Raw Talent vs. Learned Skill

Ignore the previous post;

While this IS an ongoing topic here across many threads (found with the "search" button), the most recent one seems to have been locked. No bringing that one back from the dead.

I had to keyword search for talent and teach... I don't think a single word search will do...

And the one I found was the one I remembered, bcs it was a pretty lengthy discussion, getting into the types of writing (which some felt made a difference) and various other intangibles.

Me, I stay away from numbers. That's why I was a liberal arts major.

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

I do think some skills come more easily to some people than others; I can read very quickly, and I have a good memory, so there are definitely some skills that were pretty easy for me to learn thanks to those abilities.

I'm with IceCreamEmpress.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

Herbie Hancock (a giant of jazz) made his debut playing Mozart at a a youth concert with he Chicago Symphony at age eleven.

There are writers (Roald Dahl comes to mind) whose first attempts at writing fiction are as brilliant and polished as most writers after twenty years of work. One can certainly achieve success through hard work and practice, but the idea that innate talent doesn't exist does not gibe with reality

I think the difference comes down to the facets of writing. Storytelling is something that is more in the area of raw talent. I would think it to be hard to teach someone to be creatively minded. The actual process and mechanics of writing, however, would definitely be a learned skill that can be honed and refined.

rugcat said:

Herbie Hancock (a giant of jazz) made his debut playing Mozart at a a youth concert with the Chicago Symphony at age eleven.

Click to expand...

After several years of piano lessons.

Yes, Hancock is extraordinarily gifted and was able to learn in five years what many people can't learn in twenty or more years of study, but he had to do the work to learn the skills of piano performance and technique.

There are writers (Roald Dahl comes to mind) whose first attempts at writing fiction are as brilliant and polished as most writers after twenty years of work.

Click to expand...

Dahl first achieved success with war memoirs. In his own autobiography, he says that the time he spent writing reports for Shell helped him learn how to capture the essentials concisely.

So I don't think either of these are examples that challenge my point--some people learn skills a lot more quickly than others, but they still need to learn the skills.

Hmm. Let's talk about this before we get into too much "thread drift."

There are people who are born with superior natural abilities in certain areas. For those people, performing tasks or thinking; reasoning or high-level stuff is just easier. If we go with that theory, then we can believe that "natural talent" is simply a product of genes. But it's not.

You have to have that genetic makeup AND have had a nurturing, supportive environment to grow that talent within before it becomes truly "natural." Writing, especially. No one knows their language or how to write things when they are born. There's nothing natural about that. Both are a learned skill. Some will leanrn them faster than others. Some will grow them faster than others. Genes and environment.

To be more clear, by "nuturing and supportive," I don't mean having a mother or father figure to hold your hand; or someone to tell you it's going to be OK when you skin your knee. It is some of that. However, really, "nuture and support" is more about access to money, resources and time to exercise what is genetically latent. And there are NO overnight success stories, period.

That said, all that is about 15-20 percent.

Another 40 percent percent is coaching, planning, and discipline. Excuse the analogy, but even John Holmes/Peter North/Jenna Jameson had to have a forum in which to exercise their given, umm, talents and natural gifts. As a more social comparison, Michael Jordan lost big for his first few years as a Chicago Bull. Other athletes have as well. More directly in context, how many brilliant recognized writers ate Top Ramen and mac-n-cheese until they "made it big?" Almost all of them, save the Norman Mailers of the world. So, there is something to be said for honing talent, being in the right place to exercise the talent and exercising it in that fashion over and over again.

Finally, the final 40 percent has nothing to do with either. It's about relationships and who you know. Don't believe me? Go publish yourself and see how many copies render themselves to readers without marketing or help from people who market/distribute. There's a huge chain of custody on that "raw talent" and honing of skills that starts with you but ends with the reader. And in between, there may be as many as 100-200 people who bring your book, poem or other tome to live.

Similarly, to use a military analogy, a pilot flies the jet fighter. However, there are a dozen mechanics who ensure it gets off the ground. There are cooks who feed the pilot. There are personnel people who process paperwork for the pilot to ensure he can go fly ontime and without hassle. There are doctors and nurses who keep the pilot healthy. The pilot can't drop bombs unless someone pulls them out of the bunker and loads them. You get the idea. The flight doesn't take place without the work of at least 200 to 300 people to get him in the air.

Dismiss any of these and you'll be missing the big picture -- it's balance of all these things that makes any vocation or venture a success.

Some people are born beautiful, other people are born ugly, and some people are born somewhere in between.

Ugly people will be ugly no matter what.
Beautiful people can try to make themselves more beautiful.
Average janes/joes can get cosmetic surgery. Yes, it's a lengthy process but maybe with a little luck, you can be more beautiful than a naturally beautiful person.

If that makes any sense.

A bizarre analogy.

I can only speak for myself. I have always had a "thing" for language. I spoke early and learned to read precociously early. Because I enjoyed it, I read and wrote a lot for pleasure.

Any innate "talent" I had was nurtured through constant learning, reading and writing. We do more of what we enjoy and tend to excel at it naturally. Now, I'm a naturally good speller and have an ear for grammar. I believe both were there in me from the beginning, but I developed them over time through my interests in reading and writing.

IceCreamEmpress said:

After several years of piano lessons.

Click to expand...

Yes, he started at age seven. Most kids will who start at seven will not end up playing with the Chicago symphony four years later.

Dahl first achieved success with war memoirs. In his own autobiography, he says that the time he spent writing reports for Shell helped him learn how to capture the essentials concisely.

So I don't think either of these are examples that challenge my point--some people learn skills a lot more quickly than others, but they still need to learn the skills.

Click to expand...

But you didn't say that people need to learn skills, which I agree with. You said, "I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent." This view specifically states that there is no such thing as natural talent. I submit that this view is untenable given the numerous examples one can find demonstrating the opposite.

Mozart had all the talent in the world. But if he hadn't studied music, practiced the piano, etc. etc. all the talent in the world would have him end up with zero. Tiger Wood wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't played golf, and played it hard, for years.

That said, some people are simply tone-deaf. All the practice and learning in the world is not going to change that.

I think it's a combination of both. Talent makes it easier, but practice is what makes one really good.


Talent + hard work = GREAT.


Not everyone is created equal. Accept that truth. The world just isn't fair when genetics are concerned. But everyone can apply themselves as diligently as they can -- that's what they can control.

Well, sure some people have a natural talent for things. Just like others may never have any talent in certain areas.

I've seen artists work for years, practicing every day, studying all the things they need to be studying and yet they don't get any better. At. All.

Others improve every time and seem to have an innate understanding of their craft.

It's more than a question of mere practice or education. And writing stories may be a skill but it is not something that just anyone can do. To me that implies something else is involved (which most would call natural talent.)

That doesn't mean that the first piece played on the piano, the first paint laid on the canvas or the first words placed on the page are going to be perfect. But some people are just better at certain things, regardless of practice.

Of course, hard work helps all of us improve no matter what. So I don't dismiss "learned craft". I just don't think it will ever be a case of all one or the other.

I think that it's largely a matter of both. Skills must be learned. You must learn how to write in the first place. You must learn grammar and punctuation and gain an understanding of basic story structure (often by reading lots of stories). But in the end it's not just a matter of mimicking what you've read. It's also a matter of being able to write something new and that is where I think raw talent comes in. It's the difference between the musician who can learn to play any tune they've heard from a technical standpoint but who lacks the ability to do more, and the musican who can write their own music and infuse their own personality into everything they play. People can learn to become decent writers of average stories. They can't learn originality and imagination, which are the things that tend to make the great writers truly great.

If you consider the research, you'll likely find that most experts consider the contribution of innate and environmental influences on creativity and intelligence to be around 50%, and those are interactive influence rather than additive ones, which means that the two cannot exist without the other. For anyone really interested in this topic, you may want to check out R. Keith Sawyer's (2006) "Explaining Creativity" and Carol Dweck's (2007) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. In a nutshell, one characteristic that stands out as contributing to creativity and success more than anything else is...hard work. (We can add persistent to that equation as well.)

I can't tell you how many books by "talented" authors I've read that were truly terrible. Any avid reader probably has had similar experiences. My hunch is that they're still talented but were resting on their laurels rather than working hard to create a good book.

maestrowork said:

Mozart had all the talent in the world. But if he hadn't studied music, practiced the piano, etc. etc. all the talent in the world would have him end up with zero. Tiger Wood wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't played golf, and played it hard, for years.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree once again, but Mozart is a particularly inapt example.

His father taught him the basics early, but at age five he was already composing little pieces. He learned violin on his own. He was a child prodigy, with an innate gift for music almost unparalleled.

There is a famous story about his hearing a public performance, and then going home and writing down the entire piece from memory, with only a few minor errors. This is not something that the average musician could ever do, no matter how many years of study and work he or she put in.

It's true that if Mozart had never studied any music and spent all his time drinking in bars, he would probably never have reached the heights that he did. But the single most important thing he had was his overwhelming musical gift -- he was born with it; it's not anything that he acquired through hard work and dedication. And without that gift, all the hard work in the world would not have made him anything more than a competent musician.

On a more mundane level, one needs at least some creative talent to achieve anything. Those with less have to work harder; those with more often aren't as good because they don't want to put in the work. But those with none at all cannot make up for it simply by hard work.

With a lot of talent and a minimum of work, you can get pretty good at something. With a minor talent and a lot of work, you can get very good at something.

But without that spark of genius, you'll never become great. We can disagree as to the relative importance of talent vs work and training, but the idea that natural talent does not exist or that it plays at most a minor role is something I just can't see.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

I do think some skills come more easily to some people than others; I can read very quickly, and I have a good memory, so there are definitely some skills that were pretty easy for me to learn thanks to those abilities.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Wholeheartedly disagree. I've hung out with artists and musicians and actors and I can say, 100% sure, that there such thing as raw talent. Some of the things these people do, without any training, is AMAZING. And they're not even savants.

Same goes with writing. Learning and practice can get you pretty far. But I have to admit, I don't have the Michael Chabon's talent.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

Click to expand...

Didn't Mozart write his first concerto at 5? Hardly learned.

I believe raw talent is what you need to learn how to write.

rugcat said:

It's true that if Mozart had never studied any music and spent all his time drinking in bars, he would probably never have reached the heights that he did. But the single most important thing he had was his overwhelming musical gift -- he was born with it; it's not anything that he acquired through hard work and dedication. And without that gift, all the hard work in the world would not have made him anything more than a competent musician.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. I already said talent + hard work = GREAT. And all the hard-work in the world can't make a tone-deaf person a musical genius. Mozart had both. But one could still become very good, excellent even, composer without Mozart's unparalleled gift.

Still, Mozart also had the passion for it. He worked hard because that's what he liked. He could have been many other things. Many people are good at different things, but they hardly spend enough time or effort honing those talent/skills. Mozart, on the other, devoted his whole life to music. He could have been writing poetry if he wanted to. So again, Talent + hard work = GREAT. I don't really think you can have "greatness" without either.

I couldn't possibly say with any degree of certainty, and it's my opinion that no one can. I do know that a vast majority of successful authors are people who woke up one morning deciding they wanted to write a book. But a lot of successful bestselling published authors, in my opinion, suck a can of tuna.

I think there is always room to improve. I've wanted to write since I was a little bitty second grader, and I can tell you that I wasn't born just able to write. This is back when I still thought there was an "f" in "phone." But I've always wanted to learn, and as the years passed I let it snowball. At the end of the day, doubts and all, I am happy with my writing and believe I'm doing what I was meant to do.. I think any aspiring author should maintain confidence in his/her self while at the same time be humble and accept that there is always room to improve.

</tirade>

But there have been many authors who truly stood out to me as passionate, dedicated, talented people who live their LIVES as writers. Who see the world as writers. Who have a true gift for words. These are the kinds of writers I enjoy, and I believe it's their perspective of the world that makes their writing so astounding, not simply their ability to write. So in this sense I do believe it's internal, it's something inside of a person that can't be taught.

Though I do think even those talented writers I just mentioned had to hone their craft. I think everyone could benefit from a few writing workshops and peer edits.

This probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and by no means should it be regarded as THE opinion. It's just mine.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

I do think some skills come more easily to some people than others; I can read very quickly, and I have a good memory, so there are definitely some skills that were pretty easy for me to learn thanks to those abilities.

Click to expand...

dawinsor said:

I'm with IceCreamEmpress.

Click to expand...

Me too.

maestrowork said:

Talent + hard work = GREAT. I don't really think you can have "greatness" without either.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. The difference is that if you have the talent, you can make a conscious decision whether to put in the necessary work. But you can't decide to have the talent.

And that's why so many people are appalled by the idea of innate talent. If true, it means that however hard they work, they'll never achieve greatness. And that's unacceptable to them.

Maybe it's because I'm older now. When I was young, I aspired to greatness. When I realized, after many years, that although I may have some minor degree of talent, I was never going to be Mozart or John Coltrane or Charles Dickens, it was a bitter realization.

Now I'm happy to just do the best I can. You can have a lot of fun in creative pursuits once the burden of potential greatness is lifted from your shoulders.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I don't believe in the idea of "raw talent" at all, so I'd say "zero percent."

I do think some skills come more easily to some people than others; I can read very quickly, and I have a good memory, so there are definitely some skills that were pretty easy for me to learn thanks to those abilities.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Everything improves with practice (unless you're doing it wrong, or just overthinking). The starting point might be a few inches different from one person to the next, and some people move faster than others, but where there is a will, there is a way.

(Geez, I haven't said that since I was eight...or since I hit "submit" on my Common Application last December )