The Myth of Talent

Currently reading 'Bounce' The myth of talent and the power of practice by Matthew Syed. I would recommend to anyone who is a fan of any sport.

Matthew Syed is a former professional table tennis player turned sports journalist. He claims, and backs up that talent does not exist. It is through hours and hours of practice that separates the best from the rest. He calls it the 'iceberg illusion' we only see the end of what is years and years and hours upon hours of training building up to that very moment.

He goes on to say it is also just circumstantial, his parents happened to buy him a table tennis table and set it up in the garage, and every day after school he and his brother would play hours upon hours against each other, then he was seen playing at school where they spotted his 'talent', which he says was just the fact he was practising every day. This coach then took him to a table tennis club that was around the corner, where he developed his skills further. This all just fell into place for him, garage with a table, a coach that specialised in table tennis and a club that happened to be in his area. No talent got him there, just hours and hours of practice and circumstance.

He goes onto to make some startling arguments, and before reading this I could not accept that talent did not exist. However, 2/3 pages in my mind was already swaying.

So ask you, does talent really exist?

If Shaquille O'Neal for example decided as a very young child that he wanted to be the Olympic 10000m champion and Mo Farah an all-time great basketball player, with the right conditions and training effort could this have happened?

I think it's fair to say that some people have better hand-to-eye co-ordination than others, and that no amount of practice can overcome a real lack of that 'talent'.

It's also possible that the best potential tennis player that's ever lived never played tennis.

Julius the book is against that, you get hand-eye co-ordination through practising. He goes into depth on the subject that will really surprise you. In that instance, the person who seemed liked they had better hand-eye co-ordination grew up with advantage over another in some way.

He says, I was the best in the county at a young age and people marvelled at my natural talent, but I knew that I had advantages over all my competitors, avenues available to me that they didn't that made me better.

Given that people vary in every other way - height, hair/eye colour, intelligence, fingerprints, physique etc - basically no two people are alike - it seems very unlikely that we are all born with exactly the same degree of hand-eye coordination.

Whilst it is true that practice makes perfect most of the time, I think talent does exist and I'll take Ronnie O'Sullivan as the example. Even at a very young age he was tipped to be brilliant and can pull off the most ridiculous of shots without much effort.

I'll make another point too. Drawing. I can't draw at all yet my brother is superb at it. Is drawing not a talent?

Special Juan did you draw a lot when you were a child? I'm sure he did, all the above mentioned by Julius are genetics, is talent a real thing? Something passed down? When you see an athlete with a child who becomes great as well, that could be through enhances possibilities through their parents.

Ronnie O'Sullivan was playing with adults when he was 8/9 years old for hours and hours a day. “I was brought up a little bit like Tiger Woods was brought up, it was hard practice and I didn’t really have a childhood. I loved going to the snooker club, but I want Ronnie Jnr to be happy and enjoy himself." Circumstance

Interesting post by CAS. I would not go that far, I think talent does exist but that it is overrated. One can look at the different career trajectories of Ernest Gulbis and David Ferrer. Some talent requires little or no refinement. Like natural speed or height. No amount of hardwork will ever turn an 11 second 100 meters runner (still very fast) to 10 flat or faster 100 meter runner. Great sprinters are born they are not made. However even in physical sports where size is a premium like the NBA we can get a player like mugsy boges who at 5 foot 3 is too short to play football nowadays but who made it in the NBA and played for almost a decade, or Spudd Webb who at 5 foot 7 won the slam dunk contest. Hardwork always trumps talent alone. And hardwork with talent is the most lethal combination like Federer or Michael Jordan for example. So talent does exist but I think sports fans over value it in general. It is the refinement and hardwork that OP is talking about that really makes a world class athlete talent may or may not be a necessary factor but not anywhere near sufficient.

You can't discount things like hand-eye coordination. Some people are better at it than others. It's like saying someone can be taught to have a higher IQ.

I totally agree that players can develop virtually all of their skills, but only if they have the physical possibility to do so. For example: if Peter Crouch had been given exactly the same upbringing, opportunities and coaching as Lionel Messi he would NOT be as good because Messi was fortunate to have a very low centre of gravity that Crouch could never 'learn'.

While I agree most things can be taught, some people don't have the same platform to build on as other people. And hand-eye coordination, low centre of gravity and a high IQ are good examples of things you are born with rather than attributes that can be invented from practice.

That's my opinion anyway.

Very interesting article by the way.

I did but for as long as I can remember I was never good at it. I did get it a bit wrong though, it's not so much drawing but art in general; painting and graphics. Funny story, my mum took my brother to the doctor when he was about two and the doctor said to her:
"You have an artist in the family."
She said: "Why?"
"The way he holds his pen."

Lo and behold he was great at art.

As for Ronnie, I don't know loads about him but he's widely regarded as the most naturally talented player ever.

He doesn't discount it, he says you can create it. I don't think you can compare IQ with hand eye co-ordination really, if you saw a kid pick up a racket and just naturally start hitting the ball effortlessly, you dont know what he has done in the years prior to make him have that co-ordination.

Im not saying I completely agree by the way, just raising his points that I find fascinating. I don't think I can do it justice unless someone else had read it.

He produced a study of clarinet players all having the the same amount of hours practising, all started at the exact same time, so why are some better than others. If you dig a little deeper there is always a reason, the ones that were better were having extra lessons at home, or had parents that played and got them into music schools etc.

God bless him if Tenez was here he would be frothing at the mouth at this point. The difference between tennis talent and physicality was to Tenez what War and Peace was to Tolstoy.

As a Federer fan when it was suggested to me to read I also turned my nose up at the idea as well. "have you seen Federer play? you can't teach that!" However, circumstance even for him played a great role. Talent can be argued is just extreme practice, in terms of Gulbis and Ferrer when they were very young maybe Gulbis did train more than Ferrer, what makes Ferrer better now is his desire compared to Gulbis. Maybe Gulbis trained with a machine and Ferrer a wall, that would make Gulbis have better timing, ala Agassi.

CAS wrote:I don't think you can compare IQ with hand eye co-ordination

I do - they are both products of our innate genetic and physiological make-up. Both can be improved with practice (even IQ, to some extent) - but someone born with the 'wrong' physiological make-up for superb hand-to-eye co-ordination can never practice long or hard enough to match someone born with the 'right' physiological make-up who practices just as much.

CAS wrote:As a Federer fan when it was suggested to me to read I also turned my nose up at the idea as well. "have you seen Federer play? you can't teach that!" However, circumstance even for him played a great role. Talent can be argued is just extreme practice, in terms of Gulbis and Ferrer when they were very young maybe Gulbis did train more than Ferrer, what makes Ferrer better now is his desire compared to Gulbis. Maybe Gulbis trained with a machine and Ferrer a wall, that would make Gulbis have better timing, ala Agassi.

Now I don't think talent is just extreme practice. Take the sprinter in the analogy I have made, you can even find him at a young age and take him to the best sprinting and weight training and this or that and the other thing if the guy isn't naturally fast he doesn't have a snowballs chace of getting to world class sprinter numbers on the gun. Genetics plays a part, it is just the old nurture and nature arguement brought into the sports world. This argument is so intractable because both are important. In sports as in life hard work and discipline is a superior trait to have than lazy talent. But talent with hardwork is usually what you find at the highest level of all sports.

you develop your hand eye co-ordination as a baby, grasping toys, to playing puzzles etc. There are methods to improve hand-eye co-ordination. You are getting into genetics a bit.

I think you have to get into genetics a bit - unless you think all babies are born with exactly the same potential. I don't.

I have heard Matthew Syed talk about that little local pocket of expertise in Table Tennis.

Elsewhere it is estimated that it takes 10,000 hours on average to make yourself an expert in anything.

Of course in sport there are natural dispositions dependent on body size and shape - but apart from that 10,000 hours will make you an expert.

I think being fast is genetics, its not a 'skill' you can teach someone to run better but someone is born with the muscles others aren't. Talent to me is Federer hitting half-volleys from the baseline for clean winners, or Messi have the ball glued to his feet. However, were they really born with that ability or was it nurtured in a unique way that we will never see?

Just thought it was a fascinating topic really, 10,000 hours of practice and you are great that was the formula. I haven't made my mind up myself, I dont want to believe a lot of it I think that plays a part!

But how does Matthew account for 2 players who practised 10,000 hours each but one is better than the other? Sure you can become an expert through immersion or practice but it's talent that separates out the 10,000er's at the top.

But talent is a generic term. There's different avenues of physical and mental talent. For example mentally, what about the person who has the focus to make their 10,000 hours count more than the other guy with same practice? e.g Gulbis vs Ferrer. Is the ability to focus more just down to circumstances only? It's like saying an army general leading large groups of men across strategic battle campaigns is really just the same as the guy who counts bean in a lowly book-keeper role, except he just had a bit more practice at leading men. I don't buy it for a second.

Raw talent in itself doesn't guarantee success at the highest levels, nor does "raw practice"...my belief is the guys at the very top have physical talent (hand-eye, foot-eye, movement), mental talent (not bowing under pressure, focus, stay in the moment) but also practice like mad.

Surely evolution in its rawest form creates new intra-species "talent" to drive enhanced adaptation and survival. My point being that there are innate differences amongst us which nature fully intends as a way of driving competitive advantage - the better traits survive, the weaker perish. We are not born equal (ability) in my opinion.

CAS if fed wasn't 6 foot 1 and instead had the same drive and good luck but was born 5 foot 2 do you think he could win as much? Or more apt to your analogy if fed just was a person lacking in footspeed he would not get to those balls in the time required or early enough to even display the technique you describe.

he says genetics hold us back not talent, if someone at 5'5 practiced basketball for 15 years and someone at 6'5 did then the 6'5 guy would be better, if they are both 6'5 maybe one is more flexible, one is faster or stronger, but not more 'gifted'. Born to play tennis or basketball, really? its said a lot but its not realistic really.

lydian wrote:But how does Matthew account for 2 players who practised 10,000 hours each but one is better than the other? Sure you can become an expert through immersion or practice but it's talent that separates out the best at the top.

But talent is a generic term. There's different avenues of physical and mental talent. What about the person who has the focus to make their 10,000 hours count more than the other guy with same practice? e.g Gulbis vs Ferrer.

Raw talent in itself doesn't guarantee success at the highest levels, nor does "raw practice"...my belief is the guys at the very top have physical talent (hand-eye, foot-eye, movement), mental talent (not bowing under pressure, focus, stay in the moment) but also practice like mad.

Surely evolution in its rawest form creates new intra-species "talent" to drive enhanced adaptation and survival. My point being that there are innate differences amongst us which nature fully intends as a way of driving competitive advantage - the better traits survive, the weaker perish. We are not born equal (ability) in my opinion.

Yeah I can't disagree with that. Survival of the fittest; it's all about genetics. Adapt, evolve or die.

That's a narrow way of looking at it. What about the things that separate two 6'5 guys who both practiced for 15 years but one of them keeps winning?

lydian wrote:That's a narrow way of looking at it. What about the things that separate two 6'5 guys who both practiced for 15 years but one of them keeps winning?

Flexbility, speed, strength, mental strength

For example, there is a guy in America who can perform mathematical calculations in his head faster than you can punch them into a calculator and punch "equals". I don't mean 45+67, I mean cube roots of 5 figures numbers, dividing 5 figure numbers by 3 figure numbers and giving the answer to 6-7 decimal places in a fraction of a second (I've seen him do it). You can practice for 100,000 hours and you'll never have that ability. It's raw talent, something he was born with...and doesn't even have to practice at.

If that can apply mentally then there must loads of other ways individuals can be innately (insanely) better at a range of things, including tennis, than others.

Lydian if you practiced that all your life from when you were a child all the way to adulthood, its all you have ever known, I'm pretty sure you could.

Actually no. He astounded Maths professors and neurologists who study the brain. They compared his brain and he processed mathematics in a different part of his brain compared to other people...he was literally different...and that difference gave him a talent for mathematical calculation. Plus the talent was innate, he said he didn't practice it, it just came naturally. I don't believe we are all born exactly equal which is the underlying premise of this thread...as stated, evolution for a start conspires against that.

oh I know who you mean Scott Flansburg, he is ridiculous! Im not sure if you can call it a talent, he does say that that anyone can do it he can teach it. Its his speed that is amazing. Im pretty sure he worked on it, numbers didn't just appear in his mind or anything. He used to add up his parents groceries and stuff when he was a child apparently. May have just accessed a different part of his brain, you know when they say we only use 10 per cent of our brains?

Anyway, I'm sure it can be argued just raising his interesting points. He said that even Mozart 'a child prodigy' had already practiced 3,000 hours by the time he was 6. He will be good you would think!

Yep thats the guy. The neurologist said he used a different part of his brain, the part that is associated with movement, so for him doing calculations is almost literally like a reflex. Ok, maybe people can learn to divide 56,432 by 813 in their mind to 7 decimals (...a big maybe!) but his talent is still speed if nothing else. You admit that yourself. But what about those who process maths in the usual place...do they have the same talent to compete against him?

Conversely are you saying we're all born equal? Are you saying evolution has no hand in creating differences in individuals that refine species through better ability at doing certain tasks? I don't believe you can practice your way into making up for gaps in innate ability.

Yes lydian is correct, there are kids who are at the age of elementary school and they show such incredible aptitude for learning that they can instantly go to the best universities. The math point is a perfect example, while hardwork can make you great in mathematics there are some people that have an otherworldly savant like ability that goes beyond the norm of the standard deviation in terms of ability. Music is the same way, some people have rythym and some don't. Mozart was said to be able to hear any song once and play it back better than the guy who wrote it. He was composing full symphonies when he was not even 10 years old. Yes he had a music obsessed father but why haven't we heard about the other siblings it wasn't the brother's mozart like the jackson 5 of the enlightenment.

Exactly socal. And apply the discussion of music to singing. No amount of practice will turn me into George Michael. Differences in innate ability exist at just about everything the human condition can lend its hand, or mind, to

He is saying its genetics plus hard work. So what makes someone so great is someone who has practiced intensely and have the genetics that fit the sport very well. Talent is a 'myth' where you are just born good at something.

Evolution doesn't come in to it. His book is based around sport he doesn't use examples too much about brain power as you guys are talking about. Much like Special Juans comment about the drawing, maybe they should be his next book? I don't know. I'm not even finished reading it yet.

But like I said he may have accessed more of his brain than others? Mozart could recite songs back after perhaps years of practice even as a child. These are his points.

Singing is one of my own counter arguments, but is that something to do with your vocal cords? Just born with them a certain a way? I dont know.

But singing and artistry, which are physical pursuits, show people have innate talent that elevates them above others at those activities. You cant just discount them as comparators to sport. Sure you can learn to draw and take singing lessons but you can't compete with those born with a natural talent...driven by physiological differences..either in the brain, or mitochondrial concentration, or fast twitch fibre content for example.

Evolution is absolutely critical to this argument...and you state he puts forth its "genetics plus hard work". Genetics? This implies there's a good base to start with, i.e. an innate difference thats what genetics leads to. Evolution is driven by genetic difference within species. Genetic differences leads to physiological differences...physiological differences lead to differences in abilities at mental or physical pursuits, of which sport is one channel. So to say talent is a myth isn't true...there are loads of examples of people being innately better than others at various things. For example, explain differences in raw singing ability?

You didn't answer my question...do you believe we're all born with equal capability at performing mental or physical tasks to a virtuoso level?

No because we all have different genes, thats what takes you further. No one is born with the exact capabilities physically or mentally, but what is talent? If anyone an average man 5'9, 9 stone had played tennis since he was 2 years old he would be an extremely good player but eventually what he is was born with will hold him back. Not his natural ability to play tennis.

To discount talent entirely seems to quite obviously contradict life's experiences.

To say it is nonexistent is quite obviously false, but perhaps he doesn't literally mean that?

lydian wrote:Exactly socal. And apply the discussion of music to singing. No amount of practice will turn me into George Michael. Differences in innate ability exist at just about everything the human condition can lend its hand, or mind, to

You have a rather inflated opinion of George Michael's voice, don't get me wrong I loved "father figure" and "wake me up before you go, go" as well. At least Ian Curtis or something like that if you want to go with a modern music example. Lydian I love it, is a big George Michael fan, me to, no problem with that.

It's easy to discount talent if 'genetics' doesn't count as talent.

[quote="socal1976"]

lydian wrote:At least Ian Curtis or something like that if you want to go with a modern music example.

Maybe that's the problem between you and I, socal - love tore us apart. From now on you can take my place in the showdown, and I will simply observe....

Ian Curtis better than George Michael at singing? Lol...ok, now I've heard it all.

But that aside the central argument remains.

1. The book cannot account for innate artistic skill differences. Nor can these pursuits be discounted as irrelevant as the author purports that practice can make perfect at anything.
2. But what is practice for anyway? Its to hone the skills we were born with...Syed would have us believe we're all born with equal sporting, or otherwise, ability despite genetic differences
3. Mozart, et al, practiced hard because they were driven to - can the level of practice needed to reach virtuoso standard not be thought of as a talent. To practice at anything for 1000s of hours requires true dedication. So we're all born with equal focus/dedication too?
4. Dedication comes from having interest to start with. What drives interest in practicing something...well we tend to be interested in devoted practice at that which we already know we are good at! Who would spend years practising to expert level (assuming they could) when they know they have no ability to do even reasonably well? Unflinching dedication to practice is a talent in its own right...something Syed seems to gloss right over.

I can always rely on you for the puns Julius, at least this one is more wholesome then your usual fare. As the saying goes he's lost control again.

Lydian I will not debate a man's taste in music that is his business. Like I said I am a fan of the highlighted one as well.

I love Curtis' voice but songwriting it isn't even close in a comparison with George Michael, Ian Curtis hands down. Writing is absolutely a talent and skill at the same time.

Think they were discussing outright singing talent. That's not even a close run thing between Ian Curtis and George Michael.

Socal, we were comparing singing ability not taste in music. There is a difference you know.

I look at being a lead singer as more than just the voice but I get it how voice is maybe the most innate of the main characters. I look at charisma and performance as well.

Yes, yes, yes. But in terms of singing capability as a physical talent a guy like Curtis maybe had a 2 octave range at best. Guys like Michael, Mercury and Jackson (all of whom had huge charisma and performance) had 3.5 - 4.5 octave ranges. You'll not find many people arguing Curtis was a better singing talent...and that's coming from a former Joy Division/New Order fan.

Curtis sang JD/NO songs better than George Michael would have been able to - it's more than just technique and range, it's emotion.
On the other hand I doubt Curtis would have done very well with Bad Boys or Wham Rap

...or any song needing more than a 2 octave range.

According to Syed all Curtis would have to do to sing Bohemian Rhapsody is to practice a bit more

It's a combo of nurture and nature that makes any great player/athlete in any game. Practice finishes it off but the advantages of genetics allow you to start. If I focussed solely on, say, rugby and practised as hard as I physically could, I might make a very good player but I could never be Dan Carter or Roger Federer (if we look at tennis). The number of people who could, with all the resources and training possible, beat Usain Bolt in the 100m could be measured in double figures at a guess. There is a certain level at which physiology stops your progress or makes it and Hand to Eye Coordination is reliant on physical and psychological genetics as well as practice.