Is talent a MYTH?

[xXguitarsenXx]

I just saw "Talent is a myth", from the life purpose course. It says that you can become world class at anything if you want it enough. But is talent really a myth? 

I'm not doubting that practice is really important and that you can't thrive on talent alone.

But aren't we supposed to choose our career based on both our passsions and our strenghts? Why else does the life purpose course have an entire section called "Strenghts assessment"?

So shouldn't I try to find a life purpose that involves anatlytical thinking and organization, if that's what i'm good at? 

So basically i'm assuming that some people could become world class musicians, while other people could become world class teachers, and if they tried each others fields then they wouldn't get as much success. Off course they still need their 10000 hours deliberate practice, but some would benefit more from it if it alligns with their unique gifts. Am i wrong? 

[BjarkeT]

I don't think anyone have an unique gift it's just that they started earlier and might have used better learning methods than some others at least that what i understand from books on deliberate pratice and cognitive science on learning

Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise 

The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How.

Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

these books should talk about the idea

the real gift we have is adaptability acording to peak

so it make sense that anyone can get equal amount out of any career but it also mean they at least have to do the same amount of actions as the other person (or equal effective actions)

Edited December 3, 2017 by BjarkeT

[xXguitarsenXx]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/practice-alone-does-not-make-perfect-studies-find/

 

But science also says that deliberate practice isn't everything.

I also know a girl from school who just can't think in logic, no matter how much she tries. But for me it has always been easy. People are different, So wouldn't it make sense that they can become better at different things? I mean we aren't all the same. Some people have a higher IQ, wouldn't it then be easier for them to become a Neuroscientist, than for someone with a low IQ? I think the one with the low IQ has to work harder. 

[BjarkeT]

I don't mean to be rude but thats why i said "i don't think anyone have an unique gift it's just that they "started earlier" and might have used better "learning methods" than some others at least that what i understand from books on deliberate pratice and cognitive science on learning" I don't think you need to be special in any way to be able to do something it really comes down to how you do it none of the books mentioned seems to support the idea that you need a special gift in order to learn something(except adaptability which seems like something everyone have)

The books doesn't seem to mention the idea of iq should play a role either 

I recommend reading the books for more details or interviews with the authors

Edited December 3, 2017 by BjarkeT

[xXguitarsenXx]

Just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing:

I think that almost anyone can become good at all skills.

For example i believe that almost anyone can become a good mathematician, if they just want it enough and practice correctly. But i still think that if two people were given the same amount of correct effective practice, then one of them would become better. Because there is other factors involved such as Working memory, IQ, Past knowledge and how their brain is wired. Not everyone's brain is wired the same way. Leo also said in a video that everybody's brain is wired differently. So if people are so different, why then assume that they reach the same level of expertice with a given amount of correct effective practice? I think everyone can become great, but some people can become greater. 

[BjarkeT]

I think it make sense that if everyone used the same learning method, time and learned under the same circumstances(for example free of distractions) the chance of getting the same results would be really high(also that they are at the same level in the field it would be unfair to take a completely new person in the field against an expert) i agree that somebody who have had more effective experience in the field would probably do better than someone who hasn't but I don't think that limits the other person to have the same results if the person use similar methods 

Edited December 3, 2017 by BjarkeT

[xXguitarsenXx]

So you say that things like IQ, Our brain wiring and other personality traits doesn't  affect our ability to learn something? So everybody is 100% able to master the same level of expertise in a given field? What about high responders to running? What about runners who don't have legs, can they reach the same mastery as people with legs? Can someone with lung disease and really small lungs become a opera singer? And can she sing as good as people with healthy big lungs? 

And how would you then explain that he includes a "strenght assessment"? Why would he do that if our current strenghts doesn't matter?

[BjarkeT]

There is a difference between limits with the mind and limits with the body I haven't taken the life purpose course i just mentioned the things i have been learning on my own releated to learning and expertise the only place where there is a difference in learning really seems to be with the body not with the mind for example in basketball i have heard being tall matters and it's not something you just can fix like that (if you even have self control over it) thats the only place i have found limits plays a role

it also seems un fair to compeare someone with legs with someone who doesn't (or vice versa) in a sport that require legs

the body should be the only place where there is a limited in learning and the author of peak seems to agree with this(in fact thats why I mentioned and think it my self)

And the reason why i think that about iq is because none of the books seems to support it in terms of what matters for expertise plus there is a whole book about intense focus called deep work that also argues that focus is the new iq and that focus is really a skill(read the book for more details)

stephen hawking is probably one of the best in hes field and he can't even move most of hes body i think thats a good example that the body doesn't set limits for what the mind can do but it does set limits for whats the body can do 

btw if you already are in a field thats about whats you are good at i recommend to go with it but for other reasons which is mostly based on so good they can't ignore you(a book thats about the idea thats it first when you become really really good is that where you will have passion and the best chance is to go with something you already are good at because if you divide your attention to many things you minimize the time you have to get so good they can't ignore you in one field or the field that matters to you)

Edited December 3, 2017 by BjarkeT

[xXguitarsenXx]

But that doesn't make sense. You are both saying that we can become equally good at anything, but you also say that we should do something we are good at, because you read "So good they can't ignore you". If it is true we can become equally good at anything and we have 5 year skill in something and we have a 40 year career in front of us, then the only difference will be 40 for new career choice or 45 for the thing where we have 5 years skill. So in that case it is 5 years better? Is that what you mean? Because in that case it could make sense to switch if you like the other job more. Because it's only 5 years less skill, because all other factors like how it suits your strenghts doesn't matter. 

[BjarkeT]

Yes one can become equally good at the career you chose but if you want to be so good they can't ignore you the best chance is to stick with something you are already good at because it will take longer if you divide your attention to many things as i said before

you can still switch career if you want to but it might take some time to get as good as your other career and longer to be so good they can't ignore you what i mean by you can get equally good at any career is not that you can become an expert in as many fields as you want but in what ever field you chose you should still be able to become an expert in many fields but it's probably limited due to how long it takes

thats right about more or less 5 years but there are some other advantages with staying longer with one career there might be a better chance to have a bigger impact but it is also important it is with something you are really interested in(if you are not interested in it it might be better to do something else you are interested in and get really good at that) i recomend reading the book if you need more clarification there is probably some good information in the life purpose course too but I haven't taken it my self yet so i am not sure what content it has but i guess it's really good like leos other content 

Edited December 3, 2017 by BjarkeT

[pluto]

Anything another can do, you can do too if you really wanted to. You all come and are of the same source.

[Joseph Maynor]

Yes and no.  But even people who have the seeds of talent don't nurture them well and they don't grow well.

Even if someone doesn't have a talent, if their work-ethic and passion is there they can still become great.

The best strategy is if you find a talent, also work it hard.  

Never let the limiting-belief of not having a talent hold you back.

If you do find a talent, nurture it.  If you don't find a talent, forget about finding one and create one instead. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[xXguitarsenXx]

I also believe that it's about talent + working hard. 

[Nahm]

@xXguitarsenXx read Outliers. ❤️ And talent, like everything, exists and does not.