comment: >
  
  
  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.
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.