> We believe creative people are born geniuses or have their brains wired differently or enjoy “ah-ha!” moments in which ideas come fully formed as easily as switching on a light bulb. In reality creativity is — and always has been — a process, one that takes time and discipline to achieve. Anyone with the impulse to be creative can do so, courtesy of our human heritage.
This is a common point of irritation for me. If you become good at something (a form of art, software development, whatever) people tend to basically reject the years of hard work and cultivated skills you put in, ascribing it to a natural and magical talent that they simply don't have. It basically turns a compliment into a backhanded dismissal.
I 100% agree with you about that when someone has worked hard to get where they are.
But there are people who legit just have a knack for something and it's easy. For someone without the skill, both types of people probably look the same.
Even though it's a backhanded compliment, take it anyhow. It shows that you do it so well that they can only tell you're really good at it, but nothing about how you go there. It'll probably always sting, but there's no need to let the wound fester.
Sorta related: I heard once that it's a lot better (for the child) to tell a child that they worked hard than that they were smart. Saying that it's an innate part of them makes them more likely to slack off and rely on that innate talent, and telling them that they did good work makes them more likely to work hard to make it happen again. It seems such a little thing, but I think it's the same kind of thing that leads to your pet peeve.
We should all be complimenting people's accomplishments, rather than their abilities.
From my experience, that knack is "just" such a love of the field that they are not only willing but compelled to lose themselves in the process. When you can sit for hours trying to figure out some damn bug or playing the same phrase over and over and over or editing your writing to within an inch of its life, you're going to become good at it. You probably won't be the best in the world--there is certainly a gap between Mozart and Salieri--but out of 100 people who have demonstrated brilliant success in the world, 99 of them aren't those preternatural geniuses. "Just" people for whom 10 hours a day of practice is as natural as breathing.
And yeah, tell those children they have passion, not talent. Praise their accomplishments as the outcome of exercising their joy, instead of a passive outgrowth of their innate ability.
Kind of like ascribing someone’s talents to a handicap (blind musicians, creative people with ADHD, supremely skilled people with autism). If somebody is good at something, they probably put in the hours.
Paraphrasing here, but I know George Saunders has basically said that he attributes his success as an author not to any ability to crank out excellent drafts on the first try (and tbh I mildly distrust anyone who claims they can do this), but to having the stomach to sit with crummy first drafts and refine them over and over until the final edited product is good. Even for someone who's spent years cultivating a razor-sharp ear for language (which is a skill in itself!), the act of creation still involves the brute force of patience and persistence and plain old time.
I find it pretty motivating, actually. "Natural and magical talent" as a frame of reference is less accommodating to bad days and false starts and crummy first drafts; a combination of persistence and honed skills, on the other hand, gives you the freedom to try things and fail and then gradually make them better—without the shadow of that initial failure looming over you and undermining your so-called "natural talent."
I think inborn talent in a particular field is very real, and usually impresses people such that they can't help but say "you're talented". There is a separate quality that I would call industriousness, which determines whether a talented person will realize their potential, or whether an untalented person will develop the skill enough to make it anyways. Most of the people I have seen making it in the art world are actually industrious but untalented, and I would say we are far more likely to see this type of work everywhere we look. I think there's an ineffable spark I sometimes notice in a movie or whatever, and that's where a naturally talented – and – hardworking person got to make a dent. But yeah most works of art/film/music are mediocre due to having only the hardworking aspect.
IMO natural talent, in an arts sense, is an ability to spot something better than someone else can, that give you an edge and makes it easier to learn quickly.
Whatever is spotted can be learned though, it just means you'll need to put in some more work to tune into things and develop that skill.
I read once an explanation of Brazilian soccer greatness as being because they played a hacky sack game which was bouncing a soccer ball across their knees kind of.
Talent is transferable skills. Getting good can’t come without practice but you don’t have to be practicing the exact thing.
On the one hand, I'm all for other people having stupid ideas that interfere with their own lives. Since I know that these ideas are substantially false*, and I'm not inclined towards giving other people's opinions "rent-free space" in my own head, I largely ignore this sort of stupidity these days.
On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the disservice these types of opinions do to people in general. In the young, it sets them up for "failure"**, and also DOES diminish and disrespect the work the people put into what they do. That's maybe, just, "like their opinion, man", but, it's part of a whole range of "lack of empathy / social cohesiveness" issues that are helping push our species towards its "brink" far more quickly than 'strictly necessary'.
* There are many papers on studies, including "twin studies", examining genetic vs environmental influences on performance, expertise, etc. There is an undeniable genetic component - the simplest examples are typically in the realm of athletics. There is no environment that turns me into a viable NBA player***. However, just as people are incredibly "innumerate" and just plain bad at "statistics" elsewhere, absurd numbers of people apparently believe that there is some "talent jar" (most, even worse, viewing it in terms of "born with / without" vs. an at least more sensible "set up within the first 3 - 5 years of life, substantially") and either someone was given a certain "talent" from the jar, or they weren't.
** In the sense of "not reaching THEIR full potential" - studies in psychology have clearly established that ideas like "talent", rather than "work invested" are 'caustic' - they can massively interfere with performance, learning potential, etc. Simply search for terms like 'talent', 'work', 'practice', 'belief', 'skill' etc. on PubMed or Google Scholar etc. (tight on time, else I'd add some refs right here)
*** Edit / important note: this concerns POTENTIAL, not realization of such a goal which obviously takes just as much hard work, generally, as reaching high levels in any other area.
**** Who apparently COULD join the NBA, most likely, despite height limitations...
I don’t see it this way. Talent is real. It’s very likely that people have undeveloped talents, though. Perhaps not everyone appreciates the work or requires to develop it, but many do.
This is a common point of irritation for me. If you become good at something (a form of art, software development, whatever) people tend to basically reject the years of hard work and cultivated skills you put in, ascribing it to a natural and magical talent that they simply don't have. It basically turns a compliment into a backhanded dismissal.