Natural talent vs hard work

[Ariadne]

Oh no. Projection is when you accuse others of what you won't admit to in yourself. I freely admit that I can be competitive. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, provided you acknowledge it and keep a grip on it.

 

I see. It was more complicated than I thought.

[Crusoe]

 

Are you a golfer, Crusoe?

 

Amatuer only nowadays.

 

I still do a little coaching/mentoring, a similar role to what you described in a previous post. When a kid with potential gets to a certain level I will usually get a call from the local academy and be asked to take the lad under my wing. I then enter the kid into a few Opens whilst caddying for him, or some doubles games as my partner. Slowly expose him to the Big Boys and try to teach the kid the mental skills needed to cope with tournament golf.

 

No matter how talented, if the lad isn't prepared to work, I won't waste my time on him. Under pressure natural talent disappears, hard work and iron will, grow.

[Taramere]

Amatuer only nowadays.

 

I still do a little coaching/mentoring, a similar role to what you described in a previous post. When a kid with potential gets to a certain level I will usually get a call from the local academy and be asked to take the lad under my wing. I then enter the kid into a few Opens whilst caddying for him, or some doubles games as my partner. Slowly expose him to the Big Boys and try to teach the kid the mental skills needed to cope with tournament golf.

 

No matter how talented, if the lad isn't prepared to work, I won't waste my time on him. Under pressure natural talent disappears, hard work and iron will, grow.

 

My father's a really keen golfer. Like you, he's always interested in following the progress of up and coming players. Whatever your passion, the emergence of new talent in that area is always an exciting thing.

 

This thread makes me think of those talent shows on tv. Sometimes a very promising singer will be rejected on the basis that the judges don't think they have the maturity to put in the hard work and take the inevitable knocks. Naff as the X Factor might seem as an example

is now a very successful singer.

 

Despite having a big talent, she originally got rejected. She responded by putting in some seriously hard work. In most areas, all three are required for success. Talent, hard work and the resilience to take hard knocks. I think it's far more common to see a person demonstrate all three areas in a sporting environment. In more creative environments, which often attract those of an introverted or sensitive disposition, it's less common to see all three qualities combined.

 

I think there are hugely important lessons about oneself to be learned from participating in a sport. If I were to have my time over again, I often think I'd have liked to be a sports psychologist.

[norajane]

It takes a lot of hard work to make any natural talent you have pay off. Without the hard work, natural talent is merely potential. Without the hard work, you'll be this: "She had lots of potential, but..."

[Crusoe]

This thread makes me think of those talent shows on tv. Sometimes a very promising singer will be rejected on the basis that the judges don't think they have the maturity to put in the hard work and take the inevitable knocks. Naff as the X Factor might seem as an example

is now a very successful singer.

 

Despite having a big talent, she originally got rejected. She responded by putting in some seriously hard work. In most areas, all three are required for success. Talent, hard work and the resilience to take hard knocks. I think it's far more common to see a person demonstrate all three areas in a sporting environment. In more creative environments, which often attract those of an introverted or sensitive disposition, it's less common to see all three qualities combined.

 

I think there are hugely important lessons about oneself to be learned from participating in a sport. If I were to have my time over again, I often think I'd have liked to be a sports psychologist.

 

A few years ago I signed up for a course in sports psychology, problem was the professor had never played top level sports himself, only ever learnt from a book and I walked out after a few weeks.

 

You walk a fine line trying to introduce kids to the show. Some need confidence built, many need confidence knocked, other need to be told to go away, then you wait for them to come back a few months later. All of them at some point purposely get exposed to a cold, hard, humiliating, brutal, slaughter. The key is to time that thrashing right and to choose the right opponent to do it. For some I deal out that beating myself, they don't know what's hit them. For others I know that would not be enough of a shock, so I get one of the big boys to do it. Time it right and they turn to you and ask to be torn apart and put back together, when that happens my job is done and turn them over to a top swing coach.

 

I've never watched X factor and know nothing about Alexandra Burke, but from what you have described I wonder if a simiar thing as done to her. Spotted, built up, then knocked back down to build something stronger?

 

I have to admit I've always admired musicians, especially soloists. At least in sports, if you can't control it, you can do things to release pressure and adrenalin. But on stage, alone, with just your voice, or a violin or cello.... boy, that takes some talent, resilience and near perfect technique to do.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Crusoe

[Taramere]

A few years ago I signed up for a course in sports psychology, problem was the professor had never played top level sports himself, only ever learnt from a book and I walked out after a few weeks.

 

That's a shame. You could take the theoretical learning, combine it with your own personal experience and really build up a niche for yourself in that area. From what you're saying, you were playing at top level. I would imagine there are very few people out there who could boast both that and training in sports psychology.

 

My interest in it is more with regard to what the average, non sporting person can take from it. I'll give you an example. I used to work as a court lawyer. One of my problems was that I would panic when the judge fired a question at me. I'd tend to stutter and lose focus.

 

Anyway, I had a tennis lesson and the instructor was noting that I tended to panic when the ball was coming over the net towards me. He said that this was a common problem. He taught me to somehow slow the whole process down in my mind, compose myself and take control over my response. I was astounded by how quickly it worked in helping me to improve.

 

A few days later I had to appear in court. I got a question fired at me and found myself treating it as though it were a tennis ball. Listen to the question (keep your eye on the ball) consider it (get into position) and respond (whack the ball where you want it to go).

 

I thought about all these training courses people get sent on to improve performance. There was a course for lawyers improving their courtroom skills that cost near to £1,000. That tennis lesson cost me £15 - and it probably achieved more for me in terms of understanding the problems that were holding me back in court than the specialist courtroom skills would have done.

 

You walk a fine line trying to introduce kids to the show. Some need confidence built, many need confidence knocked, other need to be told to go away, then you wait for them to come back a few months later. All of them at some point purposely get exposed to a cold, hard, humiliating, brutal, slaughter. The key is to time that thrashing right and to choose the right opponent to do it. For some I deal out that beating myself, they don't know what's hit them. For others I know that would not be enough of a shock, so I get one of the big boys to do it. Time it right and they turn to you and ask to be torn apart and put back together, when that happens my job is done and them over to a top swing coach.

 

I've never watched X factor and know nothing about Alexandra Burke, but from what you have described I wonder if a simiar thing as done to her. Spotted, built up, then knocked back down to build something stronger?

 

I wonder that too. She was probably told that she should come back in a couple of years time. I doubt it's good for anyone to be put in the spotlight at too young an age. It worked out pretty well for Charlotte Church, but she's the rare exception of a young star coping with the celebrities of pressure and making a successful transition to adult celebrity life.

[Shakz]

I'm that rare combination of laziness and incompetence that forces a man into self-employment.

[kilted_barbarian]

Both natural talent and hard work find a place in the working world.

 

In my experience, both of these qualities are essential within a business environment. There are plenty of people who work damn hard and never get anywhere with their careers, and those who have flashes of brilliance can move very quickly up the career ladder (again IME)

 

For me, I was always brought up to believe that hard work and determination will make you a better person, and will help you whatever you do. I subscribe to this.

[kilted_barbarian]

Yes, but generally with their brains and mouth, not their hands and back.

 

 

I am sorry but I do not subscribe to this view either. Most executives have worked their way into that position. And I know more who are willing to roll up their sleeves than simply sit behind a desk.

 

If you cannot do it yourself, you shouldn't ask your employees to do it.

[Rudderless]

the definition of "talent" can be applied to influential artists, musicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, sportspeople, surgeons etc. etc. anything in which you're required to find a deep well of ability to function at the highest level

 

"business executives" do not qualify for this description. they are on the whole slightly more intelligent, slightly harder working, slightly better educated, slighty better socially than your average person. people are not required to pull on a deep level of talent to fulfill these sorts of roles effectively, it's just a grind. as well as that they are not required to work particularly hard, just a little bit harder than your average person

 

in short, most people that are relatively successful (i.e. a reasonably comfortable income) have a bit of talent and work a little hard. the true application of hard work and talent are reserved for people that make history which is nothing to do with salary. if you classify yourself as particularly hard working and talented and haven't got your own lengthy wiki page describing your work, then you're effing deluded

[Shakz]

the definition of "talent" can be applied to influential artists, musicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, sportspeople, surgeons etc. etc. anything in which you're required to find a deep well of ability to function at the highest level

 

"business executives" do not qualify for this description. they are on the whole slightly more intelligent, slightly harder working, slightly better educated, slighty better socially than your average person. people are not required to pull on a deep level of talent to fulfill these sorts of roles effectively, it's just a grind. as well as that they are not required to work particularly hard, just a little bit harder than your average person

 

in short, most people that are relatively successful (i.e. a reasonably comfortable income) have a bit of talent and work a little hard. the true application of hard work and talent are reserved for people that make history which is nothing to do with salary. if you classify yourself as particularly hard working and talented and haven't got your own lengthy wiki page describing your work, then you're effing deluded

 

So to sum up, talent and hardwork lead to fame and/or fortune, so that if have neither fame or fortune it is because you lack talent and/or hard work. Believing otherwise indicates mild insanity.

[pureinheart]

Which one would you rather be complimented on?

 

I can be a bit lazy and unmotivated at times but tend to have bursts of ideas that usually result in very high quality work. However, I have been told that my work ethic is not that great in a joking manner (by a co-worker, not by a supervisor but I know there is a lot of truth to that).

 

On the other hand, I see hard working people who kill themselves working to always produce mediocre work at best (from what I can tell anyway).

 

It's usually one or the other, with a rare few exceptions that are both.

 

Our motto was "do it right the first time", much emphasis was put on "quality" not "quantity" as lives were on the line.

 

I think natural talent comes in when one is motivated...I was like totally into my job as my work was interesting (R and D)...our company actually operated on the reverse pyramid and all of us grew up together so we were a literal family also (that really helped also).

 

Where I saw work fail and lack quality was those who did the "bean count" thing and operated in quantity...they were trying to make a name for themselves and management.

 

I would rather be complimented on quality:)