I love your reflection. It's pretty much what makes Michael Phelps the best swimmer ever (or something like that). He has double-jointed ankles and elbows and other physiological advantages. Of course, it takes discipline, and I admire that. But, as you mention, there are also socioeconomic factors, not to talent per se, but to the ability to develop it. I think some people do have a certain sparkle that can't be explained, but it all depends on what we do with it. We would also need to discuss the disadvantages that come with certain kinds of "giftedness." It's considered part of neurodivergence now, and, trust me, neurodivergence is not always fun.
An unexplainable sparkle, perhaps, but at least it is often extremely complex to explain the whole human set of skills, thoughts, and behavior. That brings it very close to being unexplainable.
You are up to something important, I think, when you point out that what could be seen as a talent, or an element of it, may not be all good. There is often also a shadow-side of the giftedness, I agree. Even that can be caused by the surroundings, as it will not always accept the full package of the gift – like it is often the case with mental specialities, on one hand useful in comparison to other employees' behavior, for instance, on the other hand not fit for some of the work processes, etc., that the gifted cannot comply with.
I'm rewatching House M.D. I don't know if you've ever watched it, but that's one fictional example of the "downsides" of giftedness. And pretty much all neurodivergences cause us to feel like we don't fit in. And in real life, unlike TV series, bosses and teammates don't always cut you so much slack just because you're gifted.
I have seen a bit of it, long ago, so I guess I know what you mean. I also find that colleagues have a tendency to be much less interested in each other than they were in that TV series, and, as you say, give much less room for each other to be who they are.
I can not judge on that particular TV figure, but I have seen too much ignorance and lack of care in companies (and often a negative way of "caring"), as compared to kind interest in each other and a generally friendly attitude.
But I don't think it hits neurodivergent more than others. Perhaps actually less, because there is an aura of understanding, or at least pretended understanding around them, but in any case, when people are more clear in their expressions and show who they are, then they are more often left alone. Those who are getting mocked, are the ones with a more flexible and open kind of behavior.
The question is whether talent can be defined as a set of genetic predispositions, or if talent is the ability to excel at something despite having similar predispositions as others. Even if the latter is the case, I wonder if that too might be genetically determined, albeit in a less obvious way.
For example, you might seem like an average person, like everyone else. You probably can’t jump one meter vertically from a standstill, but perhaps you have a particularly well-developed part of your brain for analytical thinking. Such differences are not always immediately visible, but they can play a crucial role in what we perceive as talent.
Additionally, life circumstances can sometimes push us to develop a certain skill, which might then be called talent, but is actually just a response to external stimuli. This suggests that talent could be a combination of internal potential and external conditions that shape us. Some people receive these stimuli, while others don’t, which can be decisive.
To sum up all these questions and possibilities, I still believe that the key difference in why some people excel at certain things lies in our genetic makeup. However, it’s important to acknowledge that even this "inborn" talent requires opportunities and circumstances to activate it.
I would therefore define talent as a combination of genetic potential and external factors that enable its realization. Nonetheless, I believe the core component is what we are born with, and that’s what I would call talent.
I agree with almost everything, but I would still question one thing… I believe that regardless of whether the violin exists in your surroundings, you are talented at the violin if you are, regardless of whether you play it, and especially regardless of whether others see you playing it. Talent is inherent in us, and it doesn’t depend on whether others call us talented, at least that’s how I see it.
These are all good thoughts, and your rationale follows your aim to describe talent as something that makes us outstanding in some way. Genes definitely have an influence on what we are capable of, provided that the environment has been suitable for the genes to be applied properly – relative to the skill examined.
However, what about the point that people are called talented in something like violin playing or stock market trading? If you live in a society where these things do not exist, are you then still talented in them? If you have never heard of such a thing as a violin, can you then be a talented violin player?
You may have the genes that gives you two arms and whatever else is needed for being able to use a violin, and these will definitely be needed prerequisites, I agree on that, but what if you didn't have those genes? If you instead had the disposition for just one arm, or perhaps five of them? Then you probably couldn't be talented in violin playing as we know it, but you could have a different type of violin made that would fit your physiology, and then display a talent in using that new device.
In such a case, I think that it is clear that you were not born to play a violin, but you could learn to play its specially made variety.
If nobody wants to see or hear you play on that new kind of violin, nobody will consider you talented in playing on it. They will just see you as someone doing something unusual, at best, or an annoying amateur who thinks this is similar to playing a violin (more likely).
It leads me to the conclusion that your genes need to fit something auxiliary to be allowed to qualify as part of a talent, which means that you can never be talented at anything unless it has been defined by your surroundings.
The surroundings (people) decide what is a talent, not your genes. But the surroundings may decide that what your genes do to help you in some sort of skill makes you talented. Still, it is a matter of definition by other people, nothing else.
All that said, I agree that when looking at such a generally accepted skill level in something that people are interested in hearing about, and, hence, could consider calling a talent, it will be helped by a series of factors, including the genes.
Why I think this whole discussion is interesting? Because the notion of talent has a tendency to rule out large groups of people who are not seen as talented, and therefore will never get the same chances in life as those who are. The presumed talented will get support by organizations, companies, and government institutions, and will in general be helped through life.
The presumed talent-less will not get any of this, but rather be seen as a burden for society. The very notion of a thing called talent creates an A-team and a B-team of us all.
But as a purely definition based concept, we could just as well decide that the other group were the talented, just in something else. Then the situation would be reversed.
As every single person on Earth (or in space) have a vast set of skills and the ability to learn an almost unlimited amount of new things, the focus on a few, presumed attractive "talents" will act as a severe restriction for the development of any of these skills, if they do not fit the defined set of possible talents.
This means that we, as a society, are wasting a huge amount of potential. And very many individuals feel wasted. They can look at the defined talented people in their surroundings and consider why playing football or sitting on a pole for days are considered more valuable by society than what they themselves can do.
And all people can do something. In fact, all people can do a lot. So, the talent idea is a bit like the idea of fashion – we have just picked out some skills that we consider good, while we decide to neglect all the others, like in fashion, certain colors or shapes, for the time being, are seen as good, the rest not.
There is no universal logic in this. It is all about definition.
I love your reflection. It's pretty much what makes Michael Phelps the best swimmer ever (or something like that). He has double-jointed ankles and elbows and other physiological advantages. Of course, it takes discipline, and I admire that. But, as you mention, there are also socioeconomic factors, not to talent per se, but to the ability to develop it. I think some people do have a certain sparkle that can't be explained, but it all depends on what we do with it. We would also need to discuss the disadvantages that come with certain kinds of "giftedness." It's considered part of neurodivergence now, and, trust me, neurodivergence is not always fun.
An unexplainable sparkle, perhaps, but at least it is often extremely complex to explain the whole human set of skills, thoughts, and behavior. That brings it very close to being unexplainable.
You are up to something important, I think, when you point out that what could be seen as a talent, or an element of it, may not be all good. There is often also a shadow-side of the giftedness, I agree. Even that can be caused by the surroundings, as it will not always accept the full package of the gift – like it is often the case with mental specialities, on one hand useful in comparison to other employees' behavior, for instance, on the other hand not fit for some of the work processes, etc., that the gifted cannot comply with.
I'm rewatching House M.D. I don't know if you've ever watched it, but that's one fictional example of the "downsides" of giftedness. And pretty much all neurodivergences cause us to feel like we don't fit in. And in real life, unlike TV series, bosses and teammates don't always cut you so much slack just because you're gifted.
I have seen a bit of it, long ago, so I guess I know what you mean. I also find that colleagues have a tendency to be much less interested in each other than they were in that TV series, and, as you say, give much less room for each other to be who they are.
I can not judge on that particular TV figure, but I have seen too much ignorance and lack of care in companies (and often a negative way of "caring"), as compared to kind interest in each other and a generally friendly attitude.
But I don't think it hits neurodivergent more than others. Perhaps actually less, because there is an aura of understanding, or at least pretended understanding around them, but in any case, when people are more clear in their expressions and show who they are, then they are more often left alone. Those who are getting mocked, are the ones with a more flexible and open kind of behavior.
It might hit less because we isolate ourselves. At least, that's my experience.
I enjoy how we complement each other;)
The question is whether talent can be defined as a set of genetic predispositions, or if talent is the ability to excel at something despite having similar predispositions as others. Even if the latter is the case, I wonder if that too might be genetically determined, albeit in a less obvious way.
For example, you might seem like an average person, like everyone else. You probably can’t jump one meter vertically from a standstill, but perhaps you have a particularly well-developed part of your brain for analytical thinking. Such differences are not always immediately visible, but they can play a crucial role in what we perceive as talent.
Additionally, life circumstances can sometimes push us to develop a certain skill, which might then be called talent, but is actually just a response to external stimuli. This suggests that talent could be a combination of internal potential and external conditions that shape us. Some people receive these stimuli, while others don’t, which can be decisive.
To sum up all these questions and possibilities, I still believe that the key difference in why some people excel at certain things lies in our genetic makeup. However, it’s important to acknowledge that even this "inborn" talent requires opportunities and circumstances to activate it.
I would therefore define talent as a combination of genetic potential and external factors that enable its realization. Nonetheless, I believe the core component is what we are born with, and that’s what I would call talent.
I agree with almost everything, but I would still question one thing… I believe that regardless of whether the violin exists in your surroundings, you are talented at the violin if you are, regardless of whether you play it, and especially regardless of whether others see you playing it. Talent is inherent in us, and it doesn’t depend on whether others call us talented, at least that’s how I see it.
Well, it’s a beautiful idea, and I appreciate that you share it. 👍
These are all good thoughts, and your rationale follows your aim to describe talent as something that makes us outstanding in some way. Genes definitely have an influence on what we are capable of, provided that the environment has been suitable for the genes to be applied properly – relative to the skill examined.
However, what about the point that people are called talented in something like violin playing or stock market trading? If you live in a society where these things do not exist, are you then still talented in them? If you have never heard of such a thing as a violin, can you then be a talented violin player?
You may have the genes that gives you two arms and whatever else is needed for being able to use a violin, and these will definitely be needed prerequisites, I agree on that, but what if you didn't have those genes? If you instead had the disposition for just one arm, or perhaps five of them? Then you probably couldn't be talented in violin playing as we know it, but you could have a different type of violin made that would fit your physiology, and then display a talent in using that new device.
In such a case, I think that it is clear that you were not born to play a violin, but you could learn to play its specially made variety.
If nobody wants to see or hear you play on that new kind of violin, nobody will consider you talented in playing on it. They will just see you as someone doing something unusual, at best, or an annoying amateur who thinks this is similar to playing a violin (more likely).
It leads me to the conclusion that your genes need to fit something auxiliary to be allowed to qualify as part of a talent, which means that you can never be talented at anything unless it has been defined by your surroundings.
The surroundings (people) decide what is a talent, not your genes. But the surroundings may decide that what your genes do to help you in some sort of skill makes you talented. Still, it is a matter of definition by other people, nothing else.
All that said, I agree that when looking at such a generally accepted skill level in something that people are interested in hearing about, and, hence, could consider calling a talent, it will be helped by a series of factors, including the genes.
Why I think this whole discussion is interesting? Because the notion of talent has a tendency to rule out large groups of people who are not seen as talented, and therefore will never get the same chances in life as those who are. The presumed talented will get support by organizations, companies, and government institutions, and will in general be helped through life.
The presumed talent-less will not get any of this, but rather be seen as a burden for society. The very notion of a thing called talent creates an A-team and a B-team of us all.
But as a purely definition based concept, we could just as well decide that the other group were the talented, just in something else. Then the situation would be reversed.
As every single person on Earth (or in space) have a vast set of skills and the ability to learn an almost unlimited amount of new things, the focus on a few, presumed attractive "talents" will act as a severe restriction for the development of any of these skills, if they do not fit the defined set of possible talents.
This means that we, as a society, are wasting a huge amount of potential. And very many individuals feel wasted. They can look at the defined talented people in their surroundings and consider why playing football or sitting on a pole for days are considered more valuable by society than what they themselves can do.
And all people can do something. In fact, all people can do a lot. So, the talent idea is a bit like the idea of fashion – we have just picked out some skills that we consider good, while we decide to neglect all the others, like in fashion, certain colors or shapes, for the time being, are seen as good, the rest not.
There is no universal logic in this. It is all about definition.