I've always thought of talent as being a very strong passion for doing something and getting the desired result. Some people are born with a stronger passion than others; particularly prodigies.
Talent is also a task that is easy for you to learn in a short period of time. I agree that once you have a positive drive, you will be willing to spend years performing certain tasks. For someone who has severe ADHD and an additional illness at the same time, learning and performing a task in a short period of time is vital to survival in competitive environment.
Have said this countless times, and I'm glad I ran into this video today because to me people that are thought to be talented are people who work so hard when no one is looking at them. Thanks for inspiring
No disrespect, but I disagree. I believe passion only motivates one to do something, but it doesn't determine how easily one understands said thing or how much potential one has. One can have passion for something, but be very poor at it even after doing it for a while. Likewise, someone could care little about something and even despise it, but easily surpass everyone else. For example, a person can be taught many hours on how to sing, and they may get better at it, but if they have a bad voice, they will never be as good as someone who has a pleasant one. If you watch shows like American Idol, you would see many who are passionate about singing, and want to be good singers, but only a few are able to do that. My friend and I took the same math class and put in pretty much the same amount of time in practicing, and I even had a tutor, but I got a D and he got an A. Will a 4 foot tall guy ever be able to play basketball as good as a guy who is 6 foot 9? Can someone learn to be a savant? I don't believe that one should let talent alone determine whether to pursue something, but to say that it isn't true that some people will have an easier time and have a higher potential just to motivate them is lying.
No disrespect, but I also disagree with you. :) Here is why. I think a lot of people confuse talent with predisposition. Or should I say, talent is just a set of predispositions. A tall person will logically have an advantage over a short person in any activity or task that requires height. That's not talent. That is just a predispositions that will potentially lead him to become a great basketball player. But besides height he will need A LOT of practice, mental and physical strength, motivation, luck to even get recognised, luck not get injured, and even the luck to be born in the right time and a right place. When we talk about a young talented person, the single thing that will separate him from other is actually his mental state and the ability to focus, which is not a common behaviour at young age. The other thing that makes a concept of talent questionable is that it's considered that a talent is something you were born with. But somehow it works even if the field you're talented in doesn't exist yet? For example, LL Cool J is a talented old school rapper, but he was born way before rap as a vocal and lyrical style was even invented. How could you have an inborn skill for something that doesn't exist? I just cant wrap my head around it. Although I know the idea of talent is really romantic concept, in my opinion, it's a made-belief. I can't say why is it that way, but usually when I come across a concept that I can't really justify and is old enough in a way that nobody even really questions it anymore, I assume it was create by some group of (evil) people to gain advantage or control over another group of people. In this case, the talent was invented to discourage the unwanted competition.
@@musicNix12345 I beg your pardon, but I am confused. The dictionary I looked at says that talent means "A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment." It contains the word innate which same dictionary states as "existing naturally or by heredity rather than being learned through experience." I would say that perhaps our disagreement is simply about word meaning, but you seem to imply that the word talent is false and merely a means of control rather than an ugly truth. I do agree that success is dependent on many more things than what might be considered talent (as you said time, place, luck and more). What worth is it to be the greatest practitioner of the rapier if they live in these days when swordplay has almost no value? However, do you mean to say that people do not have innate gifts (the tendency for focus being possibly one of them)?
@@TritonsGuard Well, the purpose of dictionary is not to validate a meaning of word, but to describe a valid word. I'm saying that there is no innate gift for a particular subject. As I said, it makes no sense that a person can have an innate ability to do something that doesn't exist. As far as I'm concerned, all people are talented for something but only a few lucky ones are discovered and praised for their ability.
@@musicNix12345 First of all, I would like to thank you for keeping this civil. Not everyone would, and I appreciate that. Secondly, could you elaborate a bit about what you said of the dictionary as I do not believe I understand the point you are trying to make, nor how it effects what I said earlier? Thirdly, it sounds like you are saying that one cannot have innate gifts for a specific subject, but only for a broad spectrum of subjects. Have I misinterpreted you? Lastly, discovery by others who can talent develop is indeed essential for success for many subjects, but so is the market size for them. If one is good at something that too many people are also good at, success becomes much more difficult.
@@TritonsGuard No problem, it's just a debate :) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, related to your third point. I believe that a talent is a combination of primordial physical and mental abilities and work/training, and not innate ability to perform a specific task. In your example, I don't think your friend is more talented in math itself, but has certain traits that makes him more capable of performing better in that task, for example: he is a problem solver, has better focus, learns easily, etc. I'm not saying all people are the same or have the same potential for every task. I'm saying that people are not born with a head start for a specific task. Something like a calling or destiny. Thats crap for me. I think every person is born with a broad set of skills that can be carved into anything, but the final result will be shaped by their life, and a recognition of talent will occur only by pure luck. IMO, the talent is in the eye of the beholder, it's philosophical phenomena of human perception, rather than something that occurs by nature .
There is talent and then there is talent. There are degrees of talent. What God has given one. Mozart obviously had a special talent or gift, same with Bach. All the practice in the world won't help you to compose like that.
Etienne 777 bullshit, everyone has talent like mozart, the different is how they practice it. maybe for other people they just have to practice with their own methods their own timelines their own hardworks and their own sacrifices. all mixed up in one deep pasion
some peoples ancestors spent 1000s of years cultivating certain skills to pass on to their progeny a predisposition for particular tasks and methods that they too continue a legacy of. It is not difficult to understand that through the passage of time we are all part of one larger metaphysical being that experiences material reality a generation at a time and simultaneously with those who share our similar genes. Those who dont understand this have a propensity for rootlessness, and use phrases like "expressing myself". although when you ask these people why they express, and what exactly they are expressing, you learn that they cannot look inward enough to know what that is or why. the result (more often than not) is usually some arbitrary association with the same medias that have formed their entire personalities, or a particular experience that is close enough to the "self expression" that people will believe it, and perhaps the individual convinces themselves of the same. Talent is many things, but one thing is for sure, and that is the fact that you as an individual did not provide yourself with this vehicle that has allowed you the ability to be talented in anything. That is a simply an "individualists" (for lack of a better term) thinking error.
When someone tells you you’re good at something if you’re a kid even if you don’t like the activity you might like the attention it brings so you get better at it but it’s not really something that you chose. You are in fact really passionate about something else though. You should go with that other thing even if you’re a kid.
I disagree, tho I do understand your point and I know you are trying to say "we express ourself while painting" but I can say you can still have talent without being passionate about it, I am good at drawing but I dislike it, and I still keep improving without even trying so hard like most people do. I think we are just born like this, a natural instincts.
i believe that everyone has power, we have talent.. like mozart, the different is how they practice it. maybe for other people they just have to practice with their own methods their own timelines their own hardworks and their own sacrifices. all mixed up in one deep pasion
Being awful isn't a skill. It's not a talent. I could be a dozen times more awful if I wanted to. I just don't have the desire to do so, and I certainly haven't been cornered into being so terrible either.
