• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

"Talent"

Came across this graphic on Facebook - suits my thinking very well...

View attachment 3026124

This is a false dichotomy that plays to the desire for tidy "either or" explanations, even at the expense of empirical investigation.

The likes of Mozart, Ella Fitzgerald, Allan Holdsworth, and Prince were immensely talented. Yet each worked extremely hard to attain and advance their craft. Presumably each knew they were gifted, but none stopped striving to better themselves because of it.
 
This is a false dichotomy that plays to the desire for tidy "either or" explanations, even at the expense of empirical investigation.

The likes of Mozart, Ella Fitzgerald, Allan Holdsworth, and Prince were immensely talented. Yet each worked extremely hard to attain and advance their craft. Presumably each knew they were gifted, but none stopped striving to better themselves because of it.

Of course it's an oversimplification. But the point of the chart is not to provide a theory of where great performances come from; it's to provide a focus for where a person should direct their attention and think about the value of their own efforts. I don't think Mozart wasted much time thinking about how talented he was; he sat at his harpsichord and thought about what he could compose next. To be sure, two people can work hard and practice equally and when they perform, it will turn out one is good while the other is brilliant. Some are Mozart and some are Salieri. But if you sit around despairing of doing anything because you worry you're not Mozart, you'll never even become Salieri. There's nothing wrong with Salieri. The Salieris of the world contribute lots of good things.

And while I'm thinking about movies, remember "Searching for Bobby Fischer?" It isn't just the fear of not having innate "talent" that can be harmful; how often do overeager parents and would-be mentors monitor kids for evidence of "talent" and then subject them to all kinds of pressures on the argument that they "mustn't let their talent go to waste?" Or the social issues raised by designating certain people as the "gifted ones," over against their non-"gifted" peers?

The point is not the theoretical, but the practical; there's little good to be gained, and a lot of harm to be done, by promoting a notion of "innate talent" in ourselves and other people, especially kids. Much more is to be gained by focus on growth rather than gift.
 
Of course it's an oversimplification. But the point of the chart is not to provide a theory of where great performances come from; it's to provide a focus for where a person should direct their attention and think about the value of their own efforts. I don't think Mozart wasted much time thinking about how talented he was; he sat at his harpsichord and thought about what he could compose next. To be sure, two people can work hard and practice equally and when they perform, it will turn out one is good while the other is brilliant. Some are Mozart and some are Salieri. But if you sit around despairing of doing anything because you worry you're not Mozart, you'll never even become Salieri. There's nothing wrong with Salieri. The Salieris of the world contribute lots of good things.

And while I'm thinking about movies, remember "Searching for Bobby Fischer?" It isn't just the fear of not having innate "talent" that can be harmful; how often do overeager parents and would-be mentors monitor kids for evidence of "talent" and then subject them to all kinds of pressures on the argument that they "mustn't let their talent go to waste?" Or the social issues raised by designating certain people as the "gifted ones," over against their non-"gifted" peers?

The point is not the theoretical, but the practical; there's little good to be gained, and a lot of harm to be done, by promoting a notion of "innate talent" in ourselves and other people, especially kids. Much more is to be gained by focus on growth rather than gift.

So it's an "inspiration vs. perspiration" credo? Fine, but that isn't the extent of the practical reality.

Although I am not an educator, nor do I know anything about children, even I have heard that in American society, at least, there has for years now been a trend of encouraging kids to believe that everyone is a winner. In a race event at a grade school, in a field of 15, every competitor will get a medal, right down to the last finisher. However, the practical reality is twofold: In real life not everyone gets a prize, and those who do win often are winners because they are innately better suited to prevail in real world conditions.

As a practical and useful matter, it is important for people to know that differentiation in our species is according to numerous, possibly myriad factors; and that talent by any name is one. So seeing, one need not despair, but instead may pursue one's true talents rather. Maybe those have to be discovered at first. But once found, one can proceed with the confidence that the hard work they do, to better apply their talents, will be among the best work they'll ever do.

Speaking for and of myself, after more than half a century of observation (of self, others, and theory), I have no reasonable doubt about what my talents are and what they are not. I have no doubt about how beautiful, powerful, and special I am; nor about how flawed I am. As such, I have no time left for the arrogance, or humility, or sophistry, etc. that would rob me of my fleeting remaining chance to make best use of my strengths.

As James Brown sang in Super Bad

Watch me! Watch me! Watch me... I got it!
I got something that makes me wanna shout.
I got something that tells me what it's all about.
I got soul. And I'm super bad.
I got soul. And I'm super bad.
Now, I got a move that tells me what to do.
Sometimes I feel so nice, I wanna try myself a few.
I got soul. And I'm super bad.
I love... I love to do my thing. And I don't need no-one else.
Sometimes I feel so nice, I jump back... I wanna kiss myself.
I got soul. And I'm super bad.
I said I'm super bad.

Up and down, and round and round.
Up and down, all around.
Right on, People! Let it all hang out.
If you don't, Brothers and Sisters,
then you won't know what it's all about.
Gimme. Gimme! Gimme!! Gimme. Gimme!! Gimme!! Hey!!!! Aiiieeee!

I got the something that makes me wanna shout.
I got that thing that tells me what it's all about.
I got soul. And I'm super bad.
Got the move that tells me what to do.
Sometimes I feel so nice, I said I wanna try myself a few.
I... I... I... I... I got soul. And I'm super bad.
Bridge! Hit me!

Up and down, all around.
Right on, People! Let it all hang out.
If you don't, Brothers and Sisters,
then you won't know what it's all about.
Gimme. Gimme! Gimme!! Gimme!! Aiiieeee!​


Lacking confidence in one's individual self, one hesitates to act or is stultified. To the contrary, by acknowledging one's talents, be they modest or great, free to that extent from self-doubt, one gains the confidence to act with authority for oneself. It's called agency. This isn't about being better or worse than others, but about simply valuing one's own innate aptitudes.

Don't sell yourself short, brother. Or if you feel that you must or that you will, don't ask others to sell themselves short.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts