
The recent NY Times article, Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters, reignited the nurture vs. nature debate on the talent front. Let’s jump in the game in support of the “nature” side of the argument.
The Chesapeake Bay Retriever instinct to retrieve is so strong that they literally moan with boredom if you don’t take them out to do their daily “work.” Without much formal training, my Chessie (Rosie) was retrieving at eight weeks old. In the human kingdom, parents notice how different their kids are right from the start, too. My nieces and nephews are each wired so differently, some are math whizzes, others poets, and others LEGO block builders. Their natural talents are there, gifted by mother nature, and they didn’t have much (if any) formal exposure when these strengths were first noticed.
Natural talent definitely matters, but many doubt or don’t fully appreciate how much our innate abilities and traits shape who we are or what we’re best at. There is a camp of experts who study the phenomenon of gifted people who are skeptical of the idea that human beings are born with predispositions or natural abilities. They point to studies showing that people who are willing to put in long hours of solitary hard work (every day for 10 years) can learn (nurture) to attain levels of extraordinary mastery displayed by people like Yo-Yo Ma and Michael Jordan. Nurture, they say, trumps nature. The grand assumption is “You can do anything you want, all it takes is hard work.”
On the other hand, there is strong scientific evidence that shows the human brain is not a blank slate—that we are each born with a uniquely wired brain that emphasizes different strengths and weaknesses. This means that you’re better off working hard at the things that you have a good dose of natural talent for. Sure, you can do anything you want, but how long can you sustain something that doesn’t come naturally or isn’t fun to do?
What do you think makes you excel at something, nature, nurture or some of both? Read the rest of this entry »