<p>luck factors into everything. </p>
<p>EVERYTHING. </p>
<p>it ALL depends on how lucky you are. </p>
<p>99%luck and 1%determination. </p>
<p>The only reason determination has a heavy emphasis in society is because that is the only factor we can control :P</p>
<p>
Personally I think there’s something to this. Its just that plenty of evidence doesn’t support it. For example Gladwell and others write about a really big proportion of pro hockey players being born in Jan thru March. Is talent concentrated in people with those astrological signs? Probably not. But the cutoff for enrolling in youth hockey is being born before January; so the kids in those months are older when they start, so they are stronger and can play better than the younger kids, more playing time kindles their interest, interest means they work harder at it, and the cycle feeds itself.</li>
</ol>
<p>
99% isn’t all. but still, not really.</p>
<p>the initial statement is 100% valid if you approach it with reason.</p>
<p>
My point isn’t that my hypothetical is right, it’s that we don’t know. There could be confounding variables at work in the hockey example too. Perhaps there’s genetic or traditional factors involved, since most pro hockey players come from a relatively small ethnic segment of the population.</p>
<p>More importantly, there’s a fundamental difference between saying that some kids with talent succeed more often than others with the same talents and asserting that there are no innate talents (as Kvasek did). The same may even apply to the violin example. Does chance play a major role in success? Absolutely. Does hard work? Probably in most cases. Neither of those statements prove that people don’t have certain talents.</p>
<p>Let’s use another example: let’s say that we have a dozen kids with musical talent who want to play the clarinet. And then we have me - I don’t have much musical talent. Now, those dozen kids will probably grow up to have very different clarinet-playing abilities. Only a few (or more likely none) will attain true mastery given all the other factors that have been discussed in this thread. However, the fact that some people with talent fail does not imply that people without talent (in this scenario, me) can become great clarinetists by practicing more.</p>
<p>Talent has something to do with it. This is just an anecdote, but it happened to me personally, so you will never convince me that achievement is reached by hard work alone. Look, I’m a smart person. I was a Presidential Scholars semi-finalist. I’ve won a national championship in something academic. But I am just not a science and math person (too bad, I like physics a lot). Last year, I absolutely threw myself into studying for AP Chemistry. Practice for ~7 hours a week, and studying for ~10 more. The concepts just wouldn’t stick, even with tutoring. (Considering I had three other AP courses, one that was “Oh we would be AP Physics B but we want to teach you harder material,” and two self-study exams, ~17 hours was the most I could manage.) I still could barely pass the class. I had the lowest grade in the class, .05% above a C+. I gave chemistry my darnedest, and it spit me back out and told me to major in history. Which I will be doing. (Studied less than 20 minutes for AP Euro all year. Highest grade in the class easy 5. APUSH I did try, and ended up absolutely destroying the curve. That was fun :])</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Laughing so hard at this :)</p>
<p>I think that belief and hard work is not enough. It also combines with luck. But as an optimistic person, I believe that if you put your mind and heart in it, you can do it ! Be prepared for failure though. Be prepared that success may come in another form that you don’t expect it to be.</p>
<p>It’s quite clearly a bunch of crap. I can’t write a symphony, I do not have that kind of talent. Many things take special talent (or intelligence) that you just can’t learn.</p>
<p>Now, take a certain person, give them a certain goal which they can achieve (even if it takes a lot of hard work, sacrifice, etc.) and yes, by believing in themselves and give it enough effort, they can accomplish that goal. But to say “anything” is to set up a person for failure.</p>
<p>I would believe in so called “innate talent” if someone could empirically prove to me there is an evolutionary advantage to being a great musician, a great scientist, a great actress, etc.</p>
<p><em>reads last post</em></p>
<p><em>Sees poster talking about evolution in a way that does not make any sense whatsoever</em></p>
<p><em>leaves thread</em></p>
<p>
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Here’s another from a famed musician
</p>
<p>
And a lot of research would say thatyour 4th sentence alone is the explanation of why you struggled. Take a look at the work by Carol Dweck on mindset. I suspect you knew in your heart that no matter how much work you put in you’d never really excel at it. Fixed mindset. </p>
<p>Now you put in a lot of hours studying according to your post. But that doesn’t mean you were studying in an effective manner. Clearly you excel at classes like history. But learning chem isn’t like learning history. I’ve tutored kids in math/science classes, and a lot of them put in plenty of work but of the wrong kind. They try to memorize or recognize problems the way you’d learn the history of the British monarchy or be able to explain the factors leading up to the Reformation. It doesn’t work. In chem they’d learn to solve a given problem but took away absolutely nothing about underlying principles or processes. So if they saw the same problem again they’d be able to solve it (if they remembered it), but would flail as soon as the slightest variation was presented. </p>
<p>Here’s a test, if you’re interested. Pull out one of your old problem sets and pick a few problems at random – ask yourself what principles are involved in each. And I bet you’ll draw a blank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go read a Steven Pinker book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. In math particularly, there is without a doubt a degree of inherent ability at play here. I struggled my ass off to get an A in my Calculus BC class in high school, while my friend slept through basically every “mathy” class in high school (Calc BC, Calc 3, Linear Algebra, Physics C) and aced every single test. And I’m not at all a defeatist person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My dad was an EE major back in college, he was also an immigrant learning English as his second language, which meant that he put his focus on math/sciences because there is no “language” barrier in the sciences like there are in English. When I was younger, he taught me multiplication/division WAY ahead of what was taught at my elementary school. During the summers, he would send me to a private school and their curriculum was MUCH more intense and fast paced. At summer school I would learn new, more challenging material. It was a struggle, since I had to transition from a very “easy” elementary school to a much more rigorous setting. </p>
<p>When I entered middle school I took a placement test and was placed in the “advanced” math class. I ended up learning Algebra 1 and Geometry by the time I graduated. My success in math encouraged me to work ever harder, and it kept me motivated. </p>
<p>When I entered HS, I ended up with the hardest math teacher at my HS. He gave HUGE amounts of HW (ie forcing students to work hard, practice more–a key to excelling). He also taught at an extremely fast pace. Many kids did struggle, but many more excelled when it came to taking AP tests. I ended up taking Calc AB as a soph, and Calc BC as just a Jr. I was proud of my achievements. BUT this has NOTHING to do with “innate talent” that some of you seem to believe is the cause for success. BTW, he has ~90% pass rate on the AP calc exams, majority of the scores are 5’s! Its not about talent, its about work ethic! </p>
<p>I entered college, I had learned so much from HS, that I got two A’s, and an A- in my 3 math classes (passed out of the first 2 intro calc classes). HOWEVER, when I took Differential Equations (last math course for my major, engineering) I got a miserable C+. </p>
<p>Why ? </p>
<p>I had an awful teacher, I didn’t work as hard, I got too comfortable with picking up math quickly, etc. My point is that during HS, my math teacher provided the encouragment, motivation, and careful guidance necessary for me to excel in Multi-variable, Linear Algebra and Series–which was taught so well that it carried over into the first 2 years of college. By not working as hard, I got a bad grade.</p>
<p>I think the issue here is that people want to point the finger at innate intelligence/talent as the sole reason for someone else’s success because they have some sense of insecurity (I’m sure you heard, “he/she is just smarter, there’s nothing I can do…”; then the person just sits back down w/o trying), so rather than accepting that they haven’t tried as hard or were not as motivated, these people point the finger at something which can’t be altered or that’s what they believe (ie innate talent/intelligence)</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone suggested that innate talent is the SOLE cause of success.</p>
<p>I believe in the concept, but people take it way too literal- and the English language is very limited. “Anything” that’s one hell of a broad word.</p>
<p>I’d like to propose that we abolish the word “talent”. It gives hard work a bad name.</p>
<p>While I can’t say the original statement holds in all cases, I believe it to be true for most people.</p>
<p>Also, when it comes to talent, I use very simple reasoning. If someone were to practice shuffling cards every day for 2 hours, for 5 years, would they not be a “natural” at it? Simply replace the activity and time, and that’s how I think. Akin to the statements made by Gladwell in his book.</p>
<p>To those who don’t think they are good at Physics and Mathematics: unless you have dyscalculia, you’re not. Others have simply had more exposure to the subjects. Additionally, as you grow more experienced engaging in a certain activity, the amount of effort to learn subsequent techniques decreases as the activity becomes more and more “natural” to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If nothing else, sexual desirability to the opposite sex.</p>
<p>Obviously not. </p>
<p>There is such a thing as a musical prodigy. If he practices the same amount as a normal child, he will be far, far better by definition (assuming equal quality of practice, instruction, etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, (going into AP Chemistry) I loved chemistry and science in general, and hated history, and had held those opinions for as long as I could remember. I remember spending a lot of time whining (the year before AP Chem) about how much I hated history (in which I did not excel, gradewise), and spent my whole day looking forward to Chemistry I (in which I did excel, gradewise). I knew that I liked English, but I really truly believed (deep down) that I was more of a science person. I hoped to become a research scientist.</p>
<p>However, when asked to perform at a high level in science, I failed. I absolutely failed. (I remained an optimist until about March of that class, though. My grades went up a statistically insignificant amount after that, actually.) It was more than a little bit heart-breaking. When asked to perform at a high level in history, though, I stepped up to the plate and enjoyed the subject for the first time. I do know how to study for concepts–the science classes that I liked (Chemistry I and Physics I, which was based on the AP Physics B curriculum, but more difficult and a little bit slower) were very basic but difficult classes, requiring a rigorous understanding of the concepts, not so much the finicky details. (Also, if I liked memorizing for the sake of it, I might have liked biology–going into high school, I had hoped to become a biologist. Instead I was just like no. Basic bio is stupid. I understand that at the high levels it’s different, now, but didn’t then. So I switched my hopes to chemistry and physics.) </p>
<p>I can memorize stuff, but that’s not what I was looking for in a science. It’s not particularly fun. However, I can go through my whole physics textbook, still, and explain to you each concept that we covered. I could have gone through my whole chemistry I textbook doing the same thing, but after AP I cannot. I still have no idea what went wrong with AP Chem, considering that I could do better chemistry after AP (770 on SAT II, 5 on AP) than after Chem I, definitely, but after AP Chemistry my ability to actually explain why on earth I was doing X had totally gone out the window. I used all the concept-learning methods I applied successfully during that same year to physics, and had applied successfully to chemistry I, so it’s not like I neglected concepts and so came out unable to explain any of them. Concepts are what I focused on! (I also had a chemistry tutor.) I just somehow /still/ came out not being explain any of the concepts. (With a few exceptions. Nothing can erode my understanding of the basics of gas law.)</p>
<p>At this point, if I try to take chemistry again, I will fail, you’re right. The joy has gone out of it, and the pessimism will eat me alive. But then? I do think it was innate. Again, I understand that this may not be at all convincing for you, but since it happened to me, no amount of statistics or reasonable counter-arguments (like all of yours) can convince /me/ that it’s not innate.</p>
<p>No regrets now though! History has totally converted me. :)</p>