The word "talent" is a mechanism that kills effort──slapped on the spot to those who are currently moving forward

That girl has talent

The deeper meaning contained in those words meant as a compliment.

When someone starts something new, it is only natural for there to be a difference in initial momentum. Even with the same number of repetitions, the positions they reach are completely different. What we should question is not the existence of that difference, but rather what ceases to happen the moment that difference is given a name.

Names have two types of effects. A name to describe the target, and a name to make you stop thinking about it any further. In most cases, "talent" is used as the latter. Because it makes you feel like you've explained it, verification stops right there. How and what was built up is no longer questioned.

And "effort" is also a name on the exact same side.

── The two names are distributed based on appearance, not substance.

Then, what determines which name is given? Since it is impossible to see the entire inner workings from the outside, judgments made there are, after all, merely measured by the amount of hardship and the impression perceived from the outside.

If it looks effortless, it's called talent; if it looks exhausting, it's called hard work. Even if you follow the exact same steps, if your expression and the time it takes are different, the label switches.

Therefore, talent and effort are not in opposition. Both are names given to the outside of a box that has not been opened. One is the name of an attribute, the other the name of a quantity. They are no different in that they do not question the contents. The question of whether it is talent or effort remains unresolved because both sides come from the same place.

── The further away it is, the more it looks like talent.

When looking from the outside, all you can observe is the output. You cannot see the process. What cannot be seen is compressed into a single word. When you get closer, the compression is undone. You can see when they started, you can see how they fixed things, and you can see the people who were by their side. The moment the steps become visible, that person transforms from being a "talented person" into "someone who built things up that way."

The same person looks like talent from a distance, and accumulation up close. The subject hasn't changed. What has changed is only the observer's resolution.

Therefore, this can be rephrased. Talent is a name given to the parts that have not yet been broken down. As the breakdown progresses, that scope shrinks. If the resolution is zero, everything looks like talent.

Effort is in the same place. What is only seen as an amount of time has been given that name.

── Names work on ongoing procedures, not past ones.

Names are also applied to people in progress, and that person's next move is rewritten.

The side that wasn't posted loses the reason to stack. Because they were taught that there is a difference assuming that no matter how much you stack, it won't be filled. If you stop stacking, the gap widens. When it widens, it proves that the name was right.

Those labeled with "talent" are equally paralyzed. If the reason for their success is explained by an attribute, there is nowhere to adjust when they hit a plateau. Procedures can be fixed, but attributes cannot. What is deemed to be possessed can only be lost.

On the side of those called "people of hard work," the same thing happens in a different form. The answer becomes sheer quantity. Without ever questioning what needs to be fixed, only time is demanded. If increasing the quantity yields no growth, the matter concludes with, "As expected, they lacked talent." This is the path by which the paired concepts of talent and hard work end up killing hard work itself. Along either path, the labels end up confirming themselves at the end. Those who applied the labels feel that their assessment was correct.

Furthermore, this term is convenient for the group. If the reason for a ranking is attributed to traits, the hierarchy is established without anyone being blamed. In that sense, the word "talent" functions as a truce. Instead of everyone having an easier time, some may step off right there.

What should be looked at is not the presence or absence, but the breakdown.

We can break down and examine that same difference. The age at which they started. The number of trials per unit time. The precision of adjustments made each time. The accuracy of the feedback received. The people who were nearby. The length of time until focus is lost. The interval from failing to starting the next one.

These were all lumped together under the single words "talent" or "effort," but most of them are conditions. Conditions can be engineered.

The question is not whether a line should be drawn or not. It is whether it can be moved or cannot be moved. The former is a matter of design, while the latter must be accepted as a given. As long as these two are bundled together under a single word, even the things that could have been moved continue to be placed on the side of the given.

Of course, no matter how much you break things down, there will naturally remain parts that cannot be filled. Only after they remain should you call that talent. Most of the time, the order is reversed.

↓If you want to expand your talents and abilities, check out "Λ Meditation" right now↓

↓Related articles are here↓

↓ Latest articles are here ↓

Frequently Asked Questions