Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Hercule Poirot]

Some say that there is no such thing as talent or natural ability and all that is needed for great success is practice and hard work. I'm uncertain about this. It seems to fly in the face of the world as I perceive it. Though hard work is absolutely necessary to fully utilize one's talent, it seems likewise true that some people are able to learn concepts and skills within a particular field much faster and with a lot less effort than others.

Malcolm Gladwell argues that 10,000 hours of practice and study will make one an expert in any chosen field. Is 10,000 hours really enough? I think it would take me a lot longer than that to become a great painter- for instance- or master a new language, though my skills would no doubt improve.

Thank you in advance for any replies.

[Goku]

Humans are all born with some sort of genetic predisposition. Some are more physically fit, some are more intelligent, some more creative, etc.

There is a natural heirarchy of social class and job distrubtion within the human kingdom due to genetic makeup. It's not something that is magically pre-ordained like... "you sir are meant to be a farmer" but given a human that has no ability to fight, is very calm in nature, and likes nature would be more apt and suitable for a farming job. It's only "natural" to become one with that job.

I believe we all have a gentic calling or something that is suitable for us. Not all of us can be leaders (however many still strive to be)

However, I also believe because we are highly intelligent... (when compared to animals) we can adapt to any given circumstance. It's even true when you look at dogs. Given that there is no Alpha in a pack of dogs, the beta dog will take charge. A leader is necessary for the survival of the pack so it naturally occurs.

So 10,000 hours is actually more than enough time to be an expert in anything. That's a lot of time. Even if you worked 12 hours everyday for something that would mean 834 days of your life dedication. That's about 2 years of full dedication.

There's a case of physchologist, Laszlo Polgar, who brought up this theory. His daughters all were "geniuses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

He theorized genius was made not born and he heavily supported his case when his 3 daughters all become world class chess champions.

[Joe666]

My take on this subject is that even with so called 'natural talent or ability', one still needs to practice to become a true 'professional' at whatever skill.

10,000 hours does seem low. Simple math - Say 10 hours a day is spent on said talent/skill X a full year = 3,650 hours. 10,000/3,650 is 2.7 years. Take some days off per year and you have about 3 years of practice or study.

That's pretty low for just about anything. To a certain degree I believe it's true, but it will only get you so far.

[Chet Wautlands]

[Fishead soup]

Passion, and the ability to be innovative, and think outside the box is more important. Anyone can learn to draw what he/she see's, or play a musical instrament. To create something that is both formally, and conceptually strong, while being able to communicate something important is what matters.

It's also important to resist the temptations of self indulgence and assume that talent overides everything else. Sometimes less is more. We all don't want to listen to a 20 minute guitar solo.

[harlowethrombey]

Natural talent exists.

I've seen many people who are incredibly gifted and incredibly lazy, but they can coast through on their natural ability.

Hardwork and dedication can make you skilled at something, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a talent. I'm not talented at my sport, but since I practiced every dang day for 23 years I became pretty good at it so now I'd be considered skilled.

A person with natural talent who practiced the same amount that I did would (and did) blow me away. They usually went on to try their hand on the pro tour.

Not having a natural talent isnt an excuse to be bad at something and having a gift in that area isnt an excuse to be lazy.

[JMO]

Wasn't the idea in that book that, for a particular skill/job or whatever, you just need enough talent.

There is a particular level of talent you need to have and then above that, it's practice.

[AgentM]

[Koveras]

I've never heard 10,000 hours of practice, I've always heard 10 years. But I've been playing the flute and the recorder for 10+ - and probably well over 10,000 hours though who's counting - and even with musical talent I'm still no master. Sometimes when I hear a particularly good pro I want to kill myself.
FWIW.

[Goku]

Fishead brought into question creativity. Which is a very good question to this debate. Now talent means proficency in an area. Which can be taught. Any mechanical or specialized skill without creativity can be conditioned.

[Rteacher]

Here's a list of child prodigies in music...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_prodigies

Here's a list of child prodigies in other arts and sciences ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies

That would seemingly indicate either natural - or supernatural - ability (unless the learning was done within the womb - which may often be the case...)

[Ya-ta Boy]

It's talent + a huge amount of effort. Ten million hours of the hardest work won't make me a Michaelangelo...or even a Jackson Pollack on a bad day.

[peppermint]

surely what's needed to really excel is a combo of natural ability and lots and lots of practical experience. 10,000 hours of practice on the violin is kind of moot if you're tone deaf, right?

[yingwenlaoshi]

What about that blind, mentally-handicapped guy who just went to a piano and started playing Chopin or something. Saw that on That's Incredible or some show of the like a long time ago.

That proves it right there.