T's point is supported by Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour theory, which he discusses in his book Outliers. I highly recommend it, as it provides a lot of food for thought. He also discusses some other elements that relate to success, such as when a person was born, relative to the state of society and technology, etc.
rafiki... anyone who's learned the alphabet and words and how to use a pen/pencil/typwriter/computer can 'write'... not everyone writes for others to read... if you want to write as a hobby, just for yourself, then you can call what you do anything that pleases you... but to those of us who write for others to read what we write, to sell what is written, or to make a living, writing is a craft and an art form... because that is what it is known as, in the english language... that is what human society determined writing 'seriously' to be, many generations ago... so you can't rationally argue against it being that... you can only say you don't want to call it that... period!
I can't crochet. My mother did beautiful crocheting, and she taught any number of people to crochet. She couldn't teach me. Why? Because I'm all thumbs. I can't handle the small needles used in crochet. I had the same problem when I worked manufacturing - I had to deal with the larger parts because I couldn't hang on to the small ones. No matter how hard I try, anything dealing with small pieces is torture. I can do it but I can't do it fast and I can't do it well. After over 50 years of trying, I know that I simply don't have the manual dexterity to deal with small pieces. No amount of teaching, no amount of practicing, no amount of patience or effort is going to change that. So no - everybody can't do everything, regardless of personal anecdotes.
Maybe he means that if people aren't paying you for your "craft," you're better off calling it a hobby
Could also be Sonata Arctica. While I like both of them just fine, I'm not extraordinarily impressed with either one, at least what I've heard.
Interesting argument... supported by a personal anecdote. How much did you practice it? Once in a while for 50 years or 8 hours a day for 50 years? Because I've met plenty of guitarists, for instance, who've played over 50 years and still suck. That's for several reasons and none that have anything to do with talent. Two of the biggest reasons were the wrong kind of practice and irregular/deficient practice schedule. Same thing with martial arts: I know plenty of guys who've trained for decades and couldn't fight off a cold, even bigger, stronger men. And I know of guys who couldn't fight off a cold before, and now win competitions after only a year of diligent and the right kind of training (local competitions, btw, not the UFC, since they are still beginners, after all). Speaking of the UFC, have you ever wondered why it is the most hard-working athletes who tend to win? Did you truly practice crocheting for 4-8 hours a day, every day (well, birthday, Christmas, a few exceptions here and there, but you get the gist, around 25 days a month or so) for, oh, 5 years even? If you did and still can't do it, it might possibly be some physical issue with your fine motor skills (the aforementioned guitarist friend went to a doctor about it and that's where they discovered he had some mild problems with his fine motor skills as well as sense of rhythm, but he overcame those with specialized exercises designed to help with those issues). It's not uncommon, after all. As for some other data to support my claim, other than anecdotes: nowadays the notion of "talent" is gradually being debunked by science. This mythical "talent" that elevates the "chosen ones" above others in a given skill is, after all, quite old-fashioned. It stems from 1500s. It was discovered that a guy named Vasari studied the "talented" painters of his time to find out if they were "special" since childhood. According to Vasari, those geniuses were, indeed, special since childhood. It was discovered later, however, that Vasari actually made up a lot of the stuff to support his thesis and that his claims were largely unfounded (1986b Sternberg). That's just a part of debunking the myth of talent, btw, even though the notion sits tight even in today's society, especially among the older generations since the subject wasn't studied as much in the times they went to school. For instance, Hakkarainen, Lonka, and Lipponen have done extensive research on this matter as well and have discovered that if you break down what makes up for "great talent," you basically get the building blocks that can be used by anyone to achieve a similar level of greatness even if you do not possess a talent for thing X. It's all a matter of systematic training and practice that produces greatness instead of any unique properties in a given individual. Other reasearch indicates that instead of some mythical preordained and heightened capacity to learn skill X, it is a matter of systematic and long-term training/practice. It is also essential that the training/practice needs to be of good quality and of a suitable variety for the individual being taught (because person A may learn thing X differently than person B, hence persons A and B may require different training methods to reach optimal competency). A natural inclination for thing X may provide person A (the "talented" one) with extra motivation to train thing X in comparison to the "untalented" person B, but if both train as hard for an extended time, both will reach a similar level of competence (Ericsson, Lehmann 1996 & Ericsson, Charness 1995). Currently a psychometric approach to intelligence is considered old-fashioned and harmful in learning processes because it incorporates interpretations of "static", unchanging intelligence and talent. This notion of "special people" who are these "chosen ones" is essentially romantic armchair psychology with no real scientific foundation (Hakkarainen, Lonka, and Lipponen 2004). Or what foundation there may be, is gradually being debunked by contemporary research/science. I'm aware that this kind of thinking may be a bitter pill to swallow to those who have lived their lives thinking they are somehow special because of some skill of theirs, so the thought might take some getting used to, but isn't it "special" enough that one has worked hard to learn a skill better than their peers? In essence, "talent" (as in some can and some can't) is a myth which is used to elevate (or lower) individuals above (or below) their station and favors elitism and favoritism (Hakkarainen, Lonka, and Lipponen 2004). Could you possibly find some research to support your claims? It would be interesting to see some scientific research data from both sides of the argument.
T.Trian - it's an interesting argument you have, esp your reply to Shadowalker. So, tell me, for example, can someone like my father ever speak English to a native standard with a native English accent? (this is on the lines of, anyone can learn a skill to the level of being great) He was educated in Hong Kong and emigrated to England when he was 37 I believe (I say I believe because I had no idea how old he was when we moved lol - I was 8 myself). It's now been 17 years, during which time he's been in England, with English friends, English TV everyday, English job, English colleagues, English everything (ok except in the house. In the house, he speaks Cantonese usually). Say, for someone like him - we've boiled it down to that he just doesn't have talent for languages (in terms of pronunciation, I'm inclined to say, because his comprehension and analysis of English literature and films are superb. Nevertheless, his sentence structure and accent are still mediocre. Comprehensible, but that's about it.) He sometimes tells us stories of how he spent an entire day just trying to memorise the fact that "He/she/it" went with "is" (eg. "He is", as opposed to "He are", or something - in Chinese there's no such change). Of course he doesn't make this particular mistake anymore. Either way, he doesn't have a natural aptitude for English, that's for sure. But then again, in support of your argument, for all my dad's "lack of language talent", he speaks English fluently enough to be taking a managerial position at an English national company. And I've seen my mum defeat many of her obstacles despite her "lack of talent" in some things - she might not have been great at those things, but she did them well enough to hold down a job using exactly those skills. My husband, whom as far as I'm aware has no astounding talent for languages (he's good at it, but not someone you'd pick up and say "WOW"), went to England speaking only a little English, and over the course of a few years managed to speak it well enough to study for a university degree and then masters in England, achieving high marks in both. I'm of the opinion that, for languages, for example, if you move after a certain age (say, from 13 or so onwards) you'll likely never speak to a native standard (which includes accent), no matter how hard you try. But, if anyone can become great, then surely even this is possible regardless? Of course, you never said age wouldn't become some kind of hindrance. I also remember that your brain cells that you don't train and use begin to slowly die after the age of 14, which surely has an impact on how well you can learn something? Unfortunately I saw this in a documentary a long time ago, so I don't remember any citations. I'm genuinely curious about your answer, not challenging you. Is hard work really the ONLY factor? Because you make it sound like it is, and I don't believe it. In my opinion, to say that anyone can be great and if they're not, then they're simply not working hard enough, is a principle that induces nothing but guilt. Whether someone has worked hard enough is a very subjective thing - what is "enough" supposed to be? How much is enough? How do you measure this? And it leads the person to keep trying and failing, but I believe there's a time to hold on, and a time to give up. However, funnily enough, I'd never tell someone to stop trying. No, I wouldn't tell any of those artists you posted to stop singing. I read one time that Shakira's own music teacher at school told her to give it up because in the teacher's opinion, Shakira had the voice of a goat, and I am glad Shakira didn't listen. I have a dyslexic friend who's trying to write a book, and since she's dyslexic, of course her writing is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, but I admire her effort and ambition, and I'd never tell her to stop. I think we do have to be realistic when our skill isn't up to standard yet, but that does not mean stop - that means to keep going until you reach it (and then you must learn some more). Btw, never have I said, "You're not good enough, so go sit in front of a TV and eat crisps" - it seems you reduce people who believe in talented individuals to being lazy people who make up excuses, and that's unfair. In fact, I believe I said, "Just because you may not be as good as so and so doesn't mean you stop - you should go and pursue it and do it to the best of your ability." That's rather different to what you keep asserting - eg. that you have an excuse to be lazy. The trick, for me, comes in being content in your own skill and not comparing, as best you can (since we're all tempted to compare). Being content with your skill does not mean you stop practising and learning.
I have no problem with someone calling it craft. I have a problem with someone thinking they've mastered it. There is nothing wrong with thinking of your profession as a craft and seeking to perfect it (seeking. Perfection is impossible, of course). If everyone followed this for whatever they did, the world would be a better place.
Not everybody can do everything and do it well. I defy anyone to take any Joe Blow off the street and make them an opera star, and I don't care if they practice 24/7 - no one can say they will make the grade. To imply, as Mckk pointed out, that hard work is the only deterrent to becoming a great *anything* is just silly. As to my crocheting, if you re-read my post you'll note I said my problem was with anything having to do with small pieces. I do not have the manual dexterity, have never had the manual dexterity, and never will have the manual dexterity to work with them. But you know that it was just because I didn't work hard enough at it. Good to know.
Shadowwalker, sorry to say, but T. Trian made some fine arguments and put in a lot of writing time to support them. Instead of offering a rebuttal, with supporting evidence for your claims, you're just regurgitating your original unsupported statements. Please try to be more constructive in the future. T.trian, you make a strong argument and I'm certainly intrigued, but I have some reservations, not based on preconceptions, but rather on anecdotal evidence, collectively and my own. As for your martial arts argument, I would say that even an average person can become a great fighter, BUT, that person is going to have be better technically, than let's say, Mike Tyson. A talented person will have to rely less on rules than an equally skilled but less talented person, or are you saying that after a certain amount of time and effort, talent and non talent become indistinguishable? Secondly, I'm not sure to what extent your argument applies to academic pursuits, and that includes writing. Math geniuses exist, and those people will go on to solve harder problems than other mathematicians. An extremely hard working person can succeed in the sciences, but even after years of hard work, that doesn't mean they're going to tackle their experiments with any better critical thinking than they used to. If you say anyone can become an insanely good guitarist, hey, I believe you. But at the end of the day, maui thai is not the same as playing the guitar, and playing the guitar is not the same as writing a novel, and writing a novel is not the same as designing a rocket, and designing a rocket is not the same as delivering a speech. They are all different activities, each requiring differing levels of physical ability, aptitude, charm, and raw intelligence. In some things you can get away with little to no talent, but not necessarily in ALL things.
I was as constructive as was needed. I rebutted the claim that anyone can do anything with my own experience as 'proof', which is as "supported" as the stories about guitar players.
You are extending a physical limitation to mental activities. Michael Phelps is really tall and has long arms. This gives him a natural advantage when it comes to swimming. But the evidence for such natural advantages extending not only to mental activities, but also to specific realms of mental activity, is foggier and harder to prove. Can you point to a specific mental variation in a normal person that makes them unsuited to writing or designing bridges? Obviously, some people are better at that than others, but it's often very hard to separate nature, nurture, and a person's personal motivation for pursuing a field of study or art form.
T.Trian, you make some good points, but it seems you are only speaking of technical skill, that is to say, manual dexterity. I believe you so long as the discussion is confined to that. If a seriously undertalented person wishes to play high-speed metal guitar, I'm sure they can learn to do so through large amounts of dedication and diligent practice - proper practice, as you say. Practicing bad technique will get one nowhere. But you haven't addressed improvisation. Spontaneous musical creativity, it seems to me, is more than a skill. There are jazz musicians out there who have devoted their lives to mastering their instruments, practicing endlessly and gigging endlessly, but have never approached the improvisational genius (sorry about the term - a better one doesn't present itself right now) of the likes of Charlie Parker or Django Rheinhardt. These musicians never seemed to run out of ideas, ceaselessly inventing in real time. There's a story about the great Andres Segovia approaching Django after one of his concerts and asking, "Where can I get the sheet music for what you just played?" And Django said, "You can't. I just made it up!" That kind of thing is more than skill. Endless practicing will not make you endlessly creative; it will merely make you able to execute what you create properly. Classical composers banged their heads against walls trying to create music as effortlessly as Mozart did. Mozart, famously, was composing at a professional level when he was still a preteen child. "I compose as a sow piddles," he once said. Endless practice will not give a musician that ability. Practice improves craft - I'll give you that. But practice doesn't really improve one's ideas much. It does not give one greater insight into character, a deeper understanding of theme, or, more fundamentally, a reason to write a novel in the first place. I may be wrong - I have no studies at hand to support this thesis - but I don't believe creativity can be taught or practiced.
I was about to bring up this exact example, because T.Trian mentioned athletes as well as artists. Athletes often, if not usually, benefit from having a certain body type. You'd be hard pressed to find a man more built for swimming than Michael Phelps. No gym workout can give someone his physique - his basic skeletal frame gives him an advantage. I bet his coaches could take one look at him when he was ten years old and say "This kid's an Olympian." Sometimes it's that obvious. No amount of practice is going to make a five foot six inch guy a basketball star in the NBA. (Don't mention Muggsy Bogues - he's an outlier among outliers.) Just about all of the best NBA players have been well over six feet tall. Height is an advantage in basketball, and you can't practice being taller.
He said quite clearly that hard work and the right kind of training/education are main factors. It's acknowledged that people learn differently, and in fact, this discussion of talents doesn't exclude individual differences. To a degree, I sometimes feel like "talent" as a term is defined differently by different people, and some consider certain tendencies "talents." I, for one, don't like to throw "talent" around because I feel it can anull a person's achievements. Another reason why I too am a bit "anti-talent" is because of my occupation. As a teacher, you want to make the kids feel like they can achieve anything and ignite that spark of learning. Is this a bad thing? I suck at playing the guitar because I haven't practiced enough to be able to play the songs I want. Then I feel guilty. So what? I'd be letting myself down if I went like "meh, I'm obviously not talented at this so why even bother?" But, I don't want to be great at playing the guitar and I know I haven't the time or energy to practice enough to be great. The same goes with horse-back riding and boxing. But I do want to be really good at other things, like writing, so I practice that waaaaay more. I don't admit to having any talent in it, though. I have stories in my head, but I have to practice putting them into words. Sometimes it sure feels like trial and error. I agree it's subjective. On the other hand, this probably depends on the person's goal. If my goal is to be the fastest women's 100m sprinter in Finland, I'm good enough when I've reached that goal. Except most likely I wouldn't be satisfied, and I'd want to become the fastest in Scandinavia, in Europe, then in the world. The undefeated thai boxer Dieselnoi allegedly quit his career after he had no one left to beat in his weight class. That's perfectly fine if that's the way you see it and the way you define "content." Other people are never content on purpose because they feel it hinders their development. Horses for courses and all that.
In my opinion, Minstrel says it all here. The 'craft' of writing, as opposed to the 'art' of writing—in my opinion anyway—just signals the hard work it takes to make written 'art' (which I see as the 'inspiration' behind a story) into something that other people will appreciate, enjoy, whatever. This is when the writer learns how to structue sentences to create interest, how to apply the basics of grammar, how to shape a plot so it makes sense, paces itself, and doesn't leave ends dangling, etc. There isn't anything mysterious or pompous about this 'craft.' It's just hard work, but anybody with the desire to be an accomplished writer needs to do it.
I'm pro-talent and a teacher too, and a child's best is not the same as being great professionally. I'm proud of anyone's best, and I like to pinpoint what the child is naturally good at and hone that area, build up their confidence so they can tackle their weaker areas with a little less tension. However, having lived in 3 countries, it's been an interesting observation how different systems and methods create quite different children. I grew up in England, where the vast majority of school children and teens seriously can't draw to save their lives. I've always been artistic and drawing is one of my favourite hobbies, and as a kid, my classmates would request artwork from me or queue up to have me help them. So, without sounding too proud, I'm good at art - I don't compare myself to the pros because I never sought it professionally and thus haven't developed it sufficiently enough to compare myself at that level, but I'm good, there's no question. I can tell from just how a person puts down a line, a single brush stroke, and say if they have "talent" - I called it talent, because I believed that when it comes to art, you had to have something innately inside you to do well. And then I went to the Czech Republic, where art is taught extremely well. They are taught techniques, and then taught to mimic techniques, given the chance explore different materials and create class projects. England, on the other hand, had no such thing. Most art lessons we were simply left to our own devises to draw pretty much whatever we want. And I can say, since I teach Czech kids a lot, they generally have more confidence when it comes to art, and I have seen that the vast majority of them know how to draw and paint. Of course not everyone's the same standard, but the work is seriously good - steady, well-formed shapes, good use of colours or very creative ways of expressing something, awareness of light and dark regardless of whether the shading was done well (some are good, others aren't, but the awareness of shadows shows an awareness of the object's shape, which is something most English kids I've met don't have). I've taught English kids and Czech kids origami too. English people - their parents included on occasions - couldn't do it. There would be 10 children around the table and there's always one who stood out, because that one had perfect creases, perfect alignment of paper, follows the steps easily etc, while children the same age simply couldn't manage at all. I often ended up pretty much making the whole thing for them. I don't know why this is - I started origami because a friend of mine, when we were both 9 years old, showed me how to make a paper crane, box and jumping frog. That's all the education I ever had - a little kid my age showed me the steps, I remembered it without ever writing it down, and ever since then I've had other random individuals show me other models, memorised it, repeated it. Why was I able to do it, and almost none of these kids can? Czech kids, however, they manage. Sure they have struggles too, they're just children, but they do manage without me doing every step for them. Their creases and folds are often pretty good, and their results are often pretty good too. What interest me here isn't that there're kids who are good - often all, I was good too when I was only a kid - but that almost all of them were good, to a similar level. I also look at the Japanese - I haven't met many of them, but the few whom I've met all write with a similar handwriting, beautiful handwriting at that. They can pretty much all draw to a good standard. No idea what education is like there art-wise, but it has made me wonder. If there's a whole nation of people who are, on the whole, good at art/crafts (I don't mean good enough to go pro, but simply good enough that it's certainly pretty or has something special about it), can it be that talent has less to do with it than I thought? I do still believe in the talent model, some are better than others even though they went through the same education system, some are able to teach themselves while others cannot grasp the skill/concept even with a teacher at times. However, I am curious as to how much good teaching can genuinely close that gap, and I do believe the gap can be closed to an extent. As to what extent, that depends on the individual, how much predisposed "talent" (or I guess, how their brains are wired to begin with) they have, how much they want to pursue it, how often they practice, etc. I do believe it's a bad thing *generally*. I stress generally, because I do believe you should feel guilty for failing if you failed because of your own lack of effort. So for example, I'm perfectly able to get As in school without much work, therefore if I get a C, I can be sure I didn't work at all (I hardly ever got Cs even when I didn't work, so C was like a big deal for me - it means, I really really messed up). And yes, I do think I should feel bad for that, because I know perfectly well it's because I didn't work hard enough. I also still don't speak Czech, but I do know I have a talent for languages - I grasp the concepts pretty quickly and probably thanks to writing a lot, I'm able to translate between the languages with ease without needing to take most phrases/words literally. Yet I don't speak it, why? I know it's because I haven't tried hard enough - and yes, I should feel bad about that and I do feel bad about that. My saying Czech is difficult, whilst true, is just an excuse. However, what about my friend? The same dyslexic friend I've mentioned, who's trying to write - she's always struggled at school. I remember my little moment of epiphany when my friend came to me and told me her grades for GCSE (a big deal, exams you take at the age of 15) and she was overjoyed, she told me she'd got many Cs! My first instinct (I was only 17 at the time yeah?) was: "Wow those are pretty bad grades. Why is she so happy?" And then the next moment I realised why - it's because C is the grade she got after weeks and months of gruelling hard work. What if I'd told her: hey you should've got an A, you just didn't work hard enough? Worse still, what if she'd *believed* me? It would've crippled her. I think she has every reason to be ecstatic with her Cs, and she should be proud of them. Those grades were the best that she got after much hard work, and that means something, even if it's not a grade society typically values. What if I'd told this girl she just didn't work hard enough? However, to counter my own point (I don't know why I do this... I just do) - I have a different friend who was studying Spanish. At A-Level (another big deal, it comes after GCSE and determines which university you can go to and what subjects you can study), my friend was told she will not get higher than a D grade. C is the national average, so D is pretty bad. Furthermore, you wouldn't get to any university for Spanish with a D grade - you usually need at least a B for the subject you're going to study at uni. My friend was devastated, and I can confirm she's not the quickest thinker. Growing up, I did not consider her one of those students who would excel academically, and I thought if she aimed for a C grade, that would be enough. My friend refused to listen, and promptly went on to announce to her teachers that she is aiming for an A grade. The teachers looked at her painfully, not wanting to tell her don't bother, but genuinely not believing that she ever would achieve it. I don't think anybody believed in her. She studied really, really hard. In the end, I think she either got a B or A in Spanish, and went on to study it at a very good uni. There, at uni, she consistently achieved 2.2s (think of it as a C grade - nobody wants a 2.2 usually). Again, she was really upset. Again, the teachers didn't really think she'd do much better, perhaps she'd go one higher, get a 2.1 if she were lucky (2.1 is the average that most employers look for). In the end? She graduated with a first class honours in Spanish (first class is, as the name implies, the top you can get). I do find her case quite interesting. Sometimes I wonder if it's the system - some people develop one or two years later than the average - doesn't make them stupid, they're as smart as anyone else, but that's just how their brains developed. But the system doesn't make much allowances for this. For me, it seems my friend may have been a case of this - if she were in the year below, perhaps she would've thrived, I'm not sure. She subsequently went on to live and work in Spain for a number of years. For me, there's simply no way anyone can prove conclusively that it's one way or another, and the quantifiers (I think that's what it's called lol) are not measurable (how do you measure "talent" and "greatness"?) and without having a control sample - such as a bunch of children being nurtured and taught the same set of skills according to the methods that suits them individually (and how can you ensure that the teaching method is the optimum one for each individual kid?), and then pushing ALL of them to pursue the same career professionally (assuming they ALL had the same drive to do so - I'm sure motivation here would become a factor) - we simply cannot get any answers. Hmm, for me, those people will probably never be happy no matter how great they are. When I said content, I simply mean that you should be happy with the way you are. For example, I am happy and confident that I am a good writer. Does it mean I've achieved my best? Nope, not at all. Does it mean I can pack it up now and stop learning? Nope, no way, that'd be suicide. But am I happy with where I am? Yes. I guess my principles on this could be seen as contradictory, but I think they're healthy. I believe that you should always try to reach for the stars - aim high, aim very very high - and, as long as you know you've worked to the best of your ability, be content with whatever level you actually come to achieve. If I aimed for an A and achieved a B, I should still be proud of the B grade. Does it mean that I should only aim for Bs for my next exam? No way. Aim for the A. Aim high, you never know what you could achieve, might achieve, you could surprise yourself. But "great" is simply what each individual's best is, in my opinion. Sometimes your level of "best" equals the level of professionals, the level that society requires before anyone would pay money for it, other times your "best" doesn't reach that level, and that's okay too. We're all good at different things, that's all. I do believe all of us have "talent" in something - there's always something we're good at, it might not be something that's appreciated in school, in an academic system, it might not be something that society has put a value and a price on, it might not be a quality people are measuring. For example, my husband is an excellent teacher (he's not a teacher, but he seriously has great intuition, far better than me, when it comes to adjusting to people's level and having enough patience and gentleness to coax them into learning and succeeding) - how do you measure "being good at teaching"? Nothing in our system measures this skill, nor is it something we're taught to value. In the UK they spend one year at postgrad level teaching you how to teach, that's it. Haven't you ever met those teachers - the really special ones who somehow managed to tap into your interests, your gifts, and lifted you up and showed you something you never thought you'd enjoy, much less be good at? There're many teachers in this world, but only a few ever change your life. I guess now it's becoming a debate between skill/talent and passion - that heart of compassion that makes you see past everything else. In any case, I don't think knowing that we're weaker in other areas, and maybe we would always be weaker in those areas, should be cause for alarm or pain. In Chinese we have a proverb - "There's always a higher mountain". You might be good at something, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there's probably someone better than you. So when is it that you could be considered as "good enough"? I don't think we have to be good at everything - being good at everything or anything at all doesn't give us our intrinsic value, doesn't buy us love, or worth. And I think it's an unhealthy trend that it seems we're told we have to believe that everyone's equally good at everything - well, what if we're not? What are those who won't ever "get there" to do? There's no shame in being bad at something - only shame in not trying. I don't mind someone admitting they're bad at something - what I can't stand is someone ruled by fear. There's a difference between a confident admittance that you're just not as good at something, and a diffidence that will dictate how you approach something, that reluctance to give something a go because you think you'll fail. I don't think not having talent in something means you've failed, and I think everyone should be proud of their work as long as they know they've tried their hardest. On the flip side, while my parents were happy about my grades at school, they rarely praised me - why? Because they understood that it was a fluke. I was smart enough for the system to breeze through it consistently, but grades are not what they valued. They value hard work and determination, and that I lacked. I never really studied for much at all. And I agree with them. What are these grades now? Who even cares? You would think of me as deluded and childish if I were to brag about my school grades now - and you would be right, too. But everyone in the world would appreciate someone who's hard-working, who has perseverance. Anyway, I think I've gone on a tangent... O_O sorry about that.
Craft by definition means art or to make something. I don't see why it's pretentious to refer to it as a craft. Is it pretentious to refer to making jewelry or sculptures as artisan crafting? No. Also what is wrong with art being a higher calling or a driving purpose in someone's life? There are many horrible things people could choose to let drive them and be their higher calling. It's not only harmless but a very good thing. You make fiction writing sound like it's dry and dull like writing a stereo manual. There is nothing mundane at all about writing. Weaving words together to move people and illustrate complex ideas is both beautiful and extraordinary.
Like KaTrian mentioned, I never said hard work is the only factor, because the wrong kind of practice will lead you nowhere or it will only take you so far. I do believe age is a factor and I think there is scientific evidence that the older we are, the more difficult it is to master different skills (an old dog doesn't learn new tricks and all that... or at least we have that saying in Finland, but you get the gist). Pronounciation is also a tricky beast; you can be technically great, even artistically (meaning you could write an artistically great book in some language other than your mother tongue) without being able to pronounce the words like native speakers. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make any real statements about it, but I think the ability to pronounce a different language perfectly requires you to practice it diligently at a younger age. I've no idea where the age limits go or if there are any, but I've gotten the impression that if you're, say, well over 30, it's going to be... very difficult to master the pronounciation of a new language. But this is just speculation based on absolutely nothing (except personal anecdotes). You better reread my post, a bit more carefully this time, because right now you're just putting words in my mouth. By the way, could you offer anything more substantial to support your claim than mere personal anecdotes? Otherwise this argument is just silly when one side offers scientific research data and the other ignores it and just insists their own experiences are proof enough to overthrow any opposing arguments. Yup, you understood my point correctly. At a top level, I believe the talented and skilled can't be told apart. Also, many times after someone has become truly great at something, people label them talented even if they never had much talent for whatever it is that makes them great. It's just that when someone becomes great at something (I mean world-class great), they become so popular that a lot of people who didn't know them in the onset of their career learn of their existence and since they only see the "finished product," a great artist/athlete, they quickly label them as talented even if that is not the case. It's easy to look at someone like Georges Saint Pierre and go "meh, he's just talented." But to me, that's almost insulting: he, for instance, worked insanely hard to get where he is today. He worked shitty jobs, was barely able to support himself, and basically dedicated his life to combat sports. And he obviously trained correctly. The results speak for themselves. Royce Gracie is another good example. He also defeated opponents much bigger than him even though he could have just stuck to his own weight class. It was just that his training was so good that he was able to defeat his opponents whose training didn't match that of the Gracie family's. Then again, when the MMA world caught up with the Gracies, they were dethroned and presently none of them hold any significant MMA titles. And it's not because there was a sudden burst of MMA talents out there, but it's just that the training methods of others have improved and surpassed the Gracie methods. An example outside the sphere of martial arts is, for instance, Jiao Liuyang (since Michael Phelps was mentioned). She holds the world record in 200m butterfly even though she's just 5'7, a far cry from the "monsters" of women's swimming who are often 6' or taller. Granted, having a tall, top-heavy physique with long limbs, and big hands and feet helps to a degree, but it's just a small advantage that can and has been overcome with diligent, proper training. Btw, have you looked at Mike Tyson's history? When he was starting out, he trained like an animal. He clocked insane hours at the gym and worked harder than any other guy there. His raw talent may have gotten him off to a great start, but from what I've read about his career, it was not only hard work, but the right kind of training (that suited his style perfectly) that made him as great as he was at the time. Then again, there has been a lot of convincing discussion in the boxing circles that when he was a champion, the heavy weight division was at an all-time low, that his opponents weren't as tough (for the most part) as before or after his heyday. Another notion about his rise and fall is related to his one-time coach/mentor, Cus D'Amato, and when Cus died, Tyson's career also started to wane, that when Tyson no longer had D'Amato's influence in his life, his training and lifestyle took a noticeable turn for the worse which also affected his performance in the ring in a significant way. But, again, this is just speculation. I can't really comment on math geniuses because I don't really know anything about them or math (or sciences that deal with math), sorry about that. I wish I did because it's an interesting subject, but I always sucked at math and didn't have any particular desire to learn it. The only academic skill I can comment on with at least personal anecdotes is the academic study of the English language and literature. Plenty of people have said I have talent for English (my mother tongue is Finnish), but I disagree: we start to study English in the 3rd grade. I sucked at it back then. I only started to become better than my peers when I was around 10. I was a huge video game nerd back then and started subscribing an American video game magazine. I read every issue like the Bible, dictionary in hand, and I did that every day. Back then I didn't realize I was studying the language: to me it was just fun to read about video games and when I encountered a word I didn't know, it was fun to look it up and memorize it because it had to do with video games (even if only in a roundabout way). Currently I'm studying Swedish and Russian and I can tell you I have zero talent for languages, but I'm getting there, little by little. When I started to study English consciously, I realized just how unskilled and untalented I was. Now I'm a bit better (good enough to get into the Helsinki Uni to study English with the 14th highest score of about 500-600 applicants, which isn't as good as KaTrian's 7th highest score, but it's still a level of skill that didn't come easily or without hours of daily studying), but it still irks me when someone calls me talented. It feels like they think I didn't lift a finger to get the skills I have, like the hours I put into studying the language don't count. Screw that. I know I'm still a novice, but I've paid my dues to acquire even this skill level, and it had nothing to do with talent. For the sake of simplicity, let's call this artistic ability to e.g. produce good stories and great, improvised solos "insight." It's my belief that that, too, can be learned. If we look at someone like Steve Vai, he divides people's opinions. Others think he's the greatest guitarist ever. Others say he's all technique and no soul, no creativity, no art, i.e. no "insight." I tend to agree with the latter to the degree that he has only written one song I like and even that's because I like the lyrics, not the music itself. But is all of that a surprise when his claim to fame has been a very heavy focus on technique? While someone like Django achieved sufficient technique and then focused on what we're talking about here, art, soul, this "insight" into music in which he was much more skilled than Vai, who hasn't put in nearly as much effort because of his focus on developing inhuman technique. It's easier to learn good technique, perhaps, because the methods are clear and readily available (especially in this day and age of online learning materials). This soul, art, style, whatever you want to call it, is a vague notion because so much of it is about personal taste. Someone's amazing interpreter (be it Django or Kurt Cobain) is someone else's bore or dilettante. Someone thinks John Coltrane is the most amazing improvisator ever (he's certainly my favorite jazz artist) while someone else can't stand his music, thinks his improvisation is boring and without true soul. The same can be said about books: someone thinks Hemingway is the most boring author who ever lived while another can't praise his works enough. Can you see the problem? And it's not just laymen who disagree on who's great and who's not, it's professionals as well. However, I believe this "insight" can also be learned. I have nothing but anecdotes and personal observations to support this at this time because I haven't studied the subject enough, but it's my belief that if you study what makes your favorite artists great in your opinion (when talking about artists whom you feel have great "insight," i.e. the ability to produce amazing stories or solos etc), you will eventually start to see these patterns in their work, see what makes their work "click." That's when you can start to copy their work and in that way integrate what makes them great into your own work. Gradually these things will merge with your own skills, tastes, and artistic vision, and through this process, you have gained more "insight" into your craft, more soul, more art. But this is very time-consuming and takes a lot of effort and because so much of it is in the eye of the beholder, many artists find it easier to focus on technique because it's easier to measure: how many notes can you play per second? It's easy to tell who's the faster guitarist and measure skill mathematically. Who's a better artist, John Coltrane or Charlie Parker? Mozart or Bach? That's impossible to measure and boils down to opinions, matters of taste. But I maintain that one can also learn this "insight," soul, heart, creativity, whatever you call it. It's just more difficult to find the way to study and learn it, especially to find a way that works for you specifically, because just finding one way to learn it may not produce the desired result if the learning method does not suit you. That's one of many reasons why it's easy to get discouraged and just focus on technique, but it's doable.
I'm bowing out of this derail. If people want to think that no one has physical, mental, or creative limits, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat.
That's fine by me. It's always a good idea to look for scientific research data about the subject being discussed to find out if one's opinion holds water or if it's nothing more than a faulty assumption based on subjective experiences. If we ignore the research data (and other supporting materials) that the other side of the argument provides simply because we don't like what the research proves, we might as well cover our ears, repeat our subjective opinion a few times, and then go la-la-la. I should do more research even though it's sometimes tedious to wade through all that research data, but it does get easier the more you do it. Guess it's a skill just like any other.
