Monday, February 15, 2010
Gareth on Skill Versus Talent
I equate "skill" to learned abilities, and talent to raw, natural affinity or ability.
Gareth Fouche, developer of indie RPG Scars of War, finds some pretty impressive evidence of the proper ratio:
Seriously, It's 99% Practice and 1% Talent. Maybe 0.5% Talent.
Five years from conscientious scribblings to being displayed in exhibits. Yeah, it takes a while. And a lot of effort. What worthwhile thing in life doesn't?
I read the book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
by Carol Dweck a few years ago, and it convinced me that Gareth's ratio is pretty close to the mark. And I can't recommend the book highly enough. I guess raw talent can increase the rate at which one develops a skill and give you a "leg up" when starting out, but the book also showed how having a lot of talent in one area can really hold you back, too. Especially if one becomes more concerned about reputation than improvement.Among many other stories, the book points out the story of Michael Jordan, who was cut from his varsity basketball team in high school in the 10th grade. It wasn't because the coach was a moron. Quite frankly, Jordan wasn't all that good. He didn't come out of his mother's womb knowing how to dribble a basketball. He later credited that failure in his life with his success in his career (I'd say being the best player the NBA has ever seen counts as success). He worked his butt off. And his work ethic continued throughout his career - he was considered one of the hardest-working players in the NBA.
Of course, that didn't translate to a stellar baseball career, and I'm sure Jordan had some gifts (not the least of which was his height) which helped take his success into the stratosphere. And I'm sure there are other players in who work just as hard, but haven't yet achieved his level of success. Once you get past a certain point, that 1% can be a pretty significant edge. And there are many people with real disabilities and disorders who can't even get that far. But oftentimes, they can astound the rest of us by what they can accomplish.
So - the bottom line: Don't make excuses by saying, "I'm no good at X." If you care about it enough to put time into it, you can fix that. It doesn't matter that you aren't "gifted" in a particular area.
Labels: productivity
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:57 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I think that "talent" or more than likley "genetic predisposition" is 1%, but which 1% and when is the real question.
Talent or predisposition to something or genetics has a huge affect at the right time and under the correct circumstances.
Lance Armstrongs heart is 60% larger than mine. He has a genetic predisposition for processing oxygen and blood faster than I. Which means he will be able to out perform me at the same level of skill and persistence during an "endurance" related activity.
That is not debatable. Simply put at the end end of the day and all other things considered, "talent" or "genetics" will win the day.
cl
Talent or predisposition to something or genetics has a huge affect at the right time and under the correct circumstances.
Lance Armstrongs heart is 60% larger than mine. He has a genetic predisposition for processing oxygen and blood faster than I. Which means he will be able to out perform me at the same level of skill and persistence during an "endurance" related activity.
That is not debatable. Simply put at the end end of the day and all other things considered, "talent" or "genetics" will win the day.
cl
I'd say being in the right place at the right time is at least as important as skill.
For example, I might have the requisite skill to produce NES-style games. Doesn't do me any good, though; I'm two decades too late, so I'm not going to get rich doing that.
One could argue that Bill Gates would not have seen the success he has seen if he had been born five years earlier, or five years later, merely because circumstances would not have allowed him to do the same things he did.
Skill is important, talent is useful, but with bad timing you're not going anywhere regardless.
The best successes aren't just doing what you're good at; it's making good timing by finding a unfulfilled need your skills are suited to fill.
For example, I might have the requisite skill to produce NES-style games. Doesn't do me any good, though; I'm two decades too late, so I'm not going to get rich doing that.
One could argue that Bill Gates would not have seen the success he has seen if he had been born five years earlier, or five years later, merely because circumstances would not have allowed him to do the same things he did.
Skill is important, talent is useful, but with bad timing you're not going anywhere regardless.
The best successes aren't just doing what you're good at; it's making good timing by finding a unfulfilled need your skills are suited to fill.
Well, I could offer these two counters:
#1 (Chris) - Depends on how you measure success or "winning the day." If you HAVE to beat Da Vinci, Armstrong, or Buffett in order to "win" or be considered successful, then yeah - when you compete against that top 2% or 3%, then that 1% "edge" makes a huge difference, and is hard to overcome.
But hard doesn't make it impossible. Jordan had to constantly change his game to stay on top as he got older. What worked at 25 didn't work so well at 35.
I mean - I really don't think I'll ever be at the level of programming genius as John Carmack, or many others out there. There are guys out there that are programming gods that even if I had the *desire* I probably wouldn't have the ability to match. But I still have plenty of room to grow - I ain't done yet - and I won't let that hold me back from trying.
@Heron - True ... kinda sucks that the Lady Ada Lovelace wasn't born 160+ years later... but would her contributions to programming have been as recognized now?
But I also believe that a measure of success is making your own opportunities. And it's quite clear that in the indie field, there's still room to make NES-style games. Generating a market for 'em and getting rich making 'em --- well, that might be another skill. But I wouldn't rule it out. Or the ability to adapt / translate your skill to some other field.
Neither of you are wrong... I just think that the realities you are speaking of are less of real, practical problem than they are used as excuses.
#1 (Chris) - Depends on how you measure success or "winning the day." If you HAVE to beat Da Vinci, Armstrong, or Buffett in order to "win" or be considered successful, then yeah - when you compete against that top 2% or 3%, then that 1% "edge" makes a huge difference, and is hard to overcome.
But hard doesn't make it impossible. Jordan had to constantly change his game to stay on top as he got older. What worked at 25 didn't work so well at 35.
I mean - I really don't think I'll ever be at the level of programming genius as John Carmack, or many others out there. There are guys out there that are programming gods that even if I had the *desire* I probably wouldn't have the ability to match. But I still have plenty of room to grow - I ain't done yet - and I won't let that hold me back from trying.
@Heron - True ... kinda sucks that the Lady Ada Lovelace wasn't born 160+ years later... but would her contributions to programming have been as recognized now?
But I also believe that a measure of success is making your own opportunities. And it's quite clear that in the indie field, there's still room to make NES-style games. Generating a market for 'em and getting rich making 'em --- well, that might be another skill. But I wouldn't rule it out. Or the ability to adapt / translate your skill to some other field.
Neither of you are wrong... I just think that the realities you are speaking of are less of real, practical problem than they are used as excuses.
Hits close to home for me, as my last-ditch pursuit into the world of game development is something of a "losing" proposition generally speaking on account of Zero prior experience/education in regards to art/sound/programming/etc as of being 25 and slightly disabled. As mentioned about timing, it'd be a welcome caveat to find out I actually have some sort of latent knack for at least one aspect of it---but even if not I've little choice but to keep at it anyways.
By my reckoning, competency is the most important goal by far. Being among the best may be handy and all, but just achieving competency allows you to "be" period within a sphere of activity on account of being able to produce general results. Further reckoning, most tasks/jobs do not need you to enter into the upper echelons of skill in order to be potent on what needs doing to a point of satisfaction. "Good enough" is the order of the day when you've a variety of things to tackle and finite time to do it in genetically or otherwise.
By my reckoning, competency is the most important goal by far. Being among the best may be handy and all, but just achieving competency allows you to "be" period within a sphere of activity on account of being able to produce general results. Further reckoning, most tasks/jobs do not need you to enter into the upper echelons of skill in order to be potent on what needs doing to a point of satisfaction. "Good enough" is the order of the day when you've a variety of things to tackle and finite time to do it in genetically or otherwise.
I'm glad to see this, and I believe that ratio is absolutely correct.
I'm an artist. I've been drawing as long as I can remember. I had private lessons with an artist in her studio starting when I was five. I now draw, paint, sculpt, and create and texture 3D game models as an adult.
People have always remarked how "talented" I am. Usually followed by a remark that they could "never do that". I always call bullshit on this - I don't believe that's
true at all.
I haven't met a kid yet that doesn't love to draw and scribble. And every kid sucks at drawing. I did too. Eventually they get a little older and realize this, or someone tells them so, and they stop. So they never get better. Maybe I have some raw artistic talent, an eye for detail, whatever, but the only difference between me and other kids is that I never stopped practicing. When people started telling me my drawings weren't good, I would ask why, and learn for the next time.
I think most people realize on a subconcious level at least, that anyone can get good at anything if they practice diligently at it for enough years.
I'll finish by chiming in on Heron's comment on luck and being in the right place at the right time. I think this is sometimes true for "success", but not for skill. There are many painters in the world as good as or better than the old Renaissance masters - they may not be "successful" (if you count that as fame and renown), but it doesn't detract from their being skilled.
I'm an artist. I've been drawing as long as I can remember. I had private lessons with an artist in her studio starting when I was five. I now draw, paint, sculpt, and create and texture 3D game models as an adult.
People have always remarked how "talented" I am. Usually followed by a remark that they could "never do that". I always call bullshit on this - I don't believe that's
true at all.
I haven't met a kid yet that doesn't love to draw and scribble. And every kid sucks at drawing. I did too. Eventually they get a little older and realize this, or someone tells them so, and they stop. So they never get better. Maybe I have some raw artistic talent, an eye for detail, whatever, but the only difference between me and other kids is that I never stopped practicing. When people started telling me my drawings weren't good, I would ask why, and learn for the next time.
I think most people realize on a subconcious level at least, that anyone can get good at anything if they practice diligently at it for enough years.
I'll finish by chiming in on Heron's comment on luck and being in the right place at the right time. I think this is sometimes true for "success", but not for skill. There are many painters in the world as good as or better than the old Renaissance masters - they may not be "successful" (if you count that as fame and renown), but it doesn't detract from their being skilled.
# posted by 
: February 15, 2010 7:46 PM
: February 15, 2010 7:46 PM
I think when I speak of "winning the day" I mean at that time in that arena. There are very few pursuits in our modern day that are winner take all. So most of this discussion is academic.
My favorite display of this is the fight between Achilles and Hector. They were very even. The movie Troy depicts the fight coming down to endurance. In that time or that arean, yets...the 1% means so much more and has so much more weight. When all things are equal...it is the difference.
In todays world, in todays modern free (well...semi free) market, there is so much room. Yes, someone may very well dominate their area, but really that doesn't mean there isn't room.
My example of Lance Armstrong stands right there with Jordan...yes...in that moment they are unstoppable in their field...but thankfully for the rest of us the field changes.
The best programmer in the world isn't even something that is quantifiable...so...you are right...there isn't a chance at something being impossible.
There is so much room and I think between the drive, passion, self discipline, talent, genetics, being in the right place at the right time with the resources and skill, as well as having fore through to see how to adapt to the changes...it really takes more than two parameters to achive your dreams or find your success.
cl
Post a Comment
My favorite display of this is the fight between Achilles and Hector. They were very even. The movie Troy depicts the fight coming down to endurance. In that time or that arean, yets...the 1% means so much more and has so much more weight. When all things are equal...it is the difference.
In todays world, in todays modern free (well...semi free) market, there is so much room. Yes, someone may very well dominate their area, but really that doesn't mean there isn't room.
My example of Lance Armstrong stands right there with Jordan...yes...in that moment they are unstoppable in their field...but thankfully for the rest of us the field changes.
The best programmer in the world isn't even something that is quantifiable...so...you are right...there isn't a chance at something being impossible.
There is so much room and I think between the drive, passion, self discipline, talent, genetics, being in the right place at the right time with the resources and skill, as well as having fore through to see how to adapt to the changes...it really takes more than two parameters to achive your dreams or find your success.
cl
Links to this post:
<< Home
