Talent vs. Grit

Talent (noun): a natural skill or ability to be good at something, especially without being taught.

* * *

A couple of weeks ago, James Scott Bell mentioned the enormous talent of James Cagney, and that got me wondering about just what talent is and how much it plays a part in success.

We’ve all heard sports scouts talk about athletes who are “naturals.” They’re highly recruited for what seems to be their inborn ability to play the game. Most of us don’t have that kind of obvious talent, but each of us has certain inborn abilities that we can capitalize on. But how can we identify what we’re really good at? One way is by taking a talent test.

I’m not a particular fan of personality tests or talent identification tests. I think testing for specific skills is more useful. But in preparation for writing this blog post, I took a talent quiz at ProProfs. (I have no idea if their test is a reliable judge of specific talent, but I thought it would be fun to see their assessment.)

Among other things, the results indicated that I have a creative flair for story-telling. That was encouraging, but it doesn’t mean I’ll be able to wip (misspelling intended) out a 70,000 word masterpiece while sipping my raspberry-coconut smoothie and having my nails done. It won’t solve the plot problems I’m having with my next book or teach me more about the genre-specific structure I need. It also won’t do much to ensure my text is error-free or help me format and upload the book to the major retail sites. For all those, I need something more.

* * *

Grit (noun): firmness of character; indomitable spirit; pluck.

The answer may lie in an individual’s passion and perseverance, otherwise known as “grit.” While talent may give you a head start in life, it’s grit that will get you over the finish line.

A 2013 article in Forbes magazine identified five characteristics of people who have grit.

  1. Courage – The ability to manage the fear of failure.
  2. Conscientiousness – Working tirelessly, trying to do a good job, and finishing the task at hand.
  3. Endurance – Having the stamina to achieve long-term goals.
  4. Resilience – The ability to remain optimistic and confident in the face of unforeseen problems.
  5. Excellence vs Perfection – Striving for excellence, not perfection.

The Forbes article also quotes from a 1907 speech by Theodore Roosevelt that illustrates the essence of true grit:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strived valiantly; who errs, who comes again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

* * *

Finally, in a Psychology Today article, Michael D. Matthews, PhD, argues that neither talent nor grit alone will lead to success.

The message here is clear. Grit is indeed a critical factor in achievement. But it is best applied to tasks and goals for which you have the innate talent and interest to sustain growth. Engage in honest self-appraisal and identify what you have the physical and cognitive skills to be good at, then use your grit to fan the talent flame. Love what you are good at and be good at what you love. Your talent will only take you so far; you need grit to be great. And accomplishing difficult tasks provides a foundation for a life of meaning and purpose.

 

So there you have it. Talent and Grit. You need both to make the cut.

* * *

So TKZers: Have you ever taken a quiz to identify your talents? How would you compare talent and grit in writing? Which of the five characteristics of grit in this article do you most identify with?

* * *

 

Another Side of Sunshine: A Reen & Joanie Detective Agency Novel 

10-year-old Reen and her 9-year-old cousin Joanie have plenty of talent and grit, but is that enough to find the treasure hidden by the mysterious Mr. Shadow?

Click the image to go to the Amazon book page.

On Being Your Own Genius

by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell

Magnus Carlsen

Recently I watched a profile of the World Chess Champion, 29-year-old Norwegian Magnus Carlsen. He has a brain that can only be described as…singular. His is a Summit; most of us are operating with Kaypros. His noggin can run complex calculations in seconds at the same time we’re trying to remember to carry the 1 on a scratch pad. 

For example: it’s common for chess Grandmasters to play several amateurs simultaneously, going from board to board and making moves. This Carlsen kid—get this—played ten opponents this way, only he did it with his back to the boards! That means he couldn’t look at them. Someone called out the move so-and-so made on Board #1, and Carlsen then called out what his next move was. And so on down the line. 

He had to “see” ten different boards in his mind and calculate all the moves for each game. We have trouble remembering what color shirt we put on this morning. 

I was really into chess my first year of college. That was the summer of Bobby Fischer, who became the first—and still only—”rock star” American chess player. He was about to take on the Soviet world champ, Boris Spassky. The Soviets dominated chess. Between 1949 and 1972, every single world champion was a product of the Soviet chess system. In the USSR, gifted kids were nurtured by the state, coached and trained by chess masters for optimum performance. The best of these would go on to world tournaments, with a team of coaches who prepared them by poring over the games of opponents and working out strategies.

Bobby Fischer had none of this. He just got into chess as a kid and set aside everything (including an education) to give himself completely to the game. A full-on prodigy, Fischer attained Grandmaster status at age 15, the youngest in history (to that point). He also played, at age 13, what most experts dubbed “The Game of the Century” (with a brilliant Queen sacrifice, Fischer beat one of the strongest American players of the time, Robert Byrne.)

Bobby Fischer, 1960

Now he was poised to take on the Soviets single handed. And America jumped on board. Fischer was on the cover of Time and Life. He was profiled on 60 Minutes and interviewed on a plethora of talk shows. Fischer had one of those singular brains, too, which he used to win the World Championship. Unfortunately, that same brain became increasingly paranoid, and Fischer never again played big-time chess. 

But Fischer-mania got me into chess my Freshman year. My dad taught me the game when I was a kid and I knew the rudiments. Now I started studying books and chess magazines. I took lessons and played as many games as I could. I even won my dorm chess tournament. But once I got to playing in the upper levels, I realized, as Dirty Harry once put it, my limitations. 

What I knew was that I could study and study and play and play and give up all social relations for ten years…and I would never get close to having the gray matter of a Fischer, a Karpov, a Kasparov … let alone a Magnus Carlsen!

Did that mean I gave up chess? By no means! I continued to enjoy the game. When I was starting my acting career I was in a production of Hamlet and struck up a friendship with another cast member who also liked chess. We were at the same level, too, which makes the game much more enjoyable than playing a guy who can crush you in ten moves. I recall great pleasure that summer playing chess with Abraham at his place, with cool jazz in the background and a cold beer at the elbow. Games would take a leisurely two hours or more, which seems unheard of today in our manic-paced world.

To bring this around to writing, I know there are authors out there with more natural talent for language and storytelling than I. But should that stop me from playing the game? From studying the craft and enjoying what I do? 

When I play chess, I don’t have to be like Carlsen, because I can’t be. But I can certainly try out some opening moves I’ve studied and see where they lead. I know that doing this will make me a better player on my own terms.

With writing, I can also try things out, strive to be better. I may not attract the attention of the Nobel Prize committee, but I can grow my readership book by book. (Which reminds me that you can still pre-order my thriller, LONG LOST, at the special ebook deal price of 99¢!)

So be your own genius. Compare yourself not to others but to you. Look at where you were and where you are. Make a plan to be better tomorrow. Then you can truly enjoy what you write, because getting better is its own reward. 

So what person of mental prowess or natural talent do you admire? 

Do you ever find that you’re comparing yourself to others? What do you do about that? 

Creativity: Invoking the Gods or Madness


Looks like the source of Creativity has been an ongoing discussion for ages. Poets in ancient Greek and Roman times invoked gods to assist in their writing. (Can’t say much has changed there.) What I found fascinating is that many believe psychotic-ism causes creativity. Even Aristotle claimed that there was never a genius without a tincture of madness. And, that’s a direct quote.


Makes me feel rather distinguished as a creative being–though I am not crazy enough to consider myself genius.

There has been active debate on whether creative genius is dependent on mental illness or insanity. This debate continues further by stating that madness alone cannot suffice as Source for creativity. Nay, nay. An openness to experience, intelligence and wisdom complete the mysterious formula. They are actually writing papers on the subject. The bottom line: Creative people make creativity a way of life.

We can all name artists, musicians, writers, scientists, etc. who inspire us with their fascinating and divergent thinking. (Look at our own Basil Sands, for goodness sake.) The argument for creative personalities presented by Hal Lancaster during the late 90’s in The Wall Street Journal stated six basic qualities exist:

1. Keen powers of observation.
2. Restless curiosity.
3. An ability to recognize issues that others miss.
4. An ability to generate numerous ideas.
5. Persistently questioning the norm.
6. A talent for seeing established structures in new ways.

Do you see yourself in any or all of the above? I do, which is fun. But, what really appeals to me is the recurring theme of madness in creative beings. After all, if you’re considered a little crazy you need no excuses for your behavior. I like that.

So, I am trying out my creative juices in a new location for awhile. I am writing to you from Santiago, Chile today. My Muse is having a field day. We’re eating foreign foods, seeing exotic places and conversing in my pitiful Spanish as much as possible. I’m getting funny looks and lots of laughs. So, I’m pretty sure I am doing something right!

Once again, which of the 6 traits above is your strongest? You’re favorite? Inquiring minds want to know!

Cao for now!



Creativity: Invoking the Gods or Madness


Looks like the source of Creativity has been an ongoing discussion for ages. Poets in ancient Greek and Roman times invoked gods to assist in their writing. (Can’t say much has changed there.) What I found fascinating is that many believe psychotic-ism causes creativity. Even Aristotle claimed that there was never a genius without a tincture of madness. And, that’s a direct quote.


Makes me feel rather distinguished as a creative being–though I am not crazy enough to consider myself genius.

There has been active debate on whether creative genius is dependent on mental illness or insanity. This debate continues further by stating that madness alone cannot suffice as Source for creativity. Nay, nay. An openness to experience, intelligence and wisdom complete the mysterious formula. They are actually writing papers on the subject. The bottom line: Creative people make creativity a way of life.

We can all name artists, musicians, writers, scientists, etc. who inspire us with their fascinating and divergent thinking. (Look at our own Basil Sands, for goodness sake.) The argument for creative personalities presented by Hal Lancaster during the late 90’s in The Wall Street Journal stated six basic qualities exist:

1. Keen powers of observation.
2. Restless curiosity.
3. An ability to recognize issues that others miss.
4. An ability to generate numerous ideas.
5. Persistently questioning the norm.
6. A talent for seeing established structures in new ways.

Do you see yourself in any or all of the above? I do, which is fun. But, what really appeals to me is the recurring theme of madness in creative beings. After all, if you’re considered a little crazy you need no excuses for your behavior. I like that.

So, I am trying out my creative juices in a new location for awhile. I am writing to you from Santiago, Chile today. My Muse is having a field day. We’re eating foreign foods, seeing exotic places and conversing in my pitiful Spanish as much as possible. I’m getting funny looks and lots of laughs. So, I’m pretty sure I am doing something right!

Once again, which of the 6 traits above is your strongest? You’re favorite? Inquiring minds want to know!

Cao for now!