The 2 sides debating "talent" are always talking about 2 different things.
(#1) "talent" doesn't exist: knowledge and skills can be learned. No infant comes out of the womb knowing 5 languages or physics equations or the syntax of "printf("hello world")". Every single human who knows how to do something well at one point in their life did not know how to do it well. If one can improve by learning, it means talent doesn't exist. This aligns with Carol Dweck's "growth mindset", the 10000 hours meme, self-improvement, etc. This internal perspective compares oneself at time_before vs time_after.
(#2) "talent" is a subjective ranking of people's abilities: there are people who are noticeably better at expressing their skills. E.g. NBA basketball player Shaq O'Neal has spent more than 10,000 hours practicing free throws with a dozen different coaches to achieve 52% success, but there's a high school kid that can sink them at 80%. We can say the kid is "more talented" at free throws. To say that "free throws" is a "learnable skill" doesn't change anything about noticing the obvious difference in abilities. If Person A learns faster than Person B, that in itself is a talent. This external perspective compares people against other people.
People who hold meaning #1 vs people thinking of meaning #2 are having 2 different conversations. E.g. when companies say "they are looking to hire the most talented" (meaning #2), they are not talking about people who can self-improve (meaning #1).
In this essay, Jacob Kaplan-Moss is talking about meaning #1. Yes, you can read it and take all his advice to heart. However, you still have to understand meaning #2 to properly decode what others are talking about when sports teams, music record labels, Hollywood, venture capitalists, and startups all say they are "looking for the best talent".
(#1) "talent" doesn't exist: knowledge and skills can be learned. No infant comes out of the womb knowing 5 languages or physics equations or the syntax of "printf("hello world")". Every single human who knows how to do something well at one point in their life did not know how to do it well. If one can improve by learning, it means talent doesn't exist. This aligns with Carol Dweck's "growth mindset", the 10000 hours meme, self-improvement, etc. This internal perspective compares oneself at time_before vs time_after.
(#2) "talent" is a subjective ranking of people's abilities: there are people who are noticeably better at expressing their skills. E.g. NBA basketball player Shaq O'Neal has spent more than 10,000 hours practicing free throws with a dozen different coaches to achieve 52% success, but there's a high school kid that can sink them at 80%. We can say the kid is "more talented" at free throws. To say that "free throws" is a "learnable skill" doesn't change anything about noticing the obvious difference in abilities. If Person A learns faster than Person B, that in itself is a talent. This external perspective compares people against other people.
People who hold meaning #1 vs people thinking of meaning #2 are having 2 different conversations. E.g. when companies say "they are looking to hire the most talented" (meaning #2), they are not talking about people who can self-improve (meaning #1).
In this essay, Jacob Kaplan-Moss is talking about meaning #1. Yes, you can read it and take all his advice to heart. However, you still have to understand meaning #2 to properly decode what others are talking about when sports teams, music record labels, Hollywood, venture capitalists, and startups all say they are "looking for the best talent".