[kashunstva]

There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so.

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.

[adastra22]

I’ve been lucky enough to meet a number of high performers across some disparate domains. In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch. Alignment, in the sense that TFA talks about, is everything.

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.

[noelwelsh]

That's just clearly not true. Look at the high end of any sport and you see obvious genetic advantages. Basketball is particularly obvious, because height is so important. Nate Robinson could jump just as high at LeBron James, but at 1.75m (5'9") he was never going to be as successful at basketball as the 2.06m (6'9") LeBron. There are plenty of basketball players who would have never got on the court if they weren't as tall as they are. No amount of passion is going to make you taller.

[willvarfar]

Can there be 'latent talent' then?

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."

[petesergeant]

> In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch

How would you even begin to know this?

[mafm]

It's true that talent is almost entirely curiosity/enthusiasm/drive.

But that curiosity/enthusiasm/drive has a large genetic component - like every pretty much every other individual characteristic that humans exhibit.