In my understanding, talent does not matter. Most people who do a thing do not have any of it. It’s rather that their commitment of time and effort that is rewarded.

Or that is what I think. There is nothing like talent. It is one of this concept we tend to overrated and everyone who seems to be more invested into a difficult subject becomes talented in the viewer eyes. One essence of talent is that these people are rather exceptional, whatever that means.

There are rare occasion in which the ‘talent’ of person could be seen at best. That’s in completions. However, I feel like we often do not hire the best, instead, we hire the person who has what we need. At least that’s how I feel like people hire me.

Depending on the context of the field, this is frequently represented with experience. Which become mixed up with people personal commitment and then seen as talent.

To put this into a metaphor: Imaging a basket full of fruits. It has different flavor of a kind and sometimes exotic ones. Your goal is to make a pie. So go through the basket to look for the best fruits. In most cases, we would have more fruits than necessary and when then select the best ones. Instead, what we have is insufficient amounts. We barely have enough to make our pie.

What do you do? You sort the worse one out and the take them to make your pie. That’s what we call the survivor bias. There are quite some limits to this image, unlike a real pie your people do not vanish once the pie is baked and next is that you can help them to improve.

Instead, one is there because the space requires more people than there is, and the only one left that fit the need. It does not me the best hire, it makes me the least painful one.

Be turned to a topic is good things, but that’s what training is for. The thing is, when you learn about a topic, and you’re doing it good, you become keen about it. But that’s not talent, but commitment.

Any way, best regards akendo