I don't think about it that way. My inspiration came from reading the Undercover Economist, where he starts by admitting that there are lots of people who would have written that book much better than him. However nobody has infinite time. They can't do everything. That is the key insight of the concept of comparative advantage. You do what you are best at even if everybody else is better than you at that thing. It doesn't matter because if their comparative advantage is in a different area, they are better off doing that.

So the glass is half full way of reading everybody is talented at something, simply means everybody is better at some things than other things. You might be a poor mathematician and a poor writer. But if you are a better mathematician than writer, then that is probably what you should do.

Create cogs. Everyone learned the same thing everywhere. And you learned in an environment that stressed the immediacy of execution. The Empire didn't want its citizens thinking about whether or not to follow an order in the middle of a battle. The citizen was needed to simply do as told, now.

As a result there was standardization of curriculum and an expectation of rote learning, not critical analysis and the exercise of judgment.

Contrast that with our current environment.

Products have long lead times. Skype. A massive percent of our GDP is spent on things that we didn't even know we needed or wanted. Many of the things that we rely on everyday are the product of discovery rather than directives.

So, when the person said everyone has a talent, I take that to mean, we can each bring something to the table. Diversity of thought. Diversity of experience. And that, is definitely true.

What is not true, what is arbitrary, is that there is some defined set of talents that have value and a person either masters one or more of these talents or, if they don't, they have no talent. That point of view is ignorant and counterproductive for both individuals and communities.