Does talent matter more than practice?
Neither wins outright. Practice clearly matters, but a large 2014 analysis found that deliberate practice explained only about 12 per cent of the differences in performance across the fields it studied, with much more in games and music than in education or professions. The rest comes from a mix of factors researchers still debate, which is a good reason to pick skills you enjoy rather than ones you think you're "born for".
Zestasy Wiki: our reference answers. Checked for facts and sources; less curated than the magazine.
There are two stories about skill, and both are popular. One says some people are simply gifted: the natural musician, the born runner, the cook who never measures anything. The other says almost anyone can become excellent with enough of the right practice, sometimes summed up as "ten thousand hours".
The research sits somewhere between them, and it's more interesting than either.
What practice explains
In 2014, psychologists Brooke Macnamara, David Hambrick and Frederick Oswald published a meta-analysis in Psychological Science that pooled studies on deliberate practice, meaning activities designed specifically to improve performance. According to the Association for Psychological Science, they found that deliberate practice accounted for about 12 per cent of individual differences in performance overall.
The figure varied a lot by field:
- about 26 per cent in games such as chess,
- about 21 per cent in music,
- about 18 per cent in sports,
- about 4 per cent in education,
- less than 1 per cent in professions.
Macnamara's own summary was that deliberate practice is unquestionably important, just not nearly as important as its strongest proponents had claimed. The researchers suggested that other factors, such as the age at which someone starts and certain cognitive abilities like working memory, might also play a part.
Why the debate is unsettled
The analysis didn't end the argument, and it wasn't meant to. Measuring practice is hard: people estimate their own hours, and not all practice is equal. Measuring talent is harder still, because by the time anyone is good enough to study, their abilities are already shaped by years of experience. And "the rest" of the differences isn't a single thing called talent. It may include starting age, coaching, enjoyment, opportunity, temperament and plain luck.
So the honest position is: practice matters, other things matter too, and nobody yet knows exactly how they combine for any one person.
What this means if you're picking up a skill
For most of us, the question isn't whether we can become world-class. It's whether we can get good enough to enjoy something. Here, the debate is oddly reassuring.
- Practice still pays. Even if it explains a minority of the differences between experts, it explains a great deal of the difference between you this year and you next year.
- You don't have to feel gifted to start. Very few people feel naturally good at something in the first month. That feeling is not a reliable guide.
- Enjoyment is a real advantage. People who like an activity tend to keep doing it, and doing it is how anyone gets better.
- Starting later is fine. You may not end up in an orchestra, but you can absolutely play well enough for friends after dinner. We look at this in is it too late to start something new at forty?
Don't let "talent" become a verdict
The risk with the talent story is that it turns early clumsiness into a judgement: "I'm just not sporty", "I'm not a creative person". Those sentences often date from a single bad PE lesson or one discouraging teacher. They're worth questioning. You don't need to be born for something to enjoy getting better at it. For the beginner side of this, see being a beginner as an adult.
FAQ
Is the 10,000-hour rule true?
As a fixed rule for everyone, no. Practice matters, but the amount needed varies hugely, and practice alone doesn't explain most differences between top performers in the studies above.
Does it matter what kind of practice you do?
Focused practice that targets weaknesses usually teaches more than repeating what you can already do. But for enjoyment-led hobbies, simply doing the activity often is perfectly valid.
How do you know if you have a talent for something?
You often can't tell early on. A better question is whether you enjoy it enough to keep doing it, which is something you can find out quickly.
Are some people really naturals?
Some people seem to pick things up faster, for reasons that are still debated. That doesn't stop anyone else from getting good, just at a different pace.
Sources
Written by the Zestasy editors. General information for curious adults, not medical, nutrition or training advice.