How far does hard work get you versus talent

>>8261590
Nowhere really. No amount of effort will turn a pleb into Gauss, Mozart or Muhammad Ali.
If you didn't win the genetic lottery you might as well kill yourself.

>>8261590
The only proper answer to this question is "we don't know". No one understands the human brain, no one can even define "intelligence".

I guarantee you talent is never enough for anything, especially at football I have met AMAZINGLY TALENTED KIDS. But they've become nobodies because the ones that didn't have talent trained extra hard, and overtime made the talented ones look like noobs.

Work hard for your dream, the journey is everything, reaching the top is not something you want, because the only direction you can go from there is down.

>>8261596
While this is true, one thing we can say for sure is that no one ever became a master of their field by being a lazy shit and doing nothing, so there is no reason not to try and do your best.

>>8261592

Or you could just not base your life on other people's expectations or standards and live it the best you can

>>8261592
This

>>8261597
And this

If you are talented but lazy you go nowhere. If you work hard you can surpass a talented lazy person, but not someone who works as hard as you, but has more natural talent.

>>8261590
Really stupid meme "hard work vs talent".
Reasonable work is never hard, it's pleasure to do. Useless work is almost always hard. Talent is just about your ability to fit socially. So-called "talented but lazy" = "greatly fits socially but unable to use it for good". What comes to genes -- their effect is extremely hard to measure. People think they can judge about it but instead they always measure social things, forget or misremember all their wrong judgements.

>>8261592

Then why haven't you killed yourself, pathetic pleb?

>>8261616

You are fucking stupid, why do you even post?

The thing you wrote is so self evident that you must be retarded for thinking it was worth writing, seriously kys NOW.

Talent is proportional to cleverness. You need to be clever to get past an associates degree, especially for a STEM degree.

>>8261590
Extremely far, every other answer is a meme. Great talent without hard work amounts to nothing, moderate talent and very hard work lead to great contributions

>>8261650
Not that anon, but considering just the first post (and many others on this board) things like that need to be said.

File: Screenshot_2016-01-11-15-35-11-1.png (435KB, 722x660px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 722x660px

>>8261650
>meaninglessly angry

There is not such a thing as a talent at all. There are some thing in your brain and body, that makes you mor suitable for some sort of work/sport/art, but actually the only way to git gud at something - is dedicade your life to it.

When you spent more time on some task, when you try to be more efficient and seccesfull, you will become "talented". At least that is what stupid people say, when see someone with great skill at something.

You never know how suitable for something until you do everything you can. In the end its just a combination of your genetics, luck and ammount of work. Guess the only thing of that three that you can control.
Even if you are not too suitable but you work a lot, you will become good, maybe even great. Its hard to be greatest (sometimes impossible), but you can work to become the best you could probably be. And thats the only thing that matters.

Talent is stupid word.

>>8261655
Evidence?

>>8261677
Have you ever seen someone "talented" who didnt spend all their life on the thing they are talented at?

>>8261679
Yes.

>>8261680
Like someone popular, or just in your life? Care to give more deatailed answer? Couse i am really interested in all that "talent vs work" thing.

>>8261679
Too often

>>8261691
Is it like that really smart guy, who knows everything on the lesson, but you know that he just smokes weed and fucks girls all the time?

>>8261685
People commonly squander their talents because the opportunity is never available, they're too lazy, they're convinced they arent talented, they get crippling anxiety/depression, etc.

>>8261590
Hardwork surpasses genius.

>>8261685
So, I don't know what you try you are posting from, but consider the American College Football talent pool. They consist of hundreds (between D1, D2, and D3) of teams, thousands of players. Of those who play high school football only 4% play college football. Only 2 in 100 (of those who play college football) will be drafted into the NFL.

The rest, were either not talented enough, Or did not work hard enough.

Similar situations can happen to others. Someone who is considered intelligent in high school may have had it so easy they feel they do not have to study and fail out of college. These people are not famous, but it is a common story.

>>8261677
Every mathematician and scientist who has made historical contributions to the field

>>8261592
>"Waaaaah I'm not perfect! Why!!? Life sucks!"

Jesus Christ. It's like half of you autists have the maturity of a preschooler.

>>8261592
The exact opposite of this. You won't get anywhere without hard work even if you have the best of talents. The effects of hard work outweigh talent once you get advanced enough. Conversely, if you lack talent, you can compensate with a lot, lot of hard work in earlier phases.

The names this guy mentions are great examples, all of the talented but they also worked very hard to get where they ended up. One example of talent gone south is IM Daniel Rensch in chess. He was extremely talented, touted as a future super GM, but ended up as a shitty IM because he didn't work on his skills.

>>8261685
There are popular people as well as unpopular ones. Take the example of actors: Which famous talented actor dedicates his whole life to acting? I don't know a single one. You occasionally here about them doing drugs or whatever. Next example: Ramanujan. He did not need to put much effort in and he was not even able to do so because of India, he just saw things people who dedicated their lives to maths could not see dedpite living twice as long, no matter how hard they tried. Here is the thing: People who claim there are no big persons in a field that have not worked hard, may be right, but they disregard all the ones who put even more effort and work into it but were just not as talented and you of course never hear of those yet they exist in millions.

>>8261699
Well, these people were definetely not just "moderately talented" rather exceptionally talented and put a lot effort in. You disregard all the people who are in fact "moderately talented" and work their asses off even more than the great mathematicians and scientists but did not contribute jack shit because they were not as talented.

>>8261706
I didn't say moderate talent allows someone to be a leading expert in some major field, but it is enough to make original contributions to science. By moderate I don't mean slightly above average intelligence, of course, but maybe an IQ of 125 if you want some kind of measurement.

Talented and hard-working > Talented but not hard-working = Not talented but hard-working > """Smart but lazy""" > Not talented and not hard-working

-12

>>8261590
You cant get anywhere without some of both

>>8261592

>2016
>blaming genetics

Fucking lazy sheltered millenials these days.

Work smarter, not harder.

A base talent is important sure, but the overwhelming majority for success in any field is hard work (more than 90%)

The most important thing imo is having a drive. And so far I have yet to hear of a way to aquire it.

Sure you can force yourself to study every day but realistically how far will this take you without interest in the subject or a real belief in a goal you are working towards? I dont think you can get very far if you have to constantly fight the desire to do something else. I don't think that nobel prize winning scientists had to fight the desire to play video games or watch some movies or something instead of doing their research.

>>8261590
ez answer is that the best people in every field are those with the best genetics and the hardest working. gotta have both

>>8261700
what do you think autism is?

>>8261592
Or you could try to play to your talents. If math isn't your thing, then fuck it, try something else.

>>8262597
Why do people assume that everyone must have at least some talent?

>>8261590
It gets you your own lab. Some "idiot" who posts on here got a lab by applying to tons of grants.

>>8261592
In finance it gets you far

File: hue.png (1MB, 2040x1288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2040x1288px

MOB KUN DESU

far enough

"science" is just for people who arent smart enough to realise what is truly important

how many science "geniuses" were rich?

just musk and nobel pretty much.

The /sci/ discord channel has a 16-year-old that is taking graduate level math and writing papers, already.

Hard work is a meme and for delusional brainlets.

Talent got me into a terminal MS

"Hard work" is the meme that you do something someone else tells you unless you're a fucking god like Elon Musk or Bill Gates and you'll get what you deserve. If I'd have worked harder I'd probably be in a phd instead of where I am. Might get there anyway but it's going to take a little longer than I had originally planned for. I wasted undergrad studying what I thought was interesting instead of trying to make it. Second chances right?

Just look at politics

>>8261676
I have to agree with this.

You aren't "naturally talented" to do anything, really. Maybe your body functions. If no one had ever taught you anything, you'd be useless. The things you get good at are the things you're drawn to practice by the preferences gained mostly in childhood. Practice is the only thing that makes any difference. I'm a really good conceptual artist, and people come to me all the time asking how I got so good at what I do - I always tell them the same thing: I practiced day and night, year after year, until eventually I got to the point where I am. Hard work is EVERYTHING.

>>8262808
>geniuses
>musk
Ha.
Also, is money really more important than happiness and fulfilment.

>>8262449

seriously, fuck me in the ass how retarded these people are. fucking Mendel ruined everything for us, now we gotta listen to these autists complain muh genetic lottery if they don't study and fail their exams

>>8263239
I think you should look up what the word talent means

>>8263239

Usain Bolt at 16 > average Joe at 16.

We mean by talent attributes, physique you were born with, and it is very real, believe or not.

>>8263481
Nice try, you're just too lazy to run.

>>8263483

lol, only if you knew who I was.

I haven't run at the top for a while now, but I do know what talent is in running.

When an Ethiophian kid runs 10km in 28min at age 17.
That is what we call "talent"

>>8261592
This.
Apart from that killing thing.
Mozart did not really work hard, yet he is easily among the top 5 composers ever. Ramanujan did not even have the opportunity to work hard in his field of interest, yet he was one of the top mathematical geniuses of his time. See where this is going? Yes hard work is important but don't act like a normie without significant talents could become a top figure in a field.

Isn't it more important that the stars align in a way that you start to work on your goals early and focus only on them? You can't go back in time and make yourself interested in something earlier and it's also hard to focus on one thing when life has so many things to offer.

>>8261638
You misunderstand what hard work means. Hard works means diligent/dedicated work.

>>8261590
Its not talent but interest that matters

File: based feynman.jpg (34KB, 736x256px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 736x256px

>>8261676
Reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8sVailoLw

Based Richard Feynman

>>8261676
>There is not such a thing as a talent at all
>There are some thing in your brain and body, that makes you mor suitable for some sort of work/sport/art
What do you think talent is you dumbass?

>but actually the only way to git gud at something - is dedicade your life to it
Literally false. The best in anything will always be people that have talent, AND work hard. That doesn't fucking mean the genius kid won't become pretty damn good at math just studying 2 hours a day, while you might be able to barely keep up with imstudying 8 hours a day.
Talent is huge and is definately more important than hard work. Only in the case of a talented person doing absolutely fuck all will some hardworking pleb prevail.

>>8261596
>>8261604
The most educated posts in this thread

>>8264072
>Mozart did not really work hard
Sauce?

>>8261590
>How far does hard work get you versus talent

By hard work, do you mean cheating on tests?

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard

>>8261596

We have defined intelligence.. it is a word created by humans.. We have also defined talent.

Do you even English, bro?

>>8261592
Back to >>>/pol/

>>8265736
>Says we have them defined
>doesn't post definitions
You must be an English teacher because you're useless.

>>8265767

Oh it's okay, I don't usually talk with people that are too retarded to open the dictionary and see the definitions of English words for themselves.

>>8265844
Not the anon you're responding to, but in serious discussions like we're trying to have here, people can be talking about different things using the same words, so it's important to define explicitly what is being talked about to avoid confusion.

Besides, even the dictionary gives multiple meanings to the same word, so your argument is really, really crappy and you should learn how to engage better in a debate.

>>8261590
The ability to work hard is a talent. Success is wholly determined by genetics and circumstances of birth.

>>8265856

There is only one agreed definition for the word intelligence in the dictionary. If you want it to be something else, it's not intelligence as we know it.

It's very simple really, I bet you understand.

>>8265862

Like, if you take out the definitions of the sentence this anonymous wrote, it is false.

Genetics and circumstances of birth is not wholly, as entirely determined how successful a person will be in life, by definition, even though genetics plays a big part how fast you will be for example, but you still can be a very successful runner in smaller leagues.

It all comes down to definitions, but these monkeys just don't understand it, so they vomit their thoughts like pigeons playing chess.

>>8261590


neither of these things get you far.

bob ross said Talent is something it something you have when you put hard work into it

what you think of "talent" comes from people who are run into the circumstances with the ability to believe in a better ideology earlier in life than you are.

The Atomic make up of a person is similar to the atomic make up of the universe on a % scale.

With einsteins theory of relativity, the unvierse is put at a mixture of about 4% physical matter, and 96% dark matter/dark energy.

so essentially the human body must also be 4% physical matter, and 96% darkmatter/darkenergy. (i realize this is a huge leap but fuck you this is logical) an ideology that you can live by that will give you a rewarding amount of talent from your hard work comes from mastering this spiritual aspect of the human body.

>>8265940

Again, no need to re define the word "Talent", open up the dictionary, you are just confusing people here.

>>8265950

mind gives ultimate form to matter, were you so dense you ignored this concept just to have a passive aggressive excuse to nitpick?. talent is a useless word, the fact you need a textbook definition makes you an idiot.

if i'm confusing you I'll make it a little simpler

U R DUMB

>>8261590
talent is a requirement that you can't alter to any significant degree, while hard work is highly alterable

you have to be talented, but you don't have to be hard working. that can come later with conditioning if you have sufficient motivation.

>>8265950
Fuck off with your dictionary argument.

>>8266042

Like your words you used there, every single one of them can be defined using the dictionary.

You are not capable of bringing any new information on the table using words we have already defined, you are just re-arranging them to your liking, like you did there.

But you already know this, and you are just trolling, awfully, get better at it.

>>8261590

The thing with talent is that it really only shows after hard work. Everything before that is luck, not really talent. How good you can be at something isn't really determined at your initial attempt.
Also a combination of skills that noone else has can make you valuable simple because noone else has your combination.
Don't focus on a single thing. Try many different things and find your peaks.
You don't need to be the best at everything to be the best at what you do.

>>8264072

>Mozart didn't worl hard
>played the piano since childhood

Really?

>>8264081

Never focus "only" on your goals. That's what successful people tell you because they like to forget all their failed attempts and felt like if they had started with the thing they're successful at at a younger age they'd be even more successful. However trial and errors shape who you are and everything you do adds to your toolset of experience that might unexpectedly become handy.
Follow your passions. Don't give up after your first failures. Always expand to new things.

genetics > external aid(steroids, nootropics, stimulants) > hard work

Don't forget luck, ladies and gentlemen. Like it or not, luck matters. If you work hard you can kind of "create" luck, by being in a position to take advantage of an opportunity (versus being lazy and not knowing what's going on around you), but sometimes luck happens. It's often tied to the willingness to take risks as well.

>>8266133

Really this. Most success is really just "luck". Though there is a differenxd between winning a 1 and 20 chance and winning a 1 in a million chance. Most people just don't try their luck hard enough

As long as you aren't a brainlet you can be successful in any field you set your mind to.

Most "geniuses" were just sheltered kids with helicopter parents who got a headstart in studying.

If I'd been studying math for 10 hours a day since I was 3 years old I'd probably be pretty good at it. Sure there's the occasional genuine child prodigy but they're neurological outsiders.

>>8264072
God dammit you best be trolling nigger. Mozart's dad made him work day and night for fucking years. Ask someone who knows something about music and they will tell you that his masterworks came after decades of hard work. Do you listen to any of the shit he wrote when he was 9? Faggot. Fucking TRIGGERED.

>>8261590
high IQ > being interested in the topic > hard work > talent

>>8266151
This guy gets it. I think the discussion gets skewed by even considering the true outliers. You can get really really really fucking good at shit by doing it a lot with focused practice (not just going through the motions). It is another question altogether as to how one becomes a legend in their field.

Many powerlifters for example come from very humble physical beginnings. Then they lift heavy fucking weights 4 times a week for 25 years. Those are the guys lifting the holy-fucking-shit weights. They are great at what they do. Now, as far as being say the best bench presser? Well, you better have amazing tendons and it will help you immensely if you have short arms and a deep chest. A world-class legend deadlifter will probably have long arms shortish legs and fucking meat hooks for mitts.

>>8261696
>This is spot on.
Geniuses that end up noticed are few and far in between.
People may ask what is the greatest barrier to mankind, and that question can be awnsered with yet another question and that's this; What's the most universal human characteristic, fear, or laziness?

>>8261596
How haven't we defined intelligence?


I know this is not what you meant but this is what google says

noun
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.


What's wrong with that?


And how can we not know? We have plenty of evidence for this kind of thing. Schools, IQ tests, people who have done great things. I'm sure there are psychological studies. There is that book outliers that malcolm gladwell wrote. Dude says something like almost all great achievements are a always a mix of 45% hard work and 45% being in the right place at the right time in the world/luck and 10% help from other people

>>8261592
>Gauss, Mozart, and Muhammad Ali all made their achievements purely by genetics

Yes, we're all familiar with the astounding musical talents of Wolfgang Mozart's mother and the fighting prowess of Muhammad Ali's father.

>>8266151
>Most "geniuses" were just sheltered kids with helicopter parents who got a headstart in studying.

This.

>>8266174
>when people don't get how genetics work

>>8262583
Something I have that makes me much more smarter than most people including you.

>>8261604
>be schrödinger
>be sitting around doing nothing
>about to get fired if you don't produce something soon
>hmm, pull wave equation out of your ass
>make giant development in undeveloped field
>can only succeed with hard work
Sure whatever you say brainlet (;

uh, infinity? :/

Itt: brainlets who haven't come to terms with their genetic limitations

>>8261590
Further, supposing now that all were wholly open and candid,
and never thrust upon us doubtful opinions as true, but expounded
every matter in good faith, yet since scarce anything has been
asserted by any one man the contrary of which has not been alleged
by another, we should be eternally uncertain which of the two to
believe. It would be no use to total up the testimonies in favour
of each, meaning to follow that opinion which was supported by the
greater number of authors ; for if it is a question of difficulty that
is in dispute, it is more likely that the truth would have been
discovered by few than by many. But even though all these men
agreed among themselves, what they teach us would not suffice for
us. For we shall not, e.g. all turn out to be mathematicians though
we know by heart all the proofs that others have elaborated, unless
we have an intellectual talent that fits us to resolve difficulties of
any kind. Neither, though we have mastered all the arguments of
Plato and Aristotle, if yet we have not the capacity for passing a
solid judgment on these matters, shall we become Philosophers ; we
should have acquired the knowledge not of a science, but of history.

>>8264072
Mozart was actually some madman who worked day and night for several decades and only started composing for real after decades of work.

>>8261590
The truth is, working hard and especially smart is the greatest talent there is.
I don't know a single human being who works really hard. Now imagine someone who works really hard and smart. Now imagine someone who works pushing his absolute limits.

It's literally just luck (and genetics -- which are effectively just luck).

>>8261699
Are you fucking joking? It was fucking easy mode to make historical contributions in the past centuries.

To solve this question we must first talk about the mistake people repeat over and over when talking about it.

The problem of this thread and with most people that talk about this subject is that they dumb down intelligence and hard work to simple linear values. IQ did more damage to the general conscience on intelligence than it good. The truth is that intelligence and hard work are anything but simple values, they're amazingly complex subject.

In the end no two people work with the same intelligence and no two people work hard in the same way.

You retards can't measure like this full retard
here >>8262236

Some people even work hard as shit and are talented but can't create chances unlike other people. It's a complex mixture of many things what makes a person intelligent and hard working.

>>8267727
>For we shall not, e.g. all turn out to be mathematicians though
>we know by heart all the proofs that others have elaborated, unless
>we have an intellectual talent that fits us to resolve difficulties of
>any kind. Neither, though we have mastered all the arguments of
>Plato and Aristotle, if yet we have not the capacity for passing a
>solid judgment on these matters, shall we become Philosophers ; we
>should have acquired the knowledge not of a science, but of history.
thies

>>8267813
How

>>8267848
>nothing is known yet
>play around with fire a bit
Just look up the old archives of failed scientists and publish their work as your own. Before the 20th century everything was documented extremely poorly so tons of people published shit as their own that other people already found out about a century ahead.

Not to mention you could do extremely simple experiments and find out something important that would imprint you in history because you know, it wasn't known yet so it's an amazing find even if the procedure to find it was simple as shit. Back then you could win a nobel prize for proving that nuclear power exists. Today you can only get one by finding some highly specific shit in some sub category.

>>8261590
Impossible to answer if you do not disclose what measurement device you think should be used to measure distance.

>>8267808
They would be so deviating from their surroundings they will sooner or later find a need to withdraw themselves from others or will get pushed out from groups. Either way the cost of whatever they may accomplish is that they will have almost no network left to reach out and communicate whatever the fuck they managed to accomplish.

>>8267883
That would only apply if it would be possible to commit 100% of your time to one subject. That's simply impossible and doing something as a job already includes the social aspect. The time commitment needs you to be a NEET but if you're a NEET you lack financing and the neccesary enviroment to do high tier work. So you need to be a rich NEET but without the enviroment you probably will never be able to push your limits so we are still talking about something completely unrealistic.

>>8267899
Exactly. That is why the best probably are "unemployed" - with lots of time to become best at what they do but unable to reach out with what they know because almost everyone thinks them to be worthless because of social bias and stigma of being outside of the job market. Maybe sheltered and informally hidden away at some rich dudes place in exchange for pitching their creations in ways which ensure profitability.

>>8267904
I actually thought about this a lot and find it to be unrealistic that there are geniuses hidden in basements. You just need the enviroment surrounded by facilities and other people that are there sharing the same passion. There isn't a gody chess player in some shitty tribal village because he lacks the experience playing the best of the world.