Do you mistake "skill" for "talent"?

I see many people saying "oh I, can't draw" and just give up under the impression it's is purely something gifted to people. It seems to be this way with many things.

Talent is something you are born with and skill is something that needs by chipping away bit by bit like a world of Warcraft toon grinding from level 1 up to 90.

Do you think most people mistake skill for talent and just give up on shit? Are you one of these people?

Yes, I think most times people confuse the two.

The two actually go hand in hand, I think. For instance, I have a talent to play guitar...but the level of my playing was only achieved through years of practice (of said skill).

There's no such thing as being born with talent. That's akin to believing in magic. Some people simply have had experiences that leave them more predisposed to activities than other people. There are also genetics, physical shape, etc. that allows people to be better than others at activities their first time doing them. Their demeanor while pursuing these activities has a huge effect on it too - if someone does an activity for their first time well, they're more inclined to pursue that activity further than someone who did that activity poorly their first time. Therefore that person will appear talented to the people who did poorly on that activity for their first time.

I disagree 10000000%! There sure as hell is a thing as being born with talent...or rather, let's call it an "inclination to a particular talent".

Talent is what separates the "good" from the "great".

How is someone born with talent? Magic? Are you religious and do you believe God bestows talent upon random individuals when they're born?

Sorry dude, nobody is born automatically good at something. That's just something lazy people use as an excuse when they fail at something..."I just don't have the talent". People who you consider talented got to where they are from dedication and hard work. Attributing any of that to the stupid notion that they were born with that skill really just devalues all the hard work that someone puts into doing something.

What separates the "good" from the "great" is practice and dedication, stop being a fool.

You're kind of contradicting yourself. You point out genetics being directly correlated with a person's ability to achieve certain things. Genetics are something you're born with, so if genetics affect talent, and your genetics are something that affect you the second -- and even before -- you're born, then you can, in fact, be born with talent.

If you're born taller with longer legs, you'll be more likely to outrun someone who isn't as tall and has much shorter legs. That's not talent. That's physical capability. Not everyone is born with the same physical capabilities. This circumstance can only apply to a handful of situations, and can't really be substituted with what you consider "talent". I don't think I'd be able to pinpoint what genetics predisposes someone to become "talented" at DOTA 2, or Counter-Strike - what genetics do you think is responsible for a pro player's "talent"?

Otherwise, by saying Jimmy Paige was talented at guitar, you're simply insinuating he's amazing at guitar because he had longer fingers than the normal guitar player - which is stupid and untrue. Unless you can think of any other genetics that would predispose someone to being superior at guitar-playing. The reality is that Jimmy Paige put more effort and dedication into his craft than other guitar players and knew how to use his guitar-playing effectively when creating bluesy rock-n-roll music.

I feel like I'm teaching people the basics about evolution. I honestly feel like this is common sense and should've been taught to everyone when they're young. People don't become the best at what they do because they were lucky at birth. That very idea challenges our basic understandings of biology, nature, and nurture.

Yes, one can be born with talent. I could go digging through the internet to show examples of small children playing complicated musical pieces by ear and so forth, but there is no need to.

Having said that, most everyone who becomes great at something does so through hard work, not because they are born with it.

I guess occasionally I do. I don't have a natural talent for playing the guitar, which is why I have to constantly keep my skills sharp.

How is small children playing complicated music by ear proof of talent? Any adult can learn how to do that in a handful years. You're most acclimated to learning when you're youngest, so...

To me, it sounds more like proof that children who grow up in musical households are more predisposed to becoming better musicians when they're young. And that's common knowledge. Show me a child who can play "Rock Bottom" the first time they pick up guitar, despite not growing up anywhere around music, and I'll say you have me on the talent argument.

Dude, you're arguing for the sake of arguing when there is clear factual scientific evidence to back up what I am saying. The term is prodigy. It doesn't apply to just music.

What clear factual scientific evidence? Prodigy doesn't imply being born with talent. Usually it implies heightened intelligence, which allows a child to more quickly gain skill and more knowledge than other children. It also implies having a lot of knowledge or skill regarding something for the age of that person. It doesn't mean that person was born with the skills that made that person a prodigy, only the intelligence that predisposed the person to gaining those skills. That's not talent, by definition of the thread.

breeds of dog are born with predisposition ( talent, if you want to call it that ) to do certain task better than other breeds.
why would a human be different?

Still arguing? It isn't my job to do your research, but you can start with wikipedia and go from there. I refuse to bring myself down to your level and continue this any further. Have a good day.

I've said that humans gain predisposition shortly after birth, and I already said that's not the same thing as talent. Dogs don't play guitar or do complicated activites like humans do, what they're good at is completely determined by their genetics and their physical state. Dogs can only be trained to do a limited amount of things, unlike humans, thus it's smart to use breeds that are best suited for the training.

Predisposition =/= talent.

Here's the dictionary definition of talent for you guys

"a special ability that allows someone to do something well"

Here's a second one, which I think is even more fitting

"a capacity for achievement or success"

There's nothing indicating that talent has anything to do with being born with skills. So this thread is basically trying to turn the basic understanding of "talent" into something it's not. "Talent" isn't magic. People aren't born with skills. People go through experiences when they're young that better allow them to pursue their interests, and are born with physical capabilities that help them pursue their interests further than other people. That's pretty much the extent of it.

It's your job to defend your argument, and you failed to do that. I'm not going to do the job of defending your faulty argument for you. All the evidence already exists that you're incorrect, thus it's pointless for me to seek out counter-evidence.

"Your level"...so you're insinuating you're too good to rationally debate a topic? It's not like I'm calling you an idiot or anything like that. Let's just say you don't have the talent for debate.

I don't really feel like personally arguing with every single person who disagrees with me, so I'll just say I made my point. I'm surprised we still live in an age where people believe in that people can be born with experience. You might as well believe in virginal births and reincarnation. But plenty of people here do believe in that sort of thing...which is why I'm taking my leave from this thread before I waste too much time here, it's becoming the equivalent to a religious argument. People feel more comfortable thinking others are gifted at what they do, but since they themselves aren't gifted, they don't feel bad for not excelling at anything. In the end, people will believe in whatever makes them sleep better at night (applies to everyone, including me).

whoa. going all jonny dictionary on us.

there's nothing indicating that talent does not have anything to do with birth either or that predisposition only comes after birth

"a capacity for achievement of success" great, but where does that capacity come from?

other definitions:

"a special natural ability or aptitude" natural. there you go.

it also seems you want to pick and choose what a talent is to fit your argument

being a good runner because you're born with a genetic condition that allows for greater oxygen carrying capacity in your blood: not talent

being a good runner because you're dedicated to your sport, practice more than the other guy, etc: talent

what if a person is both? do you divide out any natural ability they're born with that would make them good runners and only measure the effort that put in? that's idiotic.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/talent-is-meaningless-29441718/

Reaction time, hand eye coordination.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

Can't really change your reaction time. One of my friends can do 115-140ms consistently and that was one of the first times he has tried it. I can do about 135-155.

The average male is around 215ms, but according to the site it's more like 270ms on the statistics.

Hand eye coordination is something else entirely. But it's why you end up seeing people who have played quake for 10 years and who are still bad.

Talent is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye%E2%80%93hand_coordination#Neural_mechanisms

Some people are born more developed in those regions.

People are not born with talent. A child born of two violinists will more than likely be predisposed to excel at playing the violin due to their upbringing.

Put that same child on an isolated island and give them a violin....do we think that natural predisposition to be a talented violinist will come to the surface....because I dont. Talent takes hard work and dedication and knowledge...or at least the capacity to learn.

Child prodigies all have similar traits. Above average intelligence, parents who push and support them and exposure to their "talent" from a young age.

Talent that stems from having a physical advantage isnt really something up for debate.

Let's look at it this way. I was adopted and had no affiliation with my biological father growing up. At an early age, I became very good at baseball. I'm not of an athletic build. I'm 5"11, relatively thin. My adopted parents knew very little about the sport or how to play, yet somehow, I became a very good pitcher with impeccable hand eye coordination. I later find out my biological father has a long line of family members ranking very highly in the baseball world and has a strong affiliation with the San Fransisco Giants.

So, you're saying there's absolutely no correlation there? I never put an otherworldly amount of effort into playing baseball. I didn't practice nearly as hard as the rest of my peers, yet I can still to this day pick up a baseball after having not touched one for years and throw perfect strikes. How do you explain that?

You are mistaking talent for skill.

An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained

Well considering the defining feature of both is whether or not the activity was learned or innate the two are interchangeable. If we talk about an artist... how on earth could I possibly know if its a learned skill or an innate ability. Unless we know exactly how and why someone became so skilled or talented its impossible to say whether its a learned skill or innate talent. Without that knowledge its not "wrong" to use the words interchangeably.

I see them as the same thing.

Talent is a natural predisposition to a particular thing (athletics, music, art, etc) while skills in everything can be developed by anyone willing to learn.

Uh, No, it isn't.

Fine Art has specific principles. People are are "talented" e.g. have a keen feel for form and proportion may not even be aware of the concept of "form" or how it work. Or anatomy. Or perspective. Or tone. or how light works, how fabric reacts, and so on...

I just think it is the determination of the person.

most high quality footballers, for example, spent most of their free time as a child and in their teens practicing with a ball.

There aren't many who started at a late age and became great.

I know someone who can play a ton of instruments and he got 11 A stars in his GCSEs. He was literally in his books all of the time, even on holiday.

I don't think he was good in music from the beginning, he just saw what he wanted to do and did it. He is actually looking into politics now aswell.

All of those things can be learned. Hence the reason one can study fine art at University.

Hece the reason as I said...unless we know specifically how someone has acquired this skill or talent its impossible to know if it has been learned or innate.

Im fantastic at football, now care to tell me if it was innate ability or developed skill?

@KHAndAnime: I don't really feel like personally arguing with every single person who disagrees with me, so I'll just say I made my point. I'm surprised we still live in an age where people believe in that people can be born with experience. You might as well believe in virginal births and reincarnation. But plenty of people here do believe in that sort of thing...which is why I'm taking my leave from this thread before I waste too much time here, it's becoming the equivalent to a religious argument. People feel more comfortable thinking others are gifted at what they do, but since they themselves aren't gifted, they don't feel bad for not excelling at anything. In the end, people will believe in whatever makes them sleep better at night (applies to everyone, including me).

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to engage you further before you packed up shop and left this conversation. However, I think it's funny that no one made any mention of "religion" before you and you say it like you WANT to start an argument on that subject. I'm not going to partake in that nonsense with you.

I will however tell you that you're wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to be so defensive on the subject (perhaps you realized you made a mistake, but it was too late to admit it, so you went on believing what you said originally to defend your position?). How can you say that some aren't born with a natural talent towards certain activities? I can think of a dozen people off the top of my head that are amazing at their craft...those same people that work no more (sometimes even less) than others and still come out as the best. How do you explain that?

I understand you're hardcore "science" and "facts" and to give into the belief that you're "born" with talent would insinuate you might be inclined to believe in a higher being, which is why you felt the need to mention religion. But dude, like it or not, there are some things in this world that can't be explained through research. Natural born talent is one of them. It surely does exist. Don't be mad because you weren't born with it. Embrace it. :)

its quite easy, skill is a quantifiable measurement of ability, either through years of practice or study. Skill can only take you so far, however, and that's when those with talent will excel.

Absolutely false. I'm sorry matey but this is completely and utterly wrong.

For example, do you honestly think, someone who has not studies anatomy will somehow, magically know, all of this sits under the face?

Da Vinci himself had to cut open and study bodies.

Will someone who magically know the laws perspective and how manipulate it?

A well known story involving the Japanese, regarding them being presented with a Western portrait that mystified them. before they where introduced to the West (who had mastered perspective through study) they weren't even aware of proper perspective laws. All of the images produced as flat and 2d. (beautiful none the less). Flat, overlapping images. Some had hints of perceptive but for the most part 2d shapes on top of each other.

Skills are just developed talents. I think the word "talent" gets thrown around too much. "Oh, that singer is so talented." No, he is experienced.

The skill of riding a bicycle is a talent to people who don't know how

I wouldn't say that anybody is naturally good at something. Even people who are a lot better at something than others had to start somewhere and chances are they practiced their craft a lot.

Skill is something learned which is not genetic and talent is more inherent. By that I mean talent is more obviously related to the intelligence quotient of a person than learning a skill, though that depends on the skill, of course.

@jasean79: exactly. He brought up the drop him on a desert island and see what happens, and that's somewhat what happened to me. Being an adopted kid, I developed skills at a young age that were unexplainable in my adopted family.

After getting to know more about my biological family -- after discovering these skills -- I found out that almost everything I'm good at has some kind of background in my biological family. But I already engaged KH about this earlier in the thread and got no response, so there's not really any point in arguing with him, as he refuses to play on a fair field.