comment: >
  
  
  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.
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. >
  
  
  To clarify, one good example of "natural talent" can refer to, for example, how good someone is by their nature at math, and "success" might be how much the person achieves in their math classes. I intended for my statement to be general in the sense that you can substitute many different definitions of "talent" and "success" and the argument would still hold.
  This is precisely the argument I'm going for? People with talent view these things as fun and therefore spend more time working on it. It is seen as "work ethic" or "hard work" by other people when they describe how much work they've actually gone through, but in reality, it is what they wanted to do for fun.
  Success as determined market demand is one definition of success, yes? I believe my argument still holds there? I'm basically arguing that people who are good at video games would be more successful in that field because they enjoy playing video games and would practice more. >
  
  
  This is precisely the argument I'm going for? People with talent view these things as fun and therefore spend more time working on it. It is seen as "work ethic" or "hard work" by other people when they describe how much work they've actually gone through, but in reality, it is what they wanted to do for fun.
  
  so perhaps what we're saying is something like, "work ethic cannot be attributed externally", it can only be known internally. you and i might look at a chess player and think he / she has incredible work ethic to foster a natural talent. they might tell us, however, in reality they played tons of chess b/c they have no work ethic re: schoolwork and chess came easily to them. in this case, a "work ethic" didn't foster their natural talent, but a play ethic, and it would mean your 3rd claim is not simultaneously true. >
  
  Those three statements in that list are common observations/statements that other people make. I am proposing a theory to explain those observations, so to speak? From a third party's point of view, it is absolutely true that the chess player has done a lot of "hard work" in the sense of spending a lot of time on their skills.
  I could phrase my view as "People with talent don't think of their work as hard therefore it's not true that hard work is more important than talent", but that would invite a lot of argument about what "hard work" actually means and I want to avoid that. I don't think the idea is more clearly delivered that way. >
  
  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