So this thread is partly inspired by the magic-users thread and partly inspired by the general concept of Talent V. Training and how there's a glorification of "gifts" and talents over people who work for their skills, especially in fiction writing.

I have a personal philosophy that true knowledge, wisdom and skill comes from actually learning and living for the sake of learning. I definitely respect people who have natural gifts for things, and I too, have gifts for certain activities like baking, writing etc. however this does not surpass the fact that I greatly admire and consider people who've actually trained at their craft superior to people with raw talents.

This thought process comes from the belief that learning builds true strength, grit, and humility. If you just naturally can do something, you lack the wisdom to use it properly or show admiration for people who don't. It breeds arrogance and, ironically, makes you weaker since someone with the knowledge of your talent could easily outclass your abilities. That's not to say that people with natural talents for things are inherently arrogant or lazy, just that I feel that even a person with a natural understanding of a certain skill should never discount learning formally about that skill or someone else's knowledge of it.

I bring this up more as a criticism of fiction, rather than a commentary on real life, as "talent" in real life still requires a lot of rigorous practice, training and learning to fully utilize. I find that a lot of stories, particularly now, seem to revolve around how great a person is for having an innate ability to use magic, or fight, or control some piece of high technology, rather than the work that character could put in to be able to have that skill. It's why I love wizards in DnD while disliking the concept of Sorcerers, it's why Gandalf is one of my least favorite characters and I consider "Chosen One" and "Gifted" stories to be very weak.

Most stories have a lesson, and the idea of "The Gifted" is a fairly poor message to send: only those with raw talents can truly succeed. I suppose you could argue that stories like these encourage us to seek out our natural talents, but doesn't really reflect that value very well in my opinion.

That doesn't meant you can't have a gifted character, or even a gifted main character, I just like credit to be paid to the ones who worked for their art as well. To me, I think The Sword of Truth series does a fairly good job of this. There're a lot of things wrong in that series, but one thing Goodkind does right is how even though there're people born with "The Gift" that does not mean, in any way, that only they can attain arcane or mundane power. A large number of "gifted" wizards are outsmarted easily by wizards who had to work for their abilities. Some of the greatest battles in that setting's histories involved a gifted leader failing horribly against a mundane person with knowledge and training. Even the main character, Richard Rahl, refuses to let his incredible example of "The Gift" get to his head, and actively undergoes the same kind of training for his magic, hunting, and diplomacy skills that all "normal" people must go through so he can better understand the rigors of his subjects.

so how does BGSF feel? do you believe that, ultimately, raw talent will trump skill? or should we be considering those who train to be more admirable than a naturally talented person?

Doesn't success in an activity usually require both talent and training/experience?

I am more impressed with people who strive to improve their abilities than I am with people who are born with natural ability. But, as Amazon Queen says, in real life it takes both.

There will be people no matter how hard they train that will never be as good as someone else. Being a 'master' at something (which I dont believe is possible, as I believe everyone can improve no matter how good) generally requires you to have atleast some innate ability. For instance, take sports for example, basketball on this case, a 4 foot 10 inch person, no matter how skilled and practiced has no chance of succeeding against someone such as lebron james or michael jordan whom has innate strength and height.


Though, what's more impressive? Well if that 4 foot 10 inch person is somehow capable of making every shot he takes no matter the distance and beats michael jordan/lebron james? Then hell yes I think it is more impressive, I just dont think its generally possible.

I chose the second one. I have never been very intelligent or physically capable of any athletic activity. But one thing I always had was determination. I taught myself Tagalog by practicing everyday for over 5 years until I became almost fluent at it. I bought books, cassette tapes(there were no CDs back then), and went to Filipino restaurants everyday to speak the language.

Some of the people here in the forums know that I am a martial arts instructor. I got to be that way by practicing over and over and over and over and over.....

I've seen students over the years that can pick up a technique instantly that took me months to master, but they get bored after a while and move on.

I don't believe in talent. I find that word offensive (not in a overblown way, mind you,) to people who are good at something.


Do I think some people can have ease with certain things they've never tried before? Sure. But I think that comes from things that influenced them in life. A person with an affinity for music will probably be good with things that involve recognizing and constructing patterns, as well as putting together thoughts in creative ways, just because those skills come with the territory.


There's a part of me that gets a bit snappy when I read about something someone made or did, and the highlight of the article is "THIS 16 YEAR OLD ___" "SHE DID THIS AT THE AGE OF ___" and etc. The reason why I get that bout of irritation is because people seem to think doing something at a young age makes someone incredible. I don't think that, for the most part. I think that just means they had circumstances that either worked in their favor, or pushed them to defy the statistic norms of their agegroup.


When a young girl paints a really amazing portrait, I don't call that talent. I call that a good upbringing, and someone having the fortune and encouragement to explore something they love. Any child can be "talented" and 'naturally gifted" at something if they are given the chance to do what they find a passion for, and pushed to take it as far as they can. And, more likely, many people may not find what they love until later on in life. A lot in there 20s. Some in there 30s. And some, even further down the road. Is it because they didn't have natural ability or talent? More likely, they just weren't in an environment where they could explore that aspect of themselves until whatever age their ability began.


So I don't consider someone born with natural talents impressive, because I don't believe that there is such a thing, for the most part. Of course, you'll have the child who had the genes that helped his brain develop, and when it comes to athletic things, DNA can help a lot. But being born with the perfect set of tools means nothing if you don't have something in your life that drives you to use them. Someone could be born with the potential to be the most literate person that's ever lived... but that potential will never show itself if its never pushed to do so. If they barely touch books in their life, who will know it was ever there?


The people that chase what they love. That indulge in what makes them happy, despite what they were told is best for them by others not too happy with how their own lives came out. Those are the people that impress me.

Ever hear of a player named Muggsy Bogues? 5'3 and was one hell of a great player.

On topic: Hard work over innate talent any day of the week. With the hard worker, you know you're going to get someone who cares and will do their best, there is no guarantee that the person with innate talent is going to care enough to do a good job at what he's talented at.

"Talent gets you a seat at the table, but hard work and persistence will get you three squares a day."

But every once in a while there is some one that has good street smarts, talent, hard work and persistence. Not often grant you, but it does occasionally happen.

I believe innate ablities run the risk of you getting bored at whatever you′re doing, despite being good at it. If you haven′t worked for something you almost never appreciate it enough to be truly happy with the accomplishment.

At the same time, practicing something over and over and over without getting better is frustrating beyond belief. Or so I′ve heard...

The first always shocks me to see, but the second is far more admirable. Especially in those who have overcome learning disabilities.

Very true. I've seen students pick up techniques very easy in martial arts class all the time, only to see them get bored and leave.

Having a natural talent for something doesn't seem any more admirable or something to be proud of than being good-looking, having red hair or being born in a particular country. Its an accident of birth, good luck (well maybe not good luck being a ginger ), not something the person had any input to. That said an inordinate amount of people are proud of this sort of thing. Given high childhood mortality (except in affluent countries in recent years) and most of the world's population never getting the opportunity to develop their talents the amount of artistic talent, scientific genius etc that has just gone unrecognised and wasted must be enormous. How many potential Michaelangelos or William Shakespeares lived out their lives as peasant farmers?