Can hard work beat talent?
yes
56.3% (67)
56.3% (67)
no
16% (19)
16% (19)
What about natural hard work?!?!?!
26.9% (32)
26.9% (32)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The age old question: Can hard-work beat natural talent?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I think we've all heard of it before. Hard work always beats talent. But is it true? If you work hard and never give up, could you actually be better than the guy who's naturally good at something. For example, could an athlete who always trains beat an athlete who is naturally built?

What's your opinion?

depends on several factors. Most notably... beat it at what?

Just an example here.

In my Chemistry classes I always understand our subjects while other students fail to grasp it multiple times what annoys the hell out of me.

But yet those "other students" get a higher score on the test at the end of the period. You know why? Because I am a lazy bastard I know I will get a C-B without learning and I am fine with that.

Those other students however learn their asses off and in the end get better grades then me.

Hard work can beat natural talent. But it all depends on the situation if for example the guy with natural talent wouldnt be a lazy basterd. He could "outdo" the hard worker it all depends on the situation.

If the person with natural talent is ridiculously lazy, then sure.

The question is so generalised as to being meaningless. Yes, in some cases it can, no, in other cases it can't.

This is a loaded question, I think psychologically the hard worker has an edge in any situation if the naturally talented person is not also working hard to do whatever it is the hard worker is doing. If they're both hard working then the question is null and void.

The lesson is, work hard and you'll succeed. At least I think that's what the lesson is.

Well, I was born with a natural talent for tennis. I almost never practiced, and I knew plenty of people who worked as hard as they could almost every day but couldn't reach the same level. But I guess it still depends, although saying it always does is honestly wrong.

Talent is an invention of society designed to turn consistent, long term effort into a mythical attribute.

That amazing painter didn't just pick up a brush yesterday, they've been at it since their early childhood - when you stopped scrawling little 2d houses made of blocks, they didn't.

That award winning violinist? Same deal. Talent is, at best, a minor variation, in the scheme of things.

I think it's doable.

What makes you so sure that the guy who is "naturally good" hasn't actually worked his ass off to achieve his level of skill?

Throughout most of highschool I would generally skip classes, sleep through classes, pay little attention and largely fail to actually do the assignments. Yet when the time came to take the tests, even provincial exams, I would do better than almost all my classmates including the ones who worked extremely hard. I don't doubt this caused some resentment.

Take from that what you like, certainly if I had worked harder I could have done even better.

It's neither, because it's passion that facilitates the development of talent and hard work is just a matter of perception. I believe society has promoted the "pain" associated in the concept of hard work in order to advance their own agenda, when in reality, hard work hardly looks like hard work for anyone who's passionate about what they're doing.

There's effort involved of course, but no pain, because the satisfaction of doing what you love nullifies it in the end.

Hard work usually builds towards talent. The question usually is how many times can the talentless hard worker screw up before they are out of attempts.

... Talent is just a boost in the beginning.
Any skill is the result of hard work and effort to improve. Talent just makes the first part easier.

Which is arguably a bigger help than you'd think. The awkward, clunky part where you're trying to pick it up is the part most people give up at.
Still, the talented usually have to deal with that too. It's just shorter.

hard work can out do minor talent in a person who doesn't make much use of their talent
but a non talented person will never beat a person with talent who puts a modicum of work into it because they probably grasp the skill on a different level

The question is CAN hard work beat natural talent, and for that the answer is yes. While it is unlikely in some cases, there are always exceptions For example, a boxer who has natural ability and strategy but is small will not last long against a larger, better built opponent. Just depends on the scenario and the people, I guess.

Crazy_Dude:
Just an example here.

In my Chemistry classes I always understand our subjects while other students fail to grasp it multiple times what annoys the hell out of me.

But yet those "other students" get a higher score on the test at the end of the period. You know why? Because I am a lazy bastard I know I will get a C-B without learning and I am fine with that.

Those other students however learn their asses off and in the end get better grades then me.

Hard work can beat natural talent. But it all depends on the situation if for example the guy with natural talent wouldnt be a lazy basterd. He could "outdo" the hard worker it all depends on the situation.

This isn't meant to be disrespectful. But at the point of you actually "trying", doesn't that mean that you are now "working hard"?

Saucycardog:
I think we've all heard of it before. Hard work always beats talent. But is it true? If you work hard and never give up, could you actually be better than the guy who's naturally good at something. For example, could an athlete who always trains beat an athlete who is naturally built?

What's your opinion?

Hard work always wins. Most people with "natural talent" actually worked hard at the fundamental basis of that talent many years ago but just don't recall it. As a music teacher I've never seen a prodigy student who didn't also have a parent cracking a big whip.

To my mind, as a "naturally talented artist", YES all the way

Crazy_Dude:

Just an example here.

In my Chemistry classes I always understand our subjects while other students fail to grasp it multiple times what annoys the hell out of me.

But yet those "other students" get a higher score on the test at the end of the period. You know why? Because I am a lazy bastard I know I will get a C-B without learning and I am fine with that.

Those other students however learn their asses off and in the end get better grades then me.

Hard work can beat natural talent. But it all depends on the situation if for example the guy with natural talent wouldnt be a lazy basterd. He could "outdo" the hard worker it all depends on the situation.

Greetings, fellow lazy bastard!

While I agree with what you say, in some cases I think natural talent will beat out hard work.

What I mean is, it depends on the field. For instance, in an academical sense hard work can occasionally trump talent. Not for me though, in some courses I flat out refused to do whole units, did only the tests with no knowledge on the subject and still came out with better grades than students who slaved for weeks studying the subject matter. by the end of the term, I did maybe 75% of the work, skipped/slept through a massive chunk of classes, and I came out top of the class.

Getting back on track, there is the field of arts or sports. And for quite awhile i've been on this opinion: you can't practice art. To elaborate, you can practice technique to hell and back, but at the end of the day if you don't have the talent for what you happen to be doing, be it art or sports, and to a lesser degree music, then by comparison to someone naturally talented, it won't match up. It's like that certain something is missing from making it better.

That's my opinion on the matter, anyways.

Talent isn't limitless(in most cases), and hard work is.

BonsaiK:

Saucycardog:
I think we've all heard of it before. Hard work always beats talent. But is it true? If you work hard and never give up, could you actually be better than the guy who's naturally good at something. For example, could an athlete who always trains beat an athlete who is naturally built?

What's your opinion?

Hard work always wins. Most people with "natural talent" actually worked hard at the fundamental basis of that talent many years ago but just don't recall it. As a music teacher I've never seen a prodigy student who didn't also have a parent cracking a big whip.

While I agree hard work wins, I will have to say you've never seen someone with talent. My brother is one of those people with talent. I practice for weeks to learn a piano song and he has just as much experience with me at piano (which is very little) and he can sight read it. We're both trying to learn Japanese, and even though I took 3 classes, he knows just as much as me from anime. He is Gary Oak, the only thing that I'm better at than him is keeping out of jail.

Hard work can beat below-extraordinary talent. Just watch out for when the talented are also hard workers.

Crazy_Dude:
Just an example here.

In my Chemistry classes I always understand our subjects while other students fail to grasp it multiple times what annoys the hell out of me.

But yet those "other students" get a higher score on the test at the end of the period. You know why? Because I am a lazy bastard I know I will get a C-B without learning and I am fine with that.

Those other students however learn their asses off and in the end get better grades then me.

Hard work can beat natural talent. But it all depends on the situation if for example the guy with natural talent wouldnt be a lazy basterd. He could "outdo" the hard worker it all depends on the situation.

Reminds me of one of my experiences. I had a chemistry class a year ago taught by a professor who received tons of hate from the students. They said he was difficult to understand and that he was a horrible teacher. They studied for hours upon hours, only making passable grades on his tests. They got him fired after only one semester of work at our university.

I aced all of his tests and never once studied.

Talent won in that case, apparently.

Granted, I'm obsessed with academic excellence and I work my ass off to attain it when need be, but most of the time, there is a comfortable lack of such a need.

As far as this topic goes, the answer is subject to change depending on the level of talent.

Of course it can, but not all the time.

Sure it can. Natural talent only takes you so far. You still have to train your skills to make them noteworthy. A person who hones a talent for years that they may have sucked at originally will be far better than the talented person who doesn't give a shit and lets that talent go to waste.

TehCookie:

BonsaiK:

Saucycardog:
I think we've all heard of it before. Hard work always beats talent. But is it true? If you work hard and never give up, could you actually be better than the guy who's naturally good at something. For example, could an athlete who always trains beat an athlete who is naturally built?

What's your opinion?

Hard work always wins. Most people with "natural talent" actually worked hard at the fundamental basis of that talent many years ago but just don't recall it. As a music teacher I've never seen a prodigy student who didn't also have a parent cracking a big whip.

While I agree hard work wins, I will have to say you've never seen someone with talent. My brother is one of those people with talent. I practice for weeks to learn a piano song and he has just as much experience with me at piano (which is very little) and he can sight read it. We're both trying to learn Japanese, and even though I took 3 classes, he knows just as much as me from anime. He is Gary Oak, the only thing that I'm better at than him is keeping out of jail.

If he can sight read and pick up languages better that's nothing to do with having an "innate" talent, what it means is that he's been taught the basic cognitive skills that are required to do those things, earlier, or longer, or more effectively than you. There is no mystery to people who are talented.

Negatempest:

Crazy_Dude:
Just an example here.

In my Chemistry classes I always understand our subjects while other students fail to grasp it multiple times what annoys the hell out of me.

But yet those "other students" get a higher score on the test at the end of the period. You know why? Because I am a lazy bastard I know I will get a C-B without learning and I am fine with that.

Those other students however learn their asses off and in the end get better grades then me.

Hard work can beat natural talent. But it all depends on the situation if for example the guy with natural talent wouldnt be a lazy basterd. He could "outdo" the hard worker it all depends on the situation.

This isn't meant to be disrespectful. But at the point of you actually "trying", doesn't that mean that you are now "working hard"?

Reminds me of the time I still had German class. I was getting D-C grades but I needed a higher score to pass the year. My parents somehow got me a outschool tutor and I actually studied hard. I got several tests A+ the next month.

But as far as I can remember that was the only time I really worked hard.

talent results from hard work. the majority of talented people practice until they bleed from various joints to perfect what it is they're good at. i speak eleven languages (well, speak ten and am learning an eleventh), play five instruments, and got straight a's in school, and it certainly isn't because i have "talent." it's hours of practice and study that go into these parts of my life, and i hate it when people say that someone is successful because they have "natural talent." personally, i don't think it exists.

To an extent. But there is that ridiculous amount of talent that no one can even dream of reaching, that intellect that people can't even understand. That cannot be bested by hard work.

Depends on how hard the talented person works.
If they work just as much, no.

I'd say yes its just that if someone has natural talent and works hard they may be difficult to overcome.

someone once said (I tried to google the quote but couldn't find it) that 10,000 hours will make anyone a talented expert (sounds a lot but if you consider say a musiction who has played since an early age by adulthood they've probably done more than that)

Those with natural talent often rely on it and think they have more talent than they actually do. Hard workers know they have the skills they need to succeed, which thus gives them more reassuring confidence.

Why do you think a bad gamer that plays fairly often accepts every loss and a "naturally talented" gamer blames his team when they lose or get a low score?

People are never just born being able to do something. Even people with that particular singing voice we find pleasant need to practice so they can control their voice. Natural talent is the capability to learn a particular skill more quickly and more effectively than most. Without the work someone who works hard may very well surpass them.

Some people may also end up on the other extreme of the spectrum unable to learn the skill. Most people are somewhere in the middle where given enough time and work they may become adequate at it.

Well I don't believe that there is talent beyond your physical disposition, let's say a fish is far more "talented" at swimming then humans are because of it's physical form, and humans are much more "talented" for walking or using tools.

And on the human side of things I see it the same way, you may have a physical trait that makes you more suitable for a certain type of work but beyond that there is nothing that defines a talent.

What it really comes down to is interest + hard work, a top notch athlete isn't simply talented - he works his ass of for the good results, Einstein didn't simply flip open an empty book and write down all the new idea - he made physics his sole obsession, a top end musician doesn't simply pick up an instrument and amazes you - he spends every waking moment trying to master the instruments and sounds,...

If I remember correctly, the golden number to master a subject is usually cited as 10.000 hours of practice or 10 years.

In most cases, the "naturally talented" just get those hours via different measures. I was always exceptional in my classes at the subjects concerning chemistry and biology, while not putting in any real back breaking work in doing so.

I however learned the same theories and understood them via different methods. I always watched documentaries on those subjects, I always followed the relevant academic work, I did the practical experiments myself as a hobby. While it is true, that I never put in the hours in the subject at hand directly in school, the hours I put in those subjects in round about ways are several times larger in sum, than those of any of my previous classmates.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked