comment: >
  
  It's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about "how hard he had to work" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.
  At any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.
  The difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.
  But the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.
  From their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about "how hard he had to work" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism.
context: /u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  Showing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.
  
  this is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective.  
  
  what if "having a strong work ethic" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. 
  what if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? 
  "success" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not "work ethic". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics. >
  
  
  what if "having a strong work ethic" is a talent in and of itself
  
  Only if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.
  
  in the market
  
  Success is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.
  It's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it. >
  
  I think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.
  Someone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. 
  Someone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.
  In various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic. >
  
  
  Someone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.
  
  Yes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. 
  
  Someone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.
  
  Ah, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.
  !delta
  I haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject... >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  of course talent is a thing, not really debatable. >
  
  
  Showing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.
  
  I didnt get work ethic from "talent" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said "no" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.
  So now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income. >
  
  First, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.
  Second, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work. >
  
  
  First, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.
  
  Parental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent
  
  Second, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.
  
  The type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that. >
  
  
  Parental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent
  
  Right, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.
  Talent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that? >
  
  you confuse willpower with talent,  willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, 
  ​
  people with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces,  talent is merely an effort multiplier >
  
  I am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:
  
  Having talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.
  
  I am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former. >
  
  I'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example. >
  
  As a person with "natural born talent" I definitely disagree.
  It completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that "work ethic" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.
  Even if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.
  Hard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.
  Work ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster. >
  
  I'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent. >
  
  I think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working "hard") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.
  An "untalented" person can become successful at something because:
  - The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.
  - The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.
  - The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.
  - The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the "usual" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him. >
  
  
  Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective
  
  It's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.
  
  Access to high quality information 
  The person has access to quick high-quality feedback.
  
  When people talk about talent, they imply equal training.
  There are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different >
  
  
  It's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.
  
  Kids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.
  ​
  
  When people talk about talent, they imply equal training.  
  There are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different
  
  Yes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by "success." I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful.  The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor). >
  
  
  Kids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. 
  
  Yes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though >
  
  
  Yes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though
  
  I see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. 
  For the case of  being an elite in a particular field or being "great," talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control. >
  
  I think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. 
  I am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. 
  My brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. 
  I'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. 
  It is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.) >
  
  Something your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. 
  Low talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.
  For example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent >
  
  It's incredibly difficult to quantify "natural talent."
  Even toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?
  Who's actually talented?
  And then comes "hard work," messing things up further. Because what we label "work" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, "dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something." You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. 
  So what separates the "hard workers" from the "talented hard workers?" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?
  There are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where "talent" ends and "effort" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!
  In the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic "friends" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success! >
  
  This isn't relevant to the statement of my post?
  I don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of "naturally talented" and "success". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of "naturally talented" and the corresponding measure of "success" we want and my statement would still hold.
  In fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place. >
  
  The point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.
  There are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
  You're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.
  Produce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than "natural talent." >
  
  
  The point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.
  
  Do I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that "sandwiches are usually made with bread"? Many definitions of "talent" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.
  
  There are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
  
  Why would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work? >
  
  
  Why would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?
  
  Because if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.
  As far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.