In Chinese culture, there\u2019s a ceremony called Zhuazhou (\u6293\u5468). On their first birthday, children are placed in front of various objects and encouraged to pick whichever catches their eye. Tradition says their choice reveals something about their future career.<\/p>\n
A toy car might point to a future engineer or driver, a book to a scholar, a pen to a\u2014sigh\u2014writer.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve ever hung around aspiring writers\u2019 circles, you\u2019ve probably encountered the eternal debate about talent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It like this: some people are born with a natural gift, and that gift makes them better. If you\u2019re good, you have talent. If you\u2019re not, you don\u2019t.<\/strong><\/p>\n What science says (and doesn\u2019t say)<\/p>\n Science is still undecided on whether talent really exists. A fascinating piece in Scientific American\u2014\u201cIs Innate Talent a Myth?<\/a>\u201d by Hambrick, Ull\u00e9n, and Mosing\u2014reviews research on the subject. Their conclusions seem to suggest some innate talent must exist.<\/p>\n They propose what\u2019s called the Multifactorial Gene\u2013Environment Interaction Model (MGIM), which suggests that genetic predispositions interact in complex ways with environment, practice, and other factors.<\/p>\n Their bottom line?<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no denying the importance of training for becoming an elite athlete, but [\u2026] genetic factors matter, too.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n They also cite a 2016 study arguing that the old \u201cborn versus made\u201d debate is too simplistic. In other words, it\u2019s not just nature or nurture\u2014it\u2019s both, in messy ways.<\/p>\n Summarized, the authors argue:<\/p>\n But this isn\u2019t settled science. Other research points the other way\u2014like Sakakibara\u2019s study on perfect pitch<\/a>, where every child trained successfully learned to recognize notes. Or Sinatra and Lambiotte\u2019s Quantifying Success<\/a>, which highlights how much we underestimate plain luck.<\/p>\n So, if you\u2019ve been patiently following along through this flurry of citations, you might be wondering: \u201cBut wait\u2014if your post is called Talent Doesn\u2019t Exist, what are you really arguing<\/strong>?\u201d<\/p>\n More than genes<\/p>\n Even if Hambrick and colleagues are right, genetics alone wouldn\u2019t explain everything. There\u2019s also:<\/p>\n A mystery novelist would call these: motive, means, and opportunity.<\/p>\n Of course, we could imagine that\u2014everything else being equal\u2014the \u201ctalented\u201d writer might have an edge. But everything else is never equal.<\/p>\n To actually prove talent, we\u2019d need to isolate genes for writing (and separate them from genes for related abilities like language, creativity, or introspection), and then test them under double-blind conditions. Not happening anytime soon.<\/strong><\/p>\n And so, comparing writers across different ages, backgrounds, experiences, training appears like a pointless exercise. <\/p>\n The publishing world<\/p>\n Publishing isn\u2019t a lab.<\/strong> If cognitive scientists don\u2019t have a final answer, the rest of us certainly won\u2019t.<\/p>\n If there were a gene for writing, could we identify it after the fact? Could we really declare who had more talent: Nabokov or Kundera? King or Connelly? Le Guin or Asimov? Me or Bukowski?<\/p>\n We could maybe come to an agreement on who was more influential or whose books were more influential. But these would be opinions, not diagnoses.<\/p>\n Even if talent were tied to a single gene, I\u2019m willing to bet not all literary masters would have it.<\/p>\n And here\u2019s something I\u2019ve noticed: no one in publishing really talks about talent when it comes to established authors. It seems irrelevant\u2014and maybe that\u2019s for the best. In a way, the marketplace is more egalitarian: success depends less on hypothetical DNA and more on whether a book sells.<\/p>\n Among beginners, though, the \u201ctalent\u201d debate never dies. <\/p>\n Why? Because it creates a sense of belonging. If \u201ctalent\u201d exists, then some people are \u201ctalented.\u201d And those people get to feel special\u2014by birthright.<\/p>\n The seductive myth<\/p>\n Talking about talent is dangerous because it divides people into in-groups and out-groups. Writers versus non-writers. The chosen versus the rest.<\/p>\n It\u2019s tempting to think some people \u201cmust\u201d write because it\u2019s \u201cin their blood.\u201d But if that\u2019s true, the opposite is also true: some people \u201cmust not.\u201d<\/p>\n This imaginary line splits the world into \u201ctalented\u201d and \u201ctalentless hacks\u201d. And it\u2019s a lie. Even talented people write bad books. And skill, no matter how great, comes with no moral superiority and no special rights.<\/p>\n Talent, as a concept, flatters the ego and excuses laziness. If you believe you\u2019re talented, you can wait around for inspiration, convinced that your gift will carry you. And if success doesn\u2019t come, you can play the victim: \u201cWhy don\u2019t I have success, if I deserve it?\u201d<\/p>\n On the other side, those told they \u201clack talent\u201d might actually believe it\u2014sabotaging themselves, feeding impostor syndrome.<\/p>\n Do we really want a Gattaca-like world where only the genetically \u201cfit\u201d get to write? What about those who want to write simply because they love it? Their desire is just as valid as any supposed gift.<\/p>\n Drawing that line would be not just foolish, but authoritarian.<\/p>\n What actually matters<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a truth: skill is a mix of factors\u2014predisposition, education, luck, practice, side knowledge. Of those, the only ones we can control are practice and how we connect writing to the rest of our lives.<\/p>\n My background, upbringing, and any genetic quirks are behind me. What I can control is what I do now: writing, and learning.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why talent, as an idea, is useless. Even if tomorrow I discovered I \u201chad\u201d it or I didn\u2019t, it wouldn\u2019t change what I need to do to get better.<\/p>\n Of course, not everyone starts from the same place. Being surrounded by books as a child probably helped me. So did not being hungry, or sick, or in a war zone. But even here, simplifications are dangerous. Some people start writing late, some write in poverty, some write in trenches.<\/p>\n Sure, there may be only one Nabokov in a million. But you don\u2019t have to be Nabokov to publish\u2014or to write at all.<\/p>\n In conclusion<\/p>\n I\u2019d rather believe in as few false myths as possible\u2014especially those that exclude people. And so, for me, talent doesn\u2019t exist. Or at least, it\u2019s meaningless until proven otherwise.<\/p>\n What matters isn\u2019t anyone\u2019s genetic makeup. It\u2019s simply: what do you have to say<\/strong>?<\/p>\n If this topic is of interest to you, I’ll suggest a watch to this Zoe Bee video on meritocracy:<\/p>\n Trust me, it’s worth a listen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In Chinese culture, there\u2019s a ceremony called Zhuazhou (\u6293\u5468). On their first birthday, children are placed in front…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":182295,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[37583,102672,815,642,159,3993,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-182294","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-genetics","8":"tag-does","9":"tag-exist","10":"tag-genetics","11":"tag-not","12":"tag-science","13":"tag-talent","14":"tag-united-states","15":"tag-unitedstates","16":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115106163273843208","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182294\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/182295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n