Ashby 1

Jamie Ashby
UWRT 1103

Decoding Talent
Practice makes perfect, what a hackneyed saying. Many of us have heard it, and many
of us dont want to hear it. These words have been verbalized for generations on top of
generations, but how much of this is truth? We know that yes, practicing repeatedly does
increase a likelihood of perfecting an ability or skill; however, some people dont have to
generally make this trek after trek of painstaking practicing just to make a half shot attempt at an
activity. There is the select amount that can just natural at an activity, and the others just struggle
or cannot perform the skill. Moreover, how much of this natural ability is based on nurture? Or,
on a sharper point, is it embedded in a persons genes to be skillful or talented in an art
better yet a genius. Is it deeper than just hours of practicing and endless repetition of one skill
that makes someone up to par, or above average? What does nature have to do with talent? Is
someone predestined for greatness?

Commented [JA1]: Is this question really relevant?

I can remember the first time that I picked up a crayon, I was around two or three years
old and stories that have been told to me have indicated that I was an artist from the start.
However, at the age of two or three even four, you arent in a learning/class environment to learn
these skills, so, where did I acquire this ability? Looking back at my elementary school days, my
best friend I were in every single class together from pre-k to 6th grade. We had English together,
writing together, math too, and music and visual arts. From arts and crafts to painting, to
sculpting, I loved it and had a natural knack for it, however, my best friend did not. He would
struggle to get his art assignments completed and looking up to par in relation to the whole class.
But why was it effortless for me and some others, but the most difficult task for him?
Discovering more about myself and honing my skills as the years progressed, I entered into my

Commented [JA2]:
Commented [JA3R2]: Those

Ashby 2
teenage years with great expectancy and ambition. By the time I was 15, I had been acquainted
with and skilled with the art of painting, sketching, fashion design and proficient in playing alto
sax, soprano sax, violin, flute and the guitar. I never was forced to do any of these activities, I
instinctively wanted to learn and grow in these art styles and instruments. I had loved to play and
record myself playing an instrument or design something for someone or put a piece of artwork
in my room for myself to see and to display. Progressing into my later teenage years, I had to

Commented [JA4]: Do you think this could go into

another section?

start to notice something; my art style and my fathers art (he is also an artist as well), along with
my late brother (who was an artist) were similar yet different all in one. I noticed some things
that I did when I was younger were similar to both my father and my brother when they were
younger as well. In Brysons Larde Dictionary of Painters- the letter A contains 391 names of
famous artists whom are men whom 65 are near relative or 1 in 6: 33 of them are fathers and
sons, 30 are brothers (Galton). Maybe I do know why I never struggled in art and my best friend
did; the art of gene expression, what is in my DNA? Does genetics have to do with your talent

Commented [JA5]: Whats in his DNA?

capacity? I would argue yes in many cases, and for this paper, the word genetics will be
defined as the study of heredity and the role it has on development of talent. Looking at the quote
that would tell me that there is a significant link between your family and your talent. But does
talent code for the same expression like blue eyes or an expression like red hair?
Not all my siblings are talented in art however, only two out of the entire six are talented
or proficient in the arts. I would argue that they are natural in other talents, as in agreement
with Hopkins idea that genes account typically for half of the variation in performance between
individuals, which in summation means that our parents genes that decode our genes are the
reason for the individuality in our talents. However, there are approximately 3 billion

Commented [JA6]:
Commented [JA7R6]: You should exclude this

Ashby 3
combinations of genes that a person could have from their parents. Thats probably the reason
why children of the same parents express several outcomes to the gene pool.
Everyone knows if you repeat a skill a multitude of times you hone it after a while.
However, is practicing over and over going to outshine someones natural talent? If I picked up a
violin and never played it a day in my life, would I have the same outcome as someone who
practiced for only lets say a year, and I miraculously had a natural gift for the violin. Would I be
at the same skill level as that person? I think all the numbers and statistics to the question can
only go so far. According to the article The Truth About Talent a dispute between natural talent
and genetics is phrased as natural ability to perform is hindering true potential, could it be that
the very idea of talent is holding back our children and damaging performance? Agreeably, is
talent the sole basis of holding or children back? No, its the coaches, teachers, parents of the

Commented [JA8]: Our

children, their words spewing into the brains of the children, telling them that no, you can take a
break, youre fine, you dont have to study, etc. Understanding the difference between over
practicing and practicing at all would be the true medium between the issues. Syed explains that
talent is only present if noticed.
A ground-breaking investigation of British musicians, for example, found that the top
performers had learnt no faster than those who reached lower levels of attainment. Hour after
hour, the various groups improved at almost identical rates. The difference was simply that top
performers had practiced for more hours. Further research has shown that when top performers
seem to possess an early gift for music, it is often because they have been given extra tuition at
home by their parents. Explained, outside driving force could be the reason some are noticed and
some are not. As in, if I hadnt gone to Lafayette elementary school in upper northwest,
Washington, D.C. would I not have been noticed? Debating the fact that I had a father that said

Commented [JA9]: Odd ending sentence

Ashby 4
that he expected me to be an artist since I was born because of my sibling. But it gets more
complicated. The new findings suggest that it's the way our genes and environment interact that
is most crucial to musical accomplishment. Not only do genetically-influenced qualities
contribute to whether people are likely to practice, Hongs data show that the genetic influence
on musical success was far larger in those who practiced more. It was previously thought that

Commented [JA10]: So you should elaborate

people might start out with a genetic leg up for a particular activity, but that skill derived through
practice could eventually surpass any genetic predilections. Our results suggest that its the
other way around, explains Hambrick, that genes become more, not less important in

Commented [JA11]: Is the quote necessary

differentiating people as they practicegenetic potentials for skilled performance are most fully
expressed and fostered by practice."In other words, people have various genetically determined
basic abilities, or talents, that render them better or worse at certain skills, but that can be
nurtured through environmental influences. Hence Hambrick is far from down on dedication: If
you want to be a better musician, practice! If you want to be a better golfer, practice!
What a young person decides about the nature of talent, then, could scarcely be more
important. Think how often you hear people (particularly teenagers) saying: "I lack the brain for
numbers," or "I don't have the coordination for sports." These are direct manifestations of the
fixed mindset and they destroy motivation. Those with a growth mindset, on the other hand, do
not regard their abilities as set in genetic stone. These are the people who approach tasks with
gusto. "I may not be good at math now, but if I work hard, I will be really good in the future!"
Many dispute that overcoming challenge (maybe genetics) is greater than having a natural
ability. For instance, Albert Einstein had a code read for dyslexia; it is not difficult to figure out
why. It is because intelligence-based praise orients the receiver towards the fixed mindset; it
suggests to them that intelligence is of primary importance rather than the effort through which

Commented [JA12]: Why what?

Ashby 5
intelligence can be transformed. This reveals a radical new approach to the way we engage with
children and each other: that we should praise effort, not talent; that we should teach kids to see
challenges as learning opportunities rather than threats; that we should emphasize how abilities
can be transformed. Experiments have shown that when parents and teachers adopt this approach
and stick to it the results are remarkable. Talent is not always genetically based, but what is best?
To have a natural ability and to be praised, or to work hard in secrecy and be rewarded later? I
can attest from experience that the latter on is best; to actually have to work for in other basis, it
doesnt have to be art, it could be for any skill that you would want to discover.
I believe the next step to this discovery is defining expert skill and creative skill.
According to Hong, creative talent is defined to generate original and expressive talent such as
mathematics, visual arts and musical arts, and expert talent which is defined as being able to
develop over a period of time, examples such as; ballet or learning how to play basketball. You
might be advantageous (being prone to) for a skill such as ballet, but according to Hong both
creative and expert talent is only as strong as the person who wields that talent practices. This
statement is true, I wouldnt be able to do generate the art styles that I can do now if I had not
practiced and sat in my room for hours. However, vicinity and modeling deals with your ability
too, besides practice, being able to watch someone do the talent or playing the game, etc. a
person probably would not be able to create the art that they can generate as of now. Going back
to the musicians in the previous section, the only difference between those who had showed
creative talent and those that had discovered their gift until practiced was the amount of time
they actually practiced. Hence, the newly discovered correlation between practice and
perfection-I guess our parents were right.

Commented [JA13]: Is math a talent?

Ashby 6
Well, now that it is the 21ist century, we have a boundless array of tests and experiments
for genetic testing. Some of them include; paternal/maternal testing or a prenatal screening,
which is a test most parents of the first world request, it tests for any predisposed diseases the
child will have (mostly used for the testing of retardation). Moreover, scientists in China have
developed and basically perfected a test to give to youth in the country; it tests for the percentage
and level of talent the child will have when grown up, this test is used for job paths. The parent
would send the child to a special camp and then the scientists would swab and screen the child
for the innate abilities they possess. The report by CNN states that the parents would the directly
choose the childs destiny; the job they will potentially have, the courses they will take in school,
etc. One parent directly states that, Now we can find out more quickly and raise her based on
what her natural talents are. Now, is this an example of altering the correlation between hard
work and being equivalent to others? This is a display of predestined modeling, when the
guardians of the child set the stage for the child, which essentially is what happened to me, but to
a lesser extent. I was placed into an environment to where my talents from nature could be
nurtured. Conversely, these tests dont allow for the child to work hard at a natural talent and
perfect a skill, such as when I first learned how to play saxophone; I was horrendous for the first
two years, then practiced and perfected the skill that I suppose is not coded in my genes. I
believe you should allow for the leeway of failure and discovery, not predestined misery.
Of course, we aren't just passive recipients of our environment. All of us actively make
choices, and these choices add up over the years. According to "experience producing drive
theory", genes indirectly influence the development of talent by motivating us to seek out
experiences that in turn will develop the neural brain structures and physiology that supports
even higher levels of talent. In Wendy Johnson's formulation of the theory, this applies to all

Commented [JA14]: Thats crazy. But I think that this

should be a new section.

Ashby 7
areas of individual differences, including motivation, interest, attentional focus, personality,
attitude, values and quirky characteristics unique to each person. Genes indirectly pull our
attention in certain directions and take us away from processing other information in the
environment. It seems like there is a natural equation to find the solution to this dilemma;
practice, plus or minus natural ability, nurturing and determination might equate to the same final
outcome, naturally talented or not. We all differ in what captivates our attention, and that is
determined by a lifetime of mutually reinforcing experiences as nature and nurture intermingle.

Ashby 8

Works Cited
Chang, Emily. Innate Talent and Behavioral Genetic Analysis-CNN. YouTube, YouTube. 9
October 2013. Web. 1 March 2015
Galton, Francis. Hereditary talent and Character. Published in Macmillans Magazine.
Published in 1865. 27 Feb 2015
Gunderson, Elizabeth A., Gerardo Ramirez, Susan C. Levine, and Sian L. Beilock. "The Role of
Parents and Teachers in the Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes." <i>Sex Roles</i>:
153-66. Print.
Hong, Eunsook, and Roberta M. Milgram. Preventing Talent Loss. New York: Taylor & Francis,
2008. Print.
Hopkins, Will G. Genes and Training for Athletic Performance Journal of Applied Physiology
87, 1035-1037 (2011): 167-98. Heritage Family Study. Web. 3 March 2015.
Syed, Matthew. Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice. The Truth about
Talent: Can Genius be made or is it Preordained? 6 May 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.