Talent or no talent?

Today I saw several episodes of "Hjernevask" (Brainwash), a Norwegian TV-series on the debate nature vs. nurture, and the heavy political pressure towards the nurture side. I wanted to do a short discussion on Talent, whether it exists and what we can do about it.

When I was younger I did not believe in Talent. I thought everyone was a blank slate, and that everyone had the capacity to do anything. When the time came to choose which high-school I wanted to go to, I had to choose between studying science and music. Ironically I spent a lot of time doing research to figure out what was the best choice for me.

I talked with several people to find out who were the most satisfied with their job/career. Those who studied science/engineering/economics had the jobs they wanted, even though they did not consider themselves to be especially talented at their respective fields. Most of them hadn't even been passionately obsessed by their subject. When I talked to those who studied music I found that most of them had not, I repeat, had not, gotten the job they wanted. Many of them considered themselves talented in music, and most of them enjoyed it and obsessed over it, it was their work and their hobby. So they had more than average talent and had even spent a lot more effort. What went wrong?

Most people agree that music is something you can be talented in. If there's a shadow of a doubt I recommend [somecountry]'s got talent, like thisawe-inspiring-incredible 11 years old. So to do well in music you have to be (exceptionally lucky or) talented and obsessed (in my vocabulary obsessed is a positive word).

Luckily I went with science (my music teacher actually told me that I was good enough to study music, but if I could find something else I was equally good at, it would probably be a better choice).

At the university I found that it was possible to have a talent for science. What happened was that I started to work vigorously, and my talent for mathematics came to the fore. Some of the things I have learned in one semester of hard work would take the average student at least a year (I guess). I tell you this not to show off, but to point out how extreme a contribution a talent can be.

People I talk with often agree that one can have a talent for music, but that it's impossible to have a talent for more 'normal' things, like studying calculus (undergraduate mathematics). Or some say that talent is pure nurture (that it's something you get from the environment, like teaching and parenting) as opposed to nature (the genes).

Taking the last point first, look at 'hjernevask' (For English subtitles follow theinstructions below the video.), or any of the research, or look at the youtube video I mentioned about the 11 years old girl Anna Graceman. I know several hard working singers in their twenties who don't have half the voice she has. When I was young my parents actually told me not to sing too loud. Tell me what Anna's parents have done, so that we can have more singers of her calibre. Frankly it's ridiculous to suggest that this has been caused by some random events in her environment, and that theory has no explanatory (or predicting) value whatsoever.

The other counterargument was that one can have a talent for music or sports, but not for studying science or philosophy, nor a talent for human interaction. This is true in some sense. Firstly, these fields require more talent to be successful in. There is a limit to how many football players and violinists we need in the world, and at least for the time being it seems there are a lot more candidates than jobs. Secondly, a talent for music and sports is a lot easier to see and measure, while a talent for philosophy would be hard to spot.

But why would you assume that one can be talented in a range of mental activities, but suddenly you draw a line between being talented at painting and being talented at understanding abstract concepts? It seems contrived to me, but I may have an explanation for why we (especially politicians) sometimes do this. This I will talk about now.

Before we continue let me agree that talent is not a yes/no question. You can have a little talent (the most common form), slightly more talent, a lot, etcetera. You can even have anti-talent in some sense. For some people anti-talent is a taboo, and for others a convenient excuse.

Why is it bad for you to tell someone they are not talented at, say, chemistry? Because they will become worse at it, it's sometimes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And sometimes you just don't know. Perhaps they are poor at it for some other reason; they don't work hard, they don't know whatever they should have learned before, they don't have the motor skills to do the experiments, they don't have a sufficiently good memory to remember all the different names.

Why is it bad for you NOT to tell someone they are not talented at chemistry? If someone spends obscene amounts of time at it, and gives all their effort, and still cannot manage, how do you think it feels when you tell them: "You don't work hard enough, give more effort."? And how do you think it will work out when they go for a university degree in chemistry? It might turn around, but then, it might not. In any case one should spend time looking for some other talent.

Why do you tell people that they can do anything they want? The main problem is that people are ridiculously happy in their comfort zone. If you tell people: "You probably won't be able to do that", then they don't even try! You have to say over and over "you can do anything" just to get them thinking slightly outside the box. But then, maybe there is a time when we ought to give a little guidance: "Have you tested your talent in anything else?".

The last strong objective that I see (while sitting here in my comfy chair this evening) is that your array of talents is highly connected to your self-esteem. Is the world fair? Is everyone good at something? Perhaps the world is unfairly kind, and gives some people exceptional talent, but at least it's not so unfair that there is someone out there with only poor talents? Right? And not one is born unable to use their right arm, right? But is this the basis on which we judge our fellow humans? Have we sunk so low that the only thing we care about is how good you are at doing [whatever it is that you do]? Doesn't trying hard and doing the best you can under the circumstances count anymore? Doesn't how much you care, your selflessness, and your humanity count? Why do we connect the worthiness of a person to their array of talents? And if we don't, why do people believe we do?

So what's the truth? Should we say, there is talent, or not? Do you make an educational system that assumes everyone is equal, or not?

I only know two things for certain. Even though it might not be wise to always communicate it, Talent is an important concept. The second thing is that we should have an educational system that searches for the talents in every child, so that after ten years of education, everyone can write down a list of things they are good at.

Addendum: The extent of this talent might be a bit easier to appreciate.