Natural Talent - Why You Are Lucky Not To Have It
There’s a great myth that naturally talented people have it easy and make it to the top. In my experience that’s mostly nonsense and having no natural talent at things actually allowed me to do better than a lot of people who had it.
Do you remember when you were growing up that there was almost always other people who seemed to pick up a subject or activity easier than you at school? They usually didn’t have any extra learning or training in whatever it was, they just seemed to have a natural affinity for it. A key motivation in life is to have competence at whatever it is that we set out to do and a lack of it leads to a lot of negative feeling. It’s embarrassing and humiliating if you end up worse than other people.
Kid’s are easily put off by poor results and they are highly motivated when they come out on, or near the top. Things that they are good at they repeat and become better at and things that they are bad at they tend to avoid, because they are painful. A virtuous, or vicious, cycle is then created, but only up until a point.
Natural talent is largely intuitive, which means that you don’t have an understanding of what causes the effects that you create. As you seek to do bigger, or better, things there comes a point when your natural ability proves insufficient. It’s at this point that natural talent often becomes a curse.
If you have never had to study and understand something thoroughly, then when the obligation comes to do it in order to progress you will feel enormous frustration. It’s almost like having to learn to walk all over again and this time to do it consciously. It totally undermines your prior confidence and if you’ve never struggled or persisted to get results previously and now have to do so then that’s a big smack in the face. In these circumstances, most people will give up.
It’s at this point that a battler gets the edge. Someone who remains involved in an activity, despite not having natural talent and through interest and enjoyment alone will almost always do better in the long-term. Such a person must study and persist to advance. Through studying the fundamentals of theory and cause and effect, a person can develop understanding of the whole process.
It is understanding that really creates competence and hence confidence. It is understanding that allows a person to conceive of advances and developments that have not yet been achieved, but that might be possible. It is understanding that allows a person to experiment and take risks confidently, because the effort is based upon sound principles and not upon lucky flukes.
I am person with very little intuitive ability. I mean, really, everything has to be explained to me, or I have to carry out experiments to understand cause and effect. That can feel frustrating and even tedious in the beginning when you just want instant gratification, but in the end it has allowed me to persist with things long after those with natural talent gave up. In drawing, painting, playing guitar, playing pool, dancing and so many other hobbies and interests, past and present, I compensated for a lack of natural talent by focusing on understanding the fundamentals involved.
If you have no natural talent, then count yourself lucky - it’s a gift. 
If you have enjoyed this article then please digg it, using the button below next to the words ‘Share and Enjoy’ so that other people can benefit - thanks!
<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/b6v3ddhhqs” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>
#1 - Permalink Recession-Proofing, Lifestyle Design, Creativity | WHAKATE November 27th, 2008 at 3:06 am[...] Natural Talent - Why You Are Lucky Not To Have It [...]
#2 - Permalink Quentin December 6th, 2008 at 2:26 amYou know, I couldn’t agree more. What I generally understand most is clearly in the spacial sense of my surroundings. There’s nothing more frustrating that watching my friends follow along effortlessly at a blockbuster film - enjoying every moment of it - and remembering each and every character, their names, their relationships etc, but afterward all I can normally recall are notable action scenes and effects, and if I’m lucky, the plot and timeline. I don’t often read, and its for the same reason: I find myself - in a right-brained sense - able to visualize descriptive, colorful passages, but not being able to follow what’s going on, reading page after page, and not recalling what I’ve read sometimes, so I need to backup and start the chapter or page over again.
It’s my apparent (and frustrating) lack of sequential ability that persists when following a conversation, or instructions, or a process. However, show me what you’re talking about or doing, and I could likely replicate it with little problems.
And I also agree very much with your point regarding competence. I found my favorite subjects in school were Math and Science, and couldn’t care less for History at all. It all seemed like a blur, so I had no motivation to apply myself. But math/trig etc, I seemed to get it on the first lesson.
Sports is another example: I am somewhat dextrous and coordinated physically, and enjoy many sports, but when I was being coached for team sports it was a different matter - I didn’t want to pay attention to the strategies and drills, because I just wanted to run and jump and bounce all over the place. It clearly explains why I fidget so much - I never realized it before: sequential, left-brained people have the ability to sit and focus on a lecture etc for long periods of time without moving a muscle. I however, would shift around and wipe my brow or scratch my shoulders etc continually.
Essentially, I’m saying for the longest time I thought I had a learning disability. But it was merely the methods in which I was taught certain things that I wasn’t competent with. Knowing what I know now, I treat situations - and people - differently.
Thanks for the article - very insightful and appreciated.
#3 - Permalink Jay Goldman December 6th, 2008 at 2:47 amGreat post!
This is an interesting thread — I would say that you’re luckiest if you have an innate ability BUT also the perseverance and determination to turn it into an expert skill.
Gladwell touches on this in Outliers and recently spoke about at during a conversation with Rotman School of Management’s Dean Roger Martin (fairly extensive notes at http://jaygoldman.com/2008/12/.....anagement/). I think the example of the two NFL quarterbacks they discussed covers this particularly well: Ryan Leaf was one of the most promising QBs but relied on his innate ability and felt it entitled him to do things like lie about injuries in order to skip practice, while Peyton Manning had huge innate ability but understood he needed to work hard to master it. Tiger Woods is Manning-like in this regard: he changes his swing whenever he masters it so that he can continue to be challenged by the game of golf.
I would say that what you have labeled ‘understanding’ comes with the ‘deliberate practice’ required to become an expert (i.e.: deliberate practice gives you deep understanding, even if it is at a subconscious, physical level). Interesting to see the same concepts worded differently! Great post
#4 - Permalink admin December 6th, 2008 at 2:50 amI certainly agree with you that people learn differently and that they have a bias towards certain frames of reference. If the concept is not conveyed in ‘your language’ and if you can’t interpret the other person’s language, then you will struggle.
Look hard enough though and you will normally find cause and effect relationships that can allow you to predict to a small or large degree what the result will be to a given action. When you have this, you have understanding. Few things are more important than that when it comes to truly knowing how to do something. Unfortunately, this approach is rarely taught.
#5 - Permalink Yavor December 6th, 2008 at 2:50 amIt shows that you have thought about this. I used to suck at sports and fitness. Through lots of effort, its now the opposite.
On the other hand, school used to be super easy for me with hardly ever needing to study. Now in university it’s a totally different game. I find myself having to learn how to study…
Yavor
#6 - Permalink Robin Ogden December 6th, 2008 at 3:04 amInteresting post - I’m just reading Tom Rath’s book, Strengths Finder 2.0 in which he states “…people have several times more potential for growth when they invest energy in developing their strengths instead of correcting their deficiencies.” And “From cradle to the cubicle, we devote more time to our shortcomings than to our strengths”.
I highly recommend this book (which, by the way, comes with a special code for buyers to do their own online StrengthsFinder assessment test for free, to uncover natural talents and then build those into strengths).
Robin Ogden
http://www.firedupcareers.com
#7 - Permalink Jim Lane December 6th, 2008 at 4:13 amwhat Goldman misses is that ignoring your shortcomings can get you killed a lot easier than your strengths can save you.
#8 - Permalink Penelope December 6th, 2008 at 5:30 amI agree with some of what you’ve said, but not entirely. I was born with a good amount of natural ability in some areas that allows me to acquire new skills quickly.
But just because I was able to acquire certain skills with ease didn’t mean that I didn’t comprehend what I was learning; in fact, I was able to comprehend the concepts faster than the average student.
Also, I think a lot of it has to do with personal interest. If/when I have a true interest in an activity or skill, I work at it in order to try to reach a higher level. If I don’t have a strong interest or desire to further my abilities in a particular subject or activity, then I let it fall by the wayside.
So, I think it really depends on personal desire or priorities. You can be good at something, but not enjoy it so much that you want to spend your life doing it or pursue it professionally.
But I do believe that anyone can learn when they truly want to, natural talent or no.
#9 - Permalink Stephanie December 6th, 2008 at 11:46 amTwo new books are on this very topic: OUTLIERS and TALENT IS OVERRATED. Recommend them if you are interested in talents.
#10 - Permalink Twitter as a learning tool at Mark Needham December 7th, 2008 at 8:35 am[...] link to a post about natural talent by Guy Kawasaki - I find theories of learning intriguing so it was interesting to read an angle on [...]
#11 - Permalink Jay Schryer December 15th, 2008 at 11:29 amThis is a great post, and I couldn’t agree with you more. Talent can often make the path before us easier, but sufficient determination will overcome a lack of talent and still enable you to reach your goals. Meanwhile, all the talent in the world will be useless if you don’t take the time to develop the skills that utilize it.
#12 - Permalink lynstly January 4th, 2009 at 10:28 pmI don’t think talent is automatically a burden… it just can be if one gets used to relying solely on a natural ability without working hard as well.
#13 - Permalink Crake January 6th, 2009 at 4:40 pmThe worst thing for one’s development, however, is embracing mediocrity and making up rationalizations about how talented people think and work.
It may let you be content, but it still sounds like envy.
#14 - Permalink admin January 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pmHi Crake,
I agree with you strongly on this one. I used to get very annoyed when people told me ‘You’re so gifted’ or ‘You’ve got such great natural talent.’ I had to persevere and take great pains to develop my abilities. When people dismissed it as luck or something beyond my control I got very annoyed. When I explained that I started off with no ability and just learned a bit here, learned a bit there and kept going step by step, most people either looked at me incredulously as if such a thing was impossible or else they got offended because I had indirectly pointed out that their lack of ability was down to a lack of effort and not down to luck (which shattered their comforting illusions, I guess).
#15 - Permalink 5x1llz March 13th, 2009 at 9:07 pmI don’t happen to agree, I believe having a talent for something can be loosely translated ad having and innate attraction and passion and aptitude for learning it’s intricacies.
You can’t have a talent and also foster an adversion to getting better simply because it’s frustrating. Michael Jackson figured he could dance, and dance and dance.. He’s still dancing today, I’m sure he’s better than when he first started, you can say he had a talent, and you can say his passion led him to be great. Despite long hours of dancing/learning/choreography, injuries e.t.c.
Also talent eventually will become a skill.. every skill isn’t a talent and not evey talent is cultivated..
#16 - Permalink 5x1llz March 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pmOh and another thing is people easily mistake “talent” for a skill ( countless hours of perfecting ). So from the outside lookign in people can SAY someone is talented.. but what do they really know??? The person knows they love what they do enough to do it well, to them it’s hardwork, not talent that pays the bills/or amazes and confuses people.
#17 - Permalink admin March 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am5×1llz, I’ve posted your comment but I found it quite strange. It’s clear that you disagree with what I defined in the article as what having natural talent is. It would be better if you specified that you disagreed with that definition because every thing else that you’ve written pretty much agrees with what I have written (it makes me wonder if you actually read the article or maybe just skimmed it).
I did specify that most people with natural talent give up when they reach the limit of their natural abilities and not all. So the the Michael Jackson’s of the world can do both. My articles are designed to help the ordinary person find the inner resourcefulness to do more. I try to use clear logic to explain this and to bust the myths that go on around such subjects.
I specifically avoid using ‘miracle examples’ such as peak performance superstars. These people are exceptional and the ordinary person would be unwise to hold these people up as examples because they set a standard that is almost impossible to emulate.
I want to get people to take action and just go one step further from where they are now. That’s an improvement. Looking at the peak performers is a discouragement (in my opinion).
I totally agree with your specification that there is a difference between talent and skill. Often times I have had people say to me “Oh you’re so gifted,” or “Oh, you’re so talented,” when in reality I had to put in hundreds of hours to get those skills.
As I said, I have little to no natural ability at any kind of skill. I knew that anyone could do the same thing if they put the effort in and I told people that. Every time that I did that, they were taken aback. The subtext was that they were too stupid or lazy to do it and by claiming that talents or gifts were responsible they could comfortably deny that.
I don’t reply that way any more but I do find it tragic that people believe that nonsense and so deny themselves the pleasure of developing new skills and receiving the benefit of them.
This article is a small effort to redress some of that balance.
#18 - Permalink NeoSpark July 30th, 2009 at 2:46 am“everything has to be explained to me, or I have to carry out experiments to understand cause and effect”
Are you sure you are trying to find out what natural talent really is about, or do you need some attention.
Anyway, the problem is that people want to be able to classify everything, even two words: “Natural Talent”. If you would think harder, you should understand that these words can refer to millions of different topics.
It can not be discussed as if it is a subject. It is only a general term.
Hope that makes sense, and if it does, then you do have natural talent after all.
#19 - Permalink admin July 31st, 2009 at 1:41 amSo you think you’re some kind of a smart ass, do you?
I am the judge of what can be discussed as a subject on this blog. If I’ve written about it then it can be discussed, which blows your semantic twaddle out of the water.
Just name me 3 (out of your millions) of different topics that the words Natural Talent refer to.
What a load of vacuous gobshite you’ve written.
#20 - Permalink edmond January 4th, 2010 at 5:48 amI used to suck at programming software and I used to wonder why others do it some easily. I know I’m not dumb. I know others struggle at what I do effortless like assemble equipment with little or no instructions when to me it’s a no-brainer. after reading books including on logic and truth, i realised it’s because of how I learn. I’m still learning to understand how programmers learn and understand. I think I know better after discussions with them. I find I learn better through examples and trying to extract the concept from what I read.
cheers!
Edmond