Talent - A Real Gift, or Fiction?

[Animew]

I'm not going to bother responding on the science vs. belief track because I'm just going to make myself angry and derail the thread further.

give in to your anger young skywalker, make rage your weapon and face me!

do you still think talent isn't a real thing?

yes. because eveyone knows how you like making random things and sand alligators are random things. hence! through a long history of random things crafted you are good at crafting random things.
BAM! where is your science god now?

that is a really awesome sand gator by the way, the osteoderms are particularly well made and visually pleasing.

[ArtyLoop]

I really don't know what to say mewwie.
Its hard, its nice to give into the label of "you're talented" but in reality I didn't plan for this to happen. I just picked up my mouse in 2008 or somewhere and decided to try and draw because I had a boss breathing down my neck for a user manual. It was spontaneous. My art pales in comparison to many, some think its crap, and that's OK, its not a profession, I do it for fun XD.
I keep learning, and every day I draw its like I am doing something new, a new technique, a bit more deeper into the software I use, etc..

[ArtyLoop]

Source

Well in my opinion, talent is mainly just an excuse be lazy about learning, as in "yeah they are talented and I am not, so why should I even try". But I think that what talent really is is just an imaginary concept as a coping mechanism, to deal with skill. This means that if I am good at drawing, there's no legacy or supernatural thing that makes me able to do that. It's just learning, to acquire said skill.
And this is good! Because it means that if you practise enough and are eager to learn, you can become just as good as the people you call "talented". If you keep attributing skill to a thing that is out of your influence, and assume that you are not as talented, your learning will suffer. Because your confidence will go down. So even if talent somehow exists, its just healthier to pretend it doesn't.

Judge for yourself...

[Shadowfox]

I believe talent is real but needs to be constantly developed to reach it's full potential.

My artistic talents are extremely limited I stick to stick figures and dirty limericks.

[ArtyLoop]

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Why do people have this idea that because someone can practice and work hard and improve that that means talent doesn't exist or matter? Talent is people having natural abilities that just simply make them better than other people. I'm sure we all know stuff that we're just bad at, so why would you not think there are things we are just good at? Talent can come from many things. A talent for sports could come from better physical genetics. Someone could have a talent for something due to a high IQ. Those bonuses can can come from all sorts of things.

People can obviously practice and work hard and improve but so can someone who is talented. The difference is that you can not build the advantages that someone gets from talent by just working harder. You can maybe overtake them if they do nothing but if you work as hard as someone who is talented then the talented person will do better. In some cases this is obvious. Take absolute pitch for example. That is the ability to recognise a note played in isolation. Only 1 in 10 000 people can do that. You can't learn that or get that ability from hard work. Either you have it or you don't and if you're doing music that can give you an advantage.

Secretariat is considered to be one of the greatest athletes of all time. Watch his 1973 performance at the Belmont Stakes at 5:54 below. He won by 25-31 lengths (video and Wikipedia disagree) and set a record that still stands today.



He wasn't competing against horses that weren't trained or working hard. He was competing against the best equine athletes of the day and made them look like they were standing still. At that point they have reached the limit that they can train for and Secretariat is just far beyond that. This is theorised to be due to the size of his heart which was 2,5 times bigger than the average horse. It makes sense, a stronger heart pumps blood more efficiently which is what you need to perform well. As you exercise it gets stronger but if one horse has a much bigger heart then there's nothing you can do about that.

These sort of advantages seem to play a part in humans too. Look at the graph below from this paper: Limits on the Predictive Power of Domain-Specific Experience and Knowledge in Skilled Performance

This shows pianists' performance at sight-reading (y axis) versus their working memory capacity (x axis). Furthermore the red line shows pianists with a lot of practice and the blue line shows pianists with little practice. The first thing to note is that, as expected, practice greatly improves the pianists performance, i.e. the red line is above the blue line. What is also shows is that no matter if you look at the high practice or low practice group, greater working memory capacity (basically talent) equates to a better performance. Practising improves skill but talent and practice is still better. That won't necessary always apply everywhere, the authors mention if you've mastered the piece then working memory will probably not play any role at all and only practice would matter, but those are in specific situations.

[ArtyLoop]

[Rakuen Growlithe]

So you practised drawing and got better at it... quod erat demonstrandum..?

Seriously though, what is that meant to prove? Either that you are talented at drawing, which supports my point, or that practising makes you better, which everyone agrees on.

[ArtyLoop]

Context:

I was raised, forced to follow engineering because, as I quote from my dear mother:

(THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE - IT IS CONTRARY TO MY VIEWS)

"No no no, you will do electronic engineering because we don't want you to end up like all those gay artists who are sinning, and will go straight to hell"
* followed by being smacked on my arse with a belt*

In April 2008 I found myself working at a sweatshop manufacturing concern and the customer base was idiots in general i.e. semi-skilled workers. I had to do an instruction manual, with pretty pictures for these people, and that's where I picked up Corel Draw and drew.. I really struggled at first but it came to me... But yeah I did all the manuals after a period of 2 years, for every single piece of crap they manufactured. When I left, they lost the ability to do said manuals, pretty much a shame.

Until I had my nervous breakdown in 2016, I didn't draw unless required or to do stuff... which was not a frequent occurrence. So practice, was pretty much zero.

After I had the breakdown I decided to change my life around and focus on things that make me happy. Still, no drawing, until Electrocat got hold of me one day and showed me I could do it. She showed me ONE TECHNIQUE, that's all, just one of the techniques she uses... and from then on, I have been able to pull this off.. Fast forward to late last year I decided its time to quit working at home too, and I pick up the mouse and fire up Corel Draw, the rest is history.

I get very little practice, because I don't have time, but the practice there to draw Judy Hopps, was less than 5 attempts I promise. If you go look on my DeviantArt page, you'll see the prior attempts from Sunday. She appears on one sheet of paper from last night which I ain't gonna upload because there's NSFW stuff on that sheet. I was attempting to draw the female genitalia for the cover of Charmurr.

So, aside from pornography, I have decided I can make money from this, indeed I am apparently good enough that I have a few furs asking me for commissions. So what the hell hey, if I can pick it up this quickly without any learning, or even moderate levels of practice, then guess what will happen if I make a full go for it? Pretty much what happened to Carrot. Although I don't always agree with Animew's views, I think he is right on this subject.

So yes, this is my new reality, and by the way, I am working at getting my game up on paper, because the drawing tablet is on its way and I need to be ready!

[Leeward]

I still don't see how that means you're not talented and it all comes down to acquired skill. You haven't exactly been practising for that long yet. In fact from what you're saying I can only conclude the exact opposite, namely that you have a natural affinity for drawing. Some people will never go beyond stick figures no matter how much they practice; case in point: xkcd.

[ArtyLoop]

[Cape_F0X]

I'd like to contest point number 4. Everyone knows friendships is magic.

[ArtyLoop]

[YoteFox]

Talent is real... But it only gets you that far until actual skill is needed.

I see talent as an advantage some have over others, where your talent can help but at the end of the day your abilities shouldn't just be limited to your talents. You shouldn't measure a person by their talents more by their dedication to the craft at hand.

I mean, In Zootopia anyone can be anything!

[ArtyLoop]

After much thought I am going to give my own experience here.
Art is a lot like learning to play a guitar.
I suck at it, I suck so badly at it, I gave it up, years ago. 6 months of effort and nothing to show for it. So, ergo, I have no advantage in that department. It is just simply too hard for me to grasp.

In art, drawing, I have some advantage. It doesn't qualify as being called talent, it is there nonetheless. I find drawing things easy, the more I do it the easier it gets.
Drawing anthropomorphic animals is a relatively new thing for me, and yes I have to learn how. At least with art, progress is made, unlike with guitar which makes me want to rage-quit, or become like this guy:

[Leeward]

And even that guy eventually finished the song.

[Animew]

hmm? this thread is still going?
cool!

Talent is people having natural abilities that just simply make them better than other people.

WOW! just... wow... you go little Hitler, teach them jews the meaning of racial superiority!

This shows pianists' performance at sight-reading (y axis) versus their working memory capacity (x axis).

nooo firedog these are physical constraints and not talents. or are people in wheelchairs just not very talented at walking?

two normal healthy human subjects have equal chances at being good at any given thing. interests however can cause these two humans to develop skills in unique manners and hence create the illusion of talent. if a subject has an interest in a given talent like say drawing it is easier for that subject to practice said activity since he is less likely to get bored or discouraged during the course of the activity. a higher rate of repetition in said activity will obviously make them more skilled. it is far more likely for interest in any given activity to be responsible for differences in apparent aptitude for those activities than some mythological force known as talent.

[ArtyLoop]

its all about interest indeed.
I got bored with guitar because, its too much upfront effort to get anything meaningful out of it, and what for, busted fingers and carpal tunnel?
With art, the result is immediate, its lines and curves on paper, so you kind of see if you're going right or wrong.
Also to be honest, I get frustrated, I am frustrated right now because I cannot get it right to rotate the head of my character Travis, to look at the viewer, while keeping the facial expression intact. I tried several times and he ends up looking like a fucking bear, even at one point looking like one of those Gummi Bears.

But tomorrow is another day, I will try again. Time for a bit of alcohol, some tunes, and my bed.

EDIT:
I am going to take a suggestion given to me by Trace to heart. I am going to make a spread of my art from December 2017 through to December 2018 so we can measure the rate of improvement. I think that would be fairly good and able to stand up to scrutiny. Then we can ask Rakuen for his input on this and see what we can conclude.

[Faanvolla]

One person does not make a conclusive study, and I still don't see what it would prove anyway.
if you practise you get better, so, if you do art consistently for a year, (looking to improve and fix mistakes you make), you'd be better by the end.

You'd probably have to raise X amount of people from birth in separate but exact (exact exact ) identical upbringings (StarWars ep2 like, minus the cloning) and then have them complete various tasks at the same time. Since that removes every variable except possible natural talent, it would be the only way I see to legit study this. Also highly unethical and morally wrong imo.


Also animew, you either have a talent for taking things as out of context as you can to make it into a troll'y post, or you've got so much practice you've become great at it

[Cape_F0X]

Also animew, you either have a talent for taking things as out of context as you can to make it into a troll'y post, or you've got so much practice you've become great at it

[Ivic_Wulfe]

I'm going to hop in here. In sports the idea of talent is also something to look at. Many sport scientists have studied how or why certain players are 'just better' than their counterparts. Why someone like Federer could have a resurgence in the twilight of his career. There's a psychological element beyond training that allows you to be better than the 'limitations of your body'. People actually talk about the idea that if you look at other extremely talented sports stars they talk about being good at other sports too. But talent scouts exist for that reason. Tom Brady is also in this list, at 40 the man is still winning Super Bowls. Jacques Kallis and Sachin Tendulkar are also examples of this.

It isn't to say they didn't practice and were just good, but they had something that did put them head and shoulders above many other players. Art being subjective makes it a little more difficult to gauge whether a person is talented or not. Same with writing since both are aesthetically judged. Improvement CAN be seen with practice. However, in one interview that we'd had with Kenket, even though her art was ALREADY really good she felt there was room for improvement. (Much like the sports stars I talked about)

So, while talent can play a large role in enhancing a skill the person is interested in, the talent itself does give a gentle nudge to just 'be better'.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer all extremely talented in their own right but Federer, even when he loses gets spoken of in completely different terms. There's a natural ability to read how someone will play that he picks up to be able to win points even when he's being brute forced out of them. He makes tennis an art show with the court as his canvas (note: commentators have said this before).

It's like choosing an RPG character, there are particular base stats that are just inherently higher. But if you don't use them then they waste away in some senses and since we're in the day and age where we 'choose' our career paths earlier and earlier, sometimes we miss the ability itself. Which of course isn't to say that we had them to begin with.

I love cricket. When I was a kid, I used to go to our nets and just bowl every weekend, alone. I'd spend 3-4 hours doing this. Trying new things and working really hard at it. I never made it past B team. Same with rugby, never missed a practice. Went to referee, I was alright, but I was never Jaco Peyper. Tennis, Squash, the same stuff applied. I'd never be good enough to get to the top. No matter how much time I'd put into it. However as a kid I always thought I'd be good as a teacher and this is where I am. If I give a presentation where other lecturers are present they always ask me if they could join my classes.

So, in summary, base stats are a little bit higher but by no means the ONLY factor that contributes to whether someone will be good at something.

[Animew]

it would be the only way I see to legit study this.

IKR, science is always held back by this so called morality thing.
also we'd have to understand interest more before we could study its affects on learning.

Also animew, you either have a talent for taking things as out of context as you can to make it into a troll'y post, or you've got so much practice you've become great at it

TwT but he didn't respond... and i even called him little Hitler! i feel so lonely now.

It isn't to say they didn't practice and were just good

so we are universally in agreement that practice makes you better right?

then why is it so hard to accept that its a factor that influences our success at practicing that determines our initial skill in something before we consciously set out to practicing something? <w< but nooo its easier to blame it on some invisible force right?

When I was a kid

the thing is, you tried all manner of sports... emphasis on tried. i'd still think your skill was proportional to your interest. if you absolutely LIVED cricket chances are you'd have done better competing with the kids that did live for cricket.
to use carrot as an example again: he LIVES for art OwO so me as a Hobbyist will sadly never catch up to him no matter how badly i want to catch up with him. and i mean i draw things for money so technically i do it as a profession too.
by saying its talent that makes him so good, i'd just be pussying out of the fact that he works harder at it than i do. and even if i were to take cocaine and draw for several days on end i'd still not catch up with him because his mind would be into it in a way my mind simply can't be.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

There are plenty of people that love things that they just suck at. And lots of people who can practice as much as they want but will never be good at it. If you think everyone is just as capable as everyone else at everything, you're living in a fantasy world.

[Animew]

loving something does not necessarily mean you have a great interest in preforming an action. i mean i love muscular bodies but you don't see me pumping iron.
a lot of "sucking at something" is all in someones mind. unless you are just physically incapable of doing something. but again physical constraints have nothing to do with talent. when comparing two equally healthy minds the most pronounced difference is interests. why make up some mystical force for something adequately explained by a thing that is concrete and factual?

you're living in a fantasy world.

UwU/ not my fault your world sucks.

[ArtyLoop]

Sucking at something is good....
Sucking at it hard enough until you succeed is legend...

[Cape_F0X]

Sucking at something is good....
Sucking at it hard enough until you succeed is legend...

Gross!

[ArtyLoop]

Sucking at something is good....
Sucking at it hard enough until you succeed is legend...

Gross!

Mmm and where is your mind today?

[Cape_F0X]

It isn't me! Your second sentence assured it would be taken that way. If you replace Sucking with Trying or Attempting it wouldn't be dirty.

[Animew]

if you are not sucking to suck seed you might as well not be sucking.

[Leeward]