We all know that talent is an inborn quality, and then there is something called acquired skill which is learned. It isn't solely about how naturally gifted or how many hours of practice a person invests in honing his or her skills to succeed. I agree with the author of The 10,000- Hour Rule, Malcolm Gladwell that, "achievement seems to be the result of a combination of external influences rather than individual or in-born ability alone." But Before considering evidence for and against the talent account, we should be as clear as possible about what is meant by "talent". In everyday life people are rarely precise about what they mean by this term. Most of us do not specify what form an innate talent takes or how it might exert its influence. So what does innate talent exactly mean and how does it separate to a learned skill?
Talent, in my opinion, means a natural apt and ability to learn faster and perform better than the rest. The likelihood of becoming exceptionally competent in certain fields depends upon the presence or absence of inborn attributes variously labelled "talents" or "gifts". According to an informal British survey, in music over three- quarters of the educators who decide which young people are to receive instruction believe that children cannot do well unless they have special innate gifts (Davis, 1994). It is assumed that the innate talent that makes it possible for an individual to excel can be detected in early childhood.
The literature on child prodigies for example; they abound with accounts of extraordinarily development in the earliest years. Very early language skills in a boy who was said to have begun speaking at five months of age, with a 50-word vocabulary a month later, and a speaking knowledge of five languages before the age of three. That is sheer talent, and skills are significantly impressive at an early age. Whereas, for a normal adult to learn a new language means a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document