Talent Is Alignment
xlii.space
xlii.space
> That is: you need convince yourself that what you do is the best thing you ever do.
I think this is a dumb idea, a mix of wishful thinking and immature psychology. You become someone because of your competence, not of what you believe in.
We all want to do the best thing, but in practice in every project there are lots and lots of small, routine things that have to be done in order for the best things ever to even start functioning. I think its important to understand clearly what is the best, and what is necessary and see how each part contributes to the whole project.
Regarding gym beast - it has few effects: - you eat bigger portions - you go to gym more often - you try harder (i.e. bigger weights etc.)
I can atest that this works _for me_, but using confidence to reach a goal is quite common.
I mean there is nothing stopping one from doing all that without thinking "I'm a gym beast now". I feel that its more about breaking the mental structure one is used to, eg "I'm not good at the gym", in that case it might help, but I would argue that instead of replacing one with another why not drop it completely and just do what is needed for the goal one has set. If you do the right things the results will always follow.
"stop having low self-esteem bro" is not an constructive advice.
We human are peculiar in that our perception of things (about ourselves) often affect the outcome. "it won't work anyway..." mindset when starting usually end up being a source of self sabotage. Probably somewhere along the line with protecting ego or creating surrogate objective such as "See it didn't work. *I* was right". Creating a vicious loop.
Blind optimism have shown, to many, is a good antidote. Some enforced enlightenment or rationalist talking points usually don't
Shit works, it's not dumb at all.
And where does that competence come from?
Important point is: You become someone to others because of your competence.
In other words, it's not nature vs nurture, it's nature and nurture. If you want to excel at a field you have to start with some genetic advantages but then you need to put in the work. (Yes, there is a undertone of frustrated parent in this post.)
Alignment is a good term, but it seems fairly simple: do we want to do something?
I had a wonderful English teacher, in 6th grade. He had us read The Hobbit, and other fantasy books, as opposed to the usual “classic” literature.
It made all the difference, and I’ve been a voracious reader, all my life. Other factors also came into play, but I credit Mr. Martin, for helping me to become interested in reading.
In seventh grade, I had Mrs. Broadbent, and she forced us to read “classic literature.” It was awful, after my sixth grade experience.
Wanting to do stuff has always been important to me. And encouraging people to want to do stuff is a vital aspect of training and managing.
Personally I tried and failed to get into LotR as a kid even though I was a keen reader. Same with Shakespeare. Not everything is for everyone.
So I guess the big deal is everyone getting to meet a book that they can get into as a kid, to foster a love of reading. And different people have different books.
Therefore the problem with high school literature is everyone reading the same narrow assigned set of books, rather than what that narrow set is?
I feel as if a "One size fits all" approach is a problem.
That's something that "AI" might actually be good for; helping to craft solutions to individuals, while preserving a consistent utility.
If reading is painful, we won’t do it, no matter how good it is for us.
Same with thinking, problem-solving, learning, whatever.
I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume.
If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors.
The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.
I think that across the board a lot of people mistake passion for talent. Which’s what OP is discussing. The people who do well are those whose passion drives them to do better, every waking moment of every day, because that is where they find their enjoyment.
This isn’t a substitute for talent. It is talent.
How would you even begin to know this?
Deliberate practice might be neccessary, but it's not sufficient.
The "funny" part is that since high school, my brain kinda lost the ability to parse / infer things I don't know most of the time, but not always, and the few time I was able to understand new topics was when I altered my own thinking patterns to not search for answers right away but let myself swim in stimuli/data smoother and let idea come up slowly.
When I think of my singular biggest external achievement, I worked my ass off for it. But no amount of hard work by someone who didn't have some of the advantages I have would have gotten them anywhere close to it. The second part of that comes up approximately never when people ask me about it, I always emphasise the tremendous amount of gut-busting work it took, because that's the part I'm proud of. All that said, I've worked just as hard (maybe harder?) on some things that came to nothing.
The dictionary def of talent is an innate ability; application and practice are not mentioned.
Lady Catherine hilariously claimed "There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient."
What I mean is that your talent at Thing was not that you are innately skilled at it, but that you really enjoy doing and getting better at Thing. That is something that it is very hard to cultivate from scratch, and either you have it or you don’t.
But the discussion in the article is not about performing to a high level in order to accomplish a certain outcome (win the match), it's more about exploring one self and honing a certain talent to reach deeper levels of self-expression and self-actualization: OP has a unique way of playing the piano, and they honed it by pouring love and time into it. They would probably not perform super well in some kind of piano contest where you need to play by ear, for example. And that's not the point I got.
Everyone can principally pour love and time into any domain or activity. A 1.50m tall person can explore and hone their basketball talent in order to form a deeper understanding of that part of themselves and share it with the world.
But that curiosity/enthusiasm/drive has a large genetic component - like every pretty much every other individual characteristic that humans exhibit.
I used to believe this. Like many I was swayed by 10k hours. You hear stories like "Mozart wrote his first symphony at 8" but also hear "he must have easily been approaching thousands of hours by that point!"
The one thing that convinced me otherwise is bodybuilding. Take Jay Cutler, one of the greats. He started lifting at 18 and reported that in his first year of training, he gained approximately 50 pounds of muscle, going from around 180 pounds to about 230 pounds by age 19. He quickly got his squat up to 700lb, an insane feat. This is what he looked like [1]
People don't normally put on anywhere close 50 pounds of muscle in a lifetime, no matter how hard they try.
Ronnie Coleman had similar stories, and started bodybuilding at 24, staying natural the first 6 years. He had to gear up to eventually reach the main stage, but he was a beast regardless. It helps when your mom looks like this [2]
Talent is so obvious when you look at physical tasks. Anyone who spent significant time at the gym knows there are people that roll in every 6 months that are always strong. Or that runner that can roll out of bed untrained and run sub-6 minute miles.
Sure anyone can look good and improve their performance, but some people are just talented. And to reach the pinnacle of performance, you have to be extremely hard working and extremely talented. Now apply that to every other field.
[0] https://generationiron.com/18-year-old-jay-cutler-4-months-i...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/8p9mok/jay_cu...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/GymFailNation/posts/ronnie-coleman-...
The only parts of life that require that kind of skill is in a competitive scenario where only one person/team can win. Essentially in zero-sum games, for you to win someone else has to lose. Very few areas in life are really like that, and the ones that are are usually not worth pursuing.
Effort and perseverance can get you to 5% end of the bell curve just fine and that should be enough for most people in most areas of life.
Most of people have dreams that revolve around beating others. If you want your indie game to succeed you have to make a better game than 99% of indie developers. If you want to marry the prince you have to be more attractive (inside and/or outside) than most other people. Or even to solve a big world problem you have to be better at it than most others who tried.
Of course you can have a dream to get kids or to marry and live a regular life etc, but people like to also having these stretch dreams and imagining what it would take for them to reach there.
But most men i know want to marry a beautiful mid, make enough to support a family and watch football on the weekends. The grinders are just over represented in social media and media in general
But let's not extend that to paint a false egalitarian view that talent or natural ability doesn't exist and everyone has equal potential
Reminds me of the meme where a kid is dropping tears on the math assignment sheet, "when you do homework with your dad". Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them.
Exploring [math] from a place of curiosity, openness, joy - so, love - is to act out of alignment.
This also means that you need to start from within to develop your talent. What are you curious about, what excites you? Doesn't matter if that's math, obscure bird species or screws.
There's a compounding effect here, once you're deep enough in a couple domains you're starting to see their commonalities and less explored nuances at the domain boundaries.
I generally agree. However most school systems force students to learn basic math, which is generally used for testing whether the student is able to think structurally and follow simple rules. Although I agree intrinsic motivation to be extremely valuable, not doing math with children the way school intends may just lead to worse grades and outcomes.
™Do what you are" is a much better ordination. Some people are better wired for sports, maths or arts etc. Far too many are shoehorned into careers not suitable for them intrinsically - but that's also how the economy works. Hey, maybe you're talking about hobbies though?
I think also that what you're getting inner motivation from is also the most hidden from you, therefore it becomes necessary to explore and try to align with as many things as you can. If you're lucky then you do it at an early age.
It's also not clear that what the "baseline" is for many accomplishments. Perhaps 80% of the population has some musical talent, perhaps 20%. I don't rate the improvisation on his blog highly. Noodling without development, a weak left hand, and questionable rhythm.
Why do innate differences stop at the brain-blood barrier? Isn't it quite reasonable to assume that physical, biological differences exist everywhere in the body, since birth? A priori there's no reason for assuming otherwise.
There's enough evidence that intelligence is partially heritedary. It's also obvious that there are differences between people who dedicate themselves to their hobbies and profession, well beyond the 10k hours.
If it could the other way, why isn't there an endless stream of Einsteins and Newtons? Are all physicists lazy?
That "castle of hidden abilities" exists, BTW, even though it's usually focussed on short-comings. Our genes are quite hidden, and determine a great deal of our capabilities and lack thereof.
I think its a good approach to discover and build upon what feels good. There are plenty of pianists that can play a catalogue of songs, or improvise "flawlessly", but rareness or uniqueness are great qualities for art to have.
I'm not sure how well the same applies to work, though, where fulfilling implicit or explicit standards plays more of a role. A developed "taste" plays a role in doing e.g. a good sysadmin job, but if you're creating something unique here, any successor is likely to have a bad time, no matter how beautiful this creation seemed at the time.
I do agree with the idea that passion can be a big driver in both worlds, it just seems to me that in work there's more to gain if it is harnessed to some degree.
> When I share recordings with family and friends I often hear that I’m talented and people are surprised that I only play for a year. I have much worse opinion about myself, but take the compliments with gratitude.
> Here I’ll share the secret with all of you. The open secret that I tell to everyone who asks: I play piano 1-3 hours per day. As of today that’s probably ~1000-1500 hours.
1000 hours in one year is 2.73 hours per day. 1500 hours in one year is 4.1 hours per day. And that's 365 days in a year.
If you drop it to 250 (say M-F), it's 4 hours per day (1000) to 6 hours per day (1500). If that's dedicated time, that's more in line for a full time job (or at least the portion you're actually doing constructive work).
I play 1-3 hours daily per usual, but had 5-10h sessions sometimes. Once my family left and I sat 18h hours while practicing sounds.
And yes, I play everyday, as mentioned I have other devices so on vacations/trips I always have something with me. Usually small synthesizer. It's not a full piano, but allows me to explore chords, check various finger positions etc.
It's about doing something interesting, that doesn't mean is has to be complex or complicated.
OP does the right thing in sticking to simple stuff, because that's what they can control right now.
This is interesting. I can remember and hear sounds in my head, but can't visualize any images.
I wonder how common it is.
> A 2022 study estimated the prevalence of aphantasia among the general population by screening undergraduate students and people from an online crowdsourcing marketplace through the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. They found that 0.8% of the population was unable to form visual mental images, and 3.9% of the population was either unable to form mental images or had dim or vague mental imagery
However I need to also say that after this year I sometimes can humm in my mind simple tunes like "Old McDonald", "Twinkle Twinkle" or that Looney Tunes piano melody that was always portrayed during rigging the piano, so it might not be hopeless.
It also impacts on mappers vs packers phenomenon and might by linked with alexithymia (which sounds rare but is quite common - especially for men).
Certain things I visualise as a matter of course, I give them colours and shapes etc., and in those things I do well at reasoning. But then I hear other people talk about how they visualise things like arithmetic and I notice they're much faster than me, I think because I'm not just "seeing" it, I have to actively "calculate" it.
Starting from very similar observations but drawing the causality arrow in the opposite direction (alignment follows from talent).
I've written this before, but I'm also a musician - and have been for 25 years, and music was what I did prior to becoming an engineer. I've interacted with hundreds of musicians in my lifetime, and have observed thousands. Discovering "typically" talented individuals is pretty easy:
- They learn fast
- They excel fast
- They are unusually skilled at something from the get-go. In music, this usually means that even as very beginners, they have a good pitch. Or sense of rhythm.
Within maybe 3-5 years, they are at the same level that takes regular musicians 10-15 years to reach.
That does however not mean that the individuals that lack the above, are not talented. I've seen people that have progressed slowly, but steadily, and become fantastic musicians. Some people will reach 90% in 5 years, others will reach 90% in 10-15-20 years.
Motivation and work ethic tends to be independent skills. There are extremely talented people out there that lack motivation and work ethics, and will abandon the interest, when the going gets tough, or they simple lose interest.
The people that aren't talented, are those that will never progress, no mater how much time and energy they put into it. I know people that have truly tried their best, those that have been going at it for years and years (decades even), but just can't progress beyond beginner stage. They have no sense of rhythm, they are tone deaf, and just can't muscle coordinate enough to become proficient at instruments, and can't pick up theory. (Note: this does not mean that you can enjoy making music, or have fun with music! It mostly just limits what you can play. Some genres or songs will likely just forever be out of reach)