Do you believe it's 'natural' to be good at something?

I guess "naturally talented" people just have a head start. No matter how talented you are without practice or studying you will soon left behind of "non talented" crowds.

 

For me, that depends on the skill itself. If a "large" group of people (e.g. 80%) need to practice a certain skill in order to be good at it, then I think that that is more "natural".

I do think that if you are a "natural" at something, that you may become better (with additional practice) than others. But sometimes, you may not. Having a bit of a head start in a particular skill doesn't mean that someone else (who doesn't have this head start) won't become better at it. Thus my answer to this question is no. It might be true, but it might be untrue, depending on the person and the skill. =)

 

People who have talent can always flourish better than those who don't; if they work hard. If you're born with talent for something and you work very hard at it, you'll be unbeatable by many. The thing is, most talented people get lazy, and then the people without talent who work their butts off end up surpassing them. It can be a gift or a curse, depending on what you do with it. My cross country coach talks about this all the time.

 

This is absolutely true. There are legions of "talented" people out there who have lacked one specific ingredient: the desire to take it as far as it can go.

Talent, without working like a slave to develop it and without the courage to pursue it will remain what it is: a buried treasure.

 

I definitely think you can be naturally talented, and maybe not even practice and be good. But that's probably rare.

 

Of course, there are definitely those who have natural talent. When I was a kid I could have practiced stick and ball sports 12 hours a day and would never be any good. Others could regularly hit it out of the park. But I was one of those kids who could fix most anything because I'm naturally mechanically inclined. I just enjoyed hanging out in garages with like minded "greaser" friends rather than on an athletic field with the "jocks". That natural ability evolved in to a rewarding career in the metal trades. There are people who have natural artistic talent that can draw quality freehand pictures while others can't even draw a good stick man. There are some very talented famous musicians who don't even read music but play by ear. And yes, there are those with far more natural intelligence than others. Not everyone will be a copy of Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk for example.

 

I was going to say something, but between these two, they've addressed what I wanted to say.

I will add this though. While many talented people can get lazy, some of them just get cocky, and they won't acknowledge a flaw or problem in their skills. Eventually, they'll either slip up, or you can aim for that weakness -- when you're finally read to surpass somebody.

Honestly, I prefer the cocky ones to the lazy ones, because surpassing somebody due to a lack of will isn't as rewarding.

 

People can be naturally talented...

 

Yes, it is possible to be "naturally talented" at something. But it is also possible for someone who isn't, to be just as good. If they try hard enough.

 

I believe that some people are gifted with talents like acting, writing, or sports but they still study, practice, allot to be successful

 

There's a great saying by Confucious that applies here:

 

I never got good at anything without practicing

 

Yes, I believe that some people are just naturally talented at things, however I also believe someone with less natural talent can catch up or even pass them if they put in the work, especially if the naturally talented guy doesn't work to improve.

I used to play baseball. When I started playing at the varsity level there were two groups of brothers (5 guys) who were just naturally talented at sports. In 8th grade (let us play with varsity) there was no doubt that these guys were the best players, however they preferred basketball. During the summer while they were working on basketball, I was out at the batting cage and fielding fly balls. Though I never had much of a throwing arm by the end of the 9th grade season I started at right field (that's where they put guys who couldn't throw) and was batting third. My 10th grade year two of them had graduated and I actually lead the conference in on base percentage and was third in batting average. Because I actually put in the work I was able to pass those with natural talent.

My natural talent was actually math. I never studied for class and still made an A. I haven't really done math in years and now I'm sure there are kids who are putting in the work to scrape by with a C who are probably better at it than I am now.

Natural talent is a good head start, but it doesn't mean that others who don't have it cannot work to get better than you.

 

Usually I'll find that if I'm seemingly better at something without trying, it's not that I'm not trying; it's that I'm trying differently.

So often my gf and I will be playing some new game, and I happen to figure out the mechanical nuances first because I'm looking for them. She assumes there's nothing to it and you just sort of fiddle with the controls in the expected fashion and whoever wins wins. But really, there are minute manipulations of the way the characters move or different approaches to a particular challenge to be taken advantage of by an astute gamer. This is what happened the first time we played tennis in GTA5. Neither of us have ever played tennis (in game or irl) and hardly even ping pong. But I crushed her because I was more willing and able to learn.

 

Yes, someone can be a "natural" at something. If someone who is a "natural" and someone who is not a "natural" put in equal effort, the "natural" will obviously be superior. To parrot everyone else, talented people can get lazy as anyone can, and less talented people can surpass them with effort.

 

Most people gravitate towards something they excel at and enjoy, and will naturally practice to improve. There are exceptions - some people are average or struggle in subjects, but with hard work and motivation succeed. Again, most people have their strong points and weak points, and no one is the best at everything.

 

I dont have a natural talent as such that I can think off. Maybe Drama, but that only came to me after I "came out of my shell".

But when I was younger I loved sport and I really tried to be good at sport. It never happened I was always the worst. I loved art, I always tried my best at art. I did art after school one year and I never improved, I still draw like I am in kindy.

 

If you haven't read it, the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell offers some very interesting theory on the subject. It probably relates more to success where your question is more about talent alone but I think it's a good fit. This book is where the "10,000 hour rule" comes from in which Gladwell asserts success in any area is in large part due to practicing for at least 10,000 hours. The author also believes that "natural" talent is due to a large extent on your environmental and cultural upbringing. So by looking at the backgrounds of some very successful people, he asserts that those who are considered phenomenally talented or successful in any specific area are not necessarily more "naturally" talented or intelligent than others.

It's one person's theory, but it's a great read and his style of writing makes the subject very easy to grasp.