This reminds me of Oliver Burkeman's insight in "Meditations for Mortals" that we can only control quantity, not quality. He suggests we focus on what's within our control: showing up consistently and doing the work, rather than obsessing over outcomes. Another piece of his advice is to choose pursuits where you have a natural aptitude. Otherwise, there's too much friction. People enjoy being competent.
Haruki Murakami describes a similar discovery in his memoir "Novelist as a Vocation." He didn't set out knowing he had talent for writing, he discovered it through consistent practice. Only by writing his first novel did he realize he might have aptitude for it. Talent wasn't something he was born knowing about, but something he uncovered through action.
People absolutely can control quality. A simple example is handwriting, I can write chicken scratch or something neater if I slow down. Working longer on many creative pursuits will improve the quality, by experimenting with ideas.
The author concludes that "I should make sure I sweated blood working on a strength, [and] do more of what comes naturally." Something I found was that sometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are _not_ the things that are strengths. But they have become strengths. Today, I would consider myself to be an OS and systems programmer person. It was abjectly _not_ something that came to me naturally. To understand assembly language, C, and other things, and gain any sort of a proper grasp on, it took years. Sometimes, I tell people how long it took me and how much I struggled, and they are bewildered that I found these subjects so difficult. But I did.
However, my motivating factor was my interest in the subject, not my innate strength in it, and that has pushed me to study it and become strong enough that I can (hopefully, I'm still in college!) succeed in that space.
There are subjects where I could probably succeed if I tried harder and effusively sweated blood (probably pure math related). Pure math is one of those things I just suck at. But the difference is that I don't find it personally interesting, and so the burden of learning and building talent feels infinitely more overwhelming.
Sometimes I wonder if interest influences not just my motivation, but my capacity for learning and talent. Sometimes I also wonder if my "lack of innate talent" is that actually "I generally learn more slowly." But maybe learning more slowly helps me learn things more deeply as well. Who knows.
* As a side note, the quote I was told is "if you want to be known as a dog killer, you should kill dogs."
especially the example of the indian boy who borrowed and worked through math textbooks of local college students made it pretty clear to me that the difference between him and the poor kids in the US was the inherent drive he seemed to have in this anecdote.
Same as for when the author described feeling to be deserving of praise for the work put in to get a C in math. He would not be satisfied with a C if he had an inherent drive to do math, hell he wouldn’t have gotten that C if he had and if he did he wouldn’t have felt deserving of applause since the work he put in would have felt like playing almost.
> [S]ometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are not the things that are [natural] strengths.
Whic implies that most of the time, they are.
And that's a good thing. If it took you years to grasp assembly and C, whereas e.g. asynchronous TypeScript is bequem for you the same way polynomials were bequem for David Hilbert in grade school, you would probably make more money, contribute more to the economy, and be an overall happier person overall working a job that is about 80-90% asynchronous TypeScript, and maybe 10-20% the interesting stuff you don't have natural talent at.
Exceptions exist to this rule but they face a double filter:
1. How are you so sure you know better than the people waving money in your face?
2. Even if you have a good reason, why are you the right person to be doing this? Wouldn't someone else whose strengths and talents already align be better still? Is it really impossible to find them and put them in that position instead?
Yes, this is so true for me. Especially when I had this revenge arc, where I knew I could be good. Most of my strengths came later. Now people think that I am talented in that stuff, but there's always hard work behind it, and I was mostly the worst in class. But there was always a shining light in sight, where I knew I could, and that it is a good pathway.
* Don't work in power-law / winner-take-all industries, unless you are truly remarkable (and even then, you need a lot of luck). Entertainment is the most obvious example of such an industry.
* No shit talent exists. Just look at basketball players. Presumably nobody thinks Wemby is 7'5" because he just trained harder at growing tall than anyone else? Why would any other characteristic be different?
one can wonder about the biological nature of the talent:
"Like all of Erdös's friends, Graham was concerned about his drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdös $500 that he couldn't stop taking amphetamines for a month. Erdös accepted the challenge, and went cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500 off as a business expense--Erdös said, "You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it."
(tangent) That referenced Scott Alexander article was how I figured out his real last name before the New York Times doxxed him - he gave so many details about his brother I realized who he was talking about.
FWIW, I don't think he wanted to hide his identity. He talked about just not wanting patients to google his full name and find his blog, as opposed to preventing people who read his blog from finding out his name.
I think it has to do with the Brain’s favorite sources of dopamine. If you steer clear of the hedonistic approaches and focus on finding constructive ways to get your dopamine, those constructive ways may give you a living you enjoy. Physics, math, trading, coding, writing are all self-feedback fields you can iterate on in your own to get as good as you want to be. The fact that you don’t depend on others to make progress can give you infinite dopamine rewards and fuel more desire to work. The key is finding your Brain’s most constructive sources of dopamine and see how much you can feed it.
> But I think it's pretty well understood that taking amphetamines is a net-negative for individuals and society.
Depends on the amphetamine. They are not made equal. It's absolutely possible to maximize benefits and minimize risks. Remember that this stuff treats attention deficit disorder.
He was just taking adderall-level doses, no recreational doses. Basically in line with ADHD treatment. Not sure how that level for those who need it would be net negative
Eh. It's possible to do well at stuff, without getting high. Just sayin'. I've been doing it for over 40 years. Just takes some self-work.
I think people get hung up on "keeping score." Things like GitHub Activity graphs, where people write scripts, to game theirs, or pumping out mountains of really bad code, in order to jack up their LoC scores.
And, of course, there's money. If you don't generate money for silly rich people, then what you do is worthless.
If you think differently to people around you, treat their advice with some scepticism. Including the things about work life balance and burn out.
Erdos did _great_. I had no idea he spent decades working for longer than most people spend awake but I know the name. If he'd listened to the advice he was given, we'd have a lot less mathematics and he'd have been less content.
Some other people would have been a little less worried about him. Bad tradeoff.
Imo the author is missing crucial point, by making comparisons of things which are not comparable. You can not say, Person A is brilliant at xyz, why is Person B not brilliant at it, even though the circumstances and resources might be identical. The difference is, people who push themselves or are pushed to be good or great at something will barely come as far as those people who get drawn to something, because it means the can avoid suffering, grieve or else. Imo this is the strong driving force here, with the examples of Erdös and Ramanujan. I claim Ramanujan didn't became a great mathematician, because he wanted to be good at math, but mathematics gave him a space, where he could forget about his devastating circumstances of poverty and inequality. And the deeper he got into math the more he felt aligned to it and at home.
Free will does not exist, but I suppose it's handy for society at large to pretend that it does.
I don't know why, but I let myself believe for so long that I was the captain of my ship. Now that I embody the fact that everything's out of my control, I have become so much more relaxed and content with life. I do not compare myself with people that are better (or worse) off than me. They lucked into their lives as well.
I am very grateful for everything I have been given. Even the fact that I exist and get to experience this beautiful thing called consciousness. I do not complain much anymore. I work hard to give back. Not that I am rich. But I am strongly inclined to produce more and consume less, perhaps that is because I wish to show appreciation for the gift of the present that I have been given.
And my reaction isn't positive based on only good luck. I've had my fair share of bad luck, and I have been deeply disadvantaged in certain areas of life. But even for those areas, I do not blame myself. Since I believe that it was 100% the role of luck in shaping everything.
I know some people can react to the lack of free will in a negative way, but that has not been the case for me. Would be interesting to dive deeper into why. This realization has also not taken my agency, or my will to live and take action. I know that sounds contradictory, but it's true.
After reading this note I realized that there is a special breed of people that attends meetings, coordinates communication strategies across the organization, pro-actively addresses blockers and engages stakeholders as naturally as ducks take to water (or as naturally as Ramanujan did math).....
I think as part of my 2026 goals I’ve got to learn how to shitpost half as good as some of the people that make the HN front page. These blog posts have a solid self-fellating energy to them replete with quotes from brand names that’s just too good to pass up on. A complete lack of experience talking about talent with nothing to show for it? Shit sign me up I’m all about that. I’ll have to put a twist on it. Maybe I’ll find something from Grothendieck and maybe mix it in with Moebius to form that perfect slurry of articulated diarrhea. Hmm, I just have to choose the right serif font that gives my each word an air of Oxford superiority. Maybe I can prompt ChatGPT for tips.
> In the essay, he’s basically trying to square a circle: to reconcile the ideas that 1. natural talent exists and 2. everyone is morally equivalent.
I don't think this ideas are incompatible, or even unintuitive: most people intuit that it's equally wrong to murder a gas station attendant and a professor of medical ethics, even if the latter is more prestigious and/or talented in some sense than the latter.
(This is a recurrent theme in Scott Alexander's writing: establish a dichotomy and run with it, even if it's facially incorrect.)
I love how Schopenhauer can be succint on the nature of writing:
```
There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject's sake, and those who write for writing's sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper.
```
```
As soon as the reader perceives this, let him throw the book away; for time is precious. The truth is that when an author begins to write for the sake of covering paper, he is cheating the reader; because he writes under the pretext that he has something to say.
```
Paul Erdös once stopped using amphetamines for a single month, and couldn't manage to maintain his interest in math _at all_. and this writer claims that it must have been his talent and natural interest? lol
"lean into your strengths" is a great adage, but what if my interests are mainly "watching cartoons" and "playing video games" instead of "writing lengthy blog posts about talent"?
i dispute that there exists a singular path that everyone should strive to follow - after all, some people follow their interests and go bankrupt as a result. some people take medication to help cope with the realities of their own capabilities. that's life.
I've known some people with serious artistic talent. Even if they didn't like it. It seems to be inherited. A friend who was a good graphics artist (drawings in Smithsonian) has a son and a daughter. The daughter can draw well, but doesn't use the skill much. The son grew up drawing cars, and now he draws car designs for a major car company. For both of them, it wasn't all that hard.
One unusual skill is the military "coup d'œil". This is the skill of looking at a battlefield and maps, and knowing what to do to win. Some commanders have this, and some don't. Bolger, in his "The Panzer Killers", comments on which WWII generals had it and who didn't. (Bolger is a modern US general who has commanded tank units in combat, so he has experience with this.) This seems to be a skill that does not come from training and experience - either you have it or you don't.
The US Army tries to understand this.[1] This writer claims it is a trainable skill, but the training required is long. You have to fight a lot of battles, real or simulated.
Even then it may just be bringing out the ones who have the innate talent. There aren't that many good generals. Each generation has only a few greats - Giap, Patton, people like that.
If I could measure only two things when hiring but I got an exact measurement of them, they would be initiative/drive and interest.
In my experience, those who are truly interested in something and have an innate need to get things done by taking the initiative themselves almost always beat natural talent.
It just so happens that lots of people with those traits end up looking like people with natural talent.
48 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 42.5 ms ] threadHaruki Murakami describes a similar discovery in his memoir "Novelist as a Vocation." He didn't set out knowing he had talent for writing, he discovered it through consistent practice. Only by writing his first novel did he realize he might have aptitude for it. Talent wasn't something he was born knowing about, but something he uncovered through action.
However, my motivating factor was my interest in the subject, not my innate strength in it, and that has pushed me to study it and become strong enough that I can (hopefully, I'm still in college!) succeed in that space.
There are subjects where I could probably succeed if I tried harder and effusively sweated blood (probably pure math related). Pure math is one of those things I just suck at. But the difference is that I don't find it personally interesting, and so the burden of learning and building talent feels infinitely more overwhelming.
Sometimes I wonder if interest influences not just my motivation, but my capacity for learning and talent. Sometimes I also wonder if my "lack of innate talent" is that actually "I generally learn more slowly." But maybe learning more slowly helps me learn things more deeply as well. Who knows.
* As a side note, the quote I was told is "if you want to be known as a dog killer, you should kill dogs."
especially the example of the indian boy who borrowed and worked through math textbooks of local college students made it pretty clear to me that the difference between him and the poor kids in the US was the inherent drive he seemed to have in this anecdote.
Same as for when the author described feeling to be deserving of praise for the work put in to get a C in math. He would not be satisfied with a C if he had an inherent drive to do math, hell he wouldn’t have gotten that C if he had and if he did he wouldn’t have felt deserving of applause since the work he put in would have felt like playing almost.
Whic implies that most of the time, they are.
And that's a good thing. If it took you years to grasp assembly and C, whereas e.g. asynchronous TypeScript is bequem for you the same way polynomials were bequem for David Hilbert in grade school, you would probably make more money, contribute more to the economy, and be an overall happier person overall working a job that is about 80-90% asynchronous TypeScript, and maybe 10-20% the interesting stuff you don't have natural talent at.
Exceptions exist to this rule but they face a double filter:
1. How are you so sure you know better than the people waving money in your face?
2. Even if you have a good reason, why are you the right person to be doing this? Wouldn't someone else whose strengths and talents already align be better still? Is it really impossible to find them and put them in that position instead?
* Don't work in power-law / winner-take-all industries, unless you are truly remarkable (and even then, you need a lot of luck). Entertainment is the most obvious example of such an industry.
* No shit talent exists. Just look at basketball players. Presumably nobody thinks Wemby is 7'5" because he just trained harder at growing tall than anyone else? Why would any other characteristic be different?
"Like all of Erdös's friends, Graham was concerned about his drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdös $500 that he couldn't stop taking amphetamines for a month. Erdös accepted the challenge, and went cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500 off as a business expense--Erdös said, "You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it."
Like...maybe. But I think it's pretty well understood that taking amphetamines is a net-negative for individuals and society.
I would have stopped reading your comment after realising this, but I was already at the end.
Depends on the amphetamine. They are not made equal. It's absolutely possible to maximize benefits and minimize risks. Remember that this stuff treats attention deficit disorder.
I think people get hung up on "keeping score." Things like GitHub Activity graphs, where people write scripts, to game theirs, or pumping out mountains of really bad code, in order to jack up their LoC scores.
And, of course, there's money. If you don't generate money for silly rich people, then what you do is worthless.
Erdos did _great_. I had no idea he spent decades working for longer than most people spend awake but I know the name. If he'd listened to the advice he was given, we'd have a lot less mathematics and he'd have been less content.
Some other people would have been a little less worried about him. Bad tradeoff.
Free will does not exist, but I suppose it's handy for society at large to pretend that it does.
I don't know why, but I let myself believe for so long that I was the captain of my ship. Now that I embody the fact that everything's out of my control, I have become so much more relaxed and content with life. I do not compare myself with people that are better (or worse) off than me. They lucked into their lives as well.
I am very grateful for everything I have been given. Even the fact that I exist and get to experience this beautiful thing called consciousness. I do not complain much anymore. I work hard to give back. Not that I am rich. But I am strongly inclined to produce more and consume less, perhaps that is because I wish to show appreciation for the gift of the present that I have been given.
And my reaction isn't positive based on only good luck. I've had my fair share of bad luck, and I have been deeply disadvantaged in certain areas of life. But even for those areas, I do not blame myself. Since I believe that it was 100% the role of luck in shaping everything.
I know some people can react to the lack of free will in a negative way, but that has not been the case for me. Would be interesting to dive deeper into why. This realization has also not taken my agency, or my will to live and take action. I know that sounds contradictory, but it's true.
But who wants to be that special breed?
I don't think this ideas are incompatible, or even unintuitive: most people intuit that it's equally wrong to murder a gas station attendant and a professor of medical ethics, even if the latter is more prestigious and/or talented in some sense than the latter.
(This is a recurrent theme in Scott Alexander's writing: establish a dichotomy and run with it, even if it's facially incorrect.)
``` There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject's sake, and those who write for writing's sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper. ```
``` As soon as the reader perceives this, let him throw the book away; for time is precious. The truth is that when an author begins to write for the sake of covering paper, he is cheating the reader; because he writes under the pretext that he has something to say. ```
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10714/10714-h/10714-h.htm
"lean into your strengths" is a great adage, but what if my interests are mainly "watching cartoons" and "playing video games" instead of "writing lengthy blog posts about talent"?
i dispute that there exists a singular path that everyone should strive to follow - after all, some people follow their interests and go bankrupt as a result. some people take medication to help cope with the realities of their own capabilities. that's life.
One unusual skill is the military "coup d'œil". This is the skill of looking at a battlefield and maps, and knowing what to do to win. Some commanders have this, and some don't. Bolger, in his "The Panzer Killers", comments on which WWII generals had it and who didn't. (Bolger is a modern US general who has commanded tank units in combat, so he has experience with this.) This seems to be a skill that does not come from training and experience - either you have it or you don't.
The US Army tries to understand this.[1] This writer claims it is a trainable skill, but the training required is long. You have to fight a lot of battles, real or simulated. Even then it may just be bringing out the ones who have the innate talent. There aren't that many good generals. Each generation has only a few greats - Giap, Patton, people like that.
[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Eng...
In my experience, those who are truly interested in something and have an innate need to get things done by taking the initiative themselves almost always beat natural talent.
It just so happens that lots of people with those traits end up looking like people with natural talent.