

So, in general, everything IS possible, but only if our will and determination is able to go over our bad destiny and unlucky environment parts.

Persistence, practice and passion at singing, writing, sports, whatever it may be, will develop what little talent we may have and in that way "everything absolutely is possible" What if we already knew before putting all our energy, money and time into training that the path we had chosen was one which would make us successful, support our health, our finances, our relationships and help us to be happy and balanced. How to choose the "right" thing? Sometimes we luckily fall into it, or we can get it horribly wrong leading to burn out, depression, or financial ruin. From my experience the I Ching & 5 Elements, it is a deep and acutely accurate blueprint and as such invaluable tool for us and our families and also in business.

With respect, this Five Elements sounds like a belief system. There is no proof of these ideas. To believe that destiny is laid out before us, is to believe we have no free will. There is no 'right thing' for us to pursue. The human mind craves variety and what makes us happy can change over time. To think that we are locked to one thing for a lifetime because of destiny is a limiting frame of mind.

This kind of thought system is what lead me to this idea. I don't think it can be true. People show all the time that they can reach beyond any perceived boundaries and achieve great success in an area people thought they never would. The only belief I have is that with enough time and effort invested, the human mind can achieve anything.

I'm aware that many people don't understand what Five Elements are, thinking it's just a belief system. Fact is that it has been used for thousands of years, first by Chinese emperors and lately by many entrepreneurs, in Asia and western world.

I've been lucky to closely work with few great I Ching masters, they guided many successful people, helped them to overcome different issues and obstacles by giving them deep understanding of their roots.

By understanding the energy stamp which has been given to us we can develop further and faster.

We researched thousands of successful people and on ALL of them we have found a certain element combination which helped them to thrive. But self-drive was still the key to unlock that potential.

I don't think the original question was about "With enough drive, can we overcome any challenge regardless of talent?"

I would say the answer to that is an undeniable yes. Enough evidence of that around us, and throughout time.

But the question was: Is drive *more important* than talent. I think most answers have skipped this. And I haven't seen any evidence of one being more important than the other. So, why not split the difference? Call it 50-50?

Unless of course, there is specific evidence :)

Believing is an important key to success, whilst there is no scientific proof of using I Ching, it is still new to the West. However like all pioneers, one has to boldly go..and trust we won't fall off the edge. That requires a degree of bravery, self discipline, breaking the mold, and never giving up.. all traits required to succeed. With respect, destiny is not fixed, it is flexible,we live in a free will universe, we co-create. I think that if we know our strengths and our challenges we can make our journey smoother, shortcut, by passing major problems through being forewarned and having an understanding of our weak areas, work on those to reduce the negative effects, leaving us more time to for recreating and developing our abilities.

Dear all,

My opinion in short terms is that talent exists. You can "see" it in any aspect of the individual that has it. But nothing good can comes out solely from talent. Drive is the most important thing for someone to improve, to progress, to finally reach his limits and find success in the area he works for.

Talent can only give you a head start. Nothing more...Everything else has to be earned, you have to work for them, you have to constantly train yourself, to never ever settle back relying only on talent. Otherwise the only thing I believe will happen is...failure.

To conlcude i think this great topic can be answered by one of the greatest talents in sports..

youtube.com

That was all from me..Hello from Athens, Greece!