Is talent a necessity for anything?

If you think there is something out there that REQUIRES a talent - feel free to post it here and explain why it cannot be obtained through training\experience.

My hypothesis is, that there is nothing out there that cannot be learned when it comes to what a human can manifest. Yes, a talent or predisposition towards certain arts or crafts may make it easier to master, but there is nothing that absolutely requires a talent in order to be performed.

While most people would be able to achieve a decent level in anything to get by, only those with notable talent can excel.

With the same amount of training and practice, a talented person will still be notably better at it than one who is not particularly apt.

Some people are more dexterous, some have better hand-eye coordination, some have better reflexes, better eyes, quicker thinking, better at abstract thinking, better visualisation, bigger frames, better flexibility, etc.

Everyone has something that they're better at than other people. Sometimes to exceptional levels. These people are all-stars and record breakers.

I don't think you need talent to achieve something. It really really helps to be talented but if you're willing to spend years training hard and learning a skill or ability then you can learn and master it with or without talent.

While I do think talent is important, hard work and sheer effort are the game changers IMO.People without talent can be just as people with talent or sometimes even surpass them due to the effort that they put into their work.

Like it's already been said, there is no field that a human couldn't do without natural talent, but its the people with talent that define the field most of the time. Hard work and dedication can still only get you so far, but the people who put in the same work and dedication AND have natural talent are the ones who make it to the top most of the time.

Talent means a lot cause hard work and determination only can get you so far.

This is kind of a broad question. Like someone else have already mentioned, there is no field of study or job that necessitates talent. For example, if you don't have talent for, I don't know studying for example, that doesn't mean you can't become a doctor or a lawyer. But, if you start nip picking, then yeah I guess there are things in this world that can't be achieved by only dedication, determination, and practice. For instance, I am studying wine right now, and my sense of smell is not amazing. There is probably no chance for me to ever differentiate 20+ wines in a blind test just by smelling the aroma. This is because the more people practice and smell a certain odor, the less sensitive people's sense of smell become. This is why if you drink too much wine, coffee, or even smoke too much cigarette, it dulls your sense of taste or smell. Long story short, I don't need a dog's nose to become a sommelier, but my statement still stands that I will never be able to correctly complete a wine blind test without talent.

I don't think it's a necessity but it sure helps a lot.

Art.
Photography.
Fucking.
Macking
Pimping
Cooking
Basically anything.

You can get by without talent but to be awesome you need the stoke of the divine in you. Ever convince a woman to suck you off in a bathroom stall and your ugly but she fine as hell and not a whore?

Talent ordinarily means you excel at it. Even if you practise, someone with natural talent will likely be better than you.

It's a major contributing factor, but it's not everything.

Thank you all for your replies. Indeed, very insightful. This also prompted me to ask a further question: how do we know, if anyone actually has a talent? Do we just say: "because this girl/guy learns faster than anyone else around them, they have a talent"? In this case a talented person is simply the one who achieved the most, not necessarily through some predisposition.

Or is there some other indicator that is not dependent on the average performance of others?

Well, I'm not sure there is another way to determine someone is talented, without comparison to others who do the same things.

There might be, but I don't know of any such methods...

I still think that the label 'talented' means that they have 'superior abilities of some kind', which could only be the case if comparing their abilities to those of others.

Therefore, even if such methods besides comparison existed, I would still argue that comparison is a more realistic way of finding talent, and possibly more accurately measurable, because in a competitive society, finding out how you measure up compared to others is important.

For a real life example, people have said I am 'talented' at learning languages, but compared to other people I hold in high regard, I feel that they are much more 'talented'. Especially since even though I learn relatively fast, I always end up dropping out when the going gets rough. Unlike people with the 'talents' I admire, I don't have their determination to see things through, so even with my own 'talent', I won't be able to catch up.

In short, talent is mostly a comparison of abilities, but those abilities are useless if you aren't determined to put in the work required to hone said abilities.

In an even shorter story, I fail at college and at life.

i wouldn't say it's a necessity, anyone could do anything if they put their mind to it but if you have a natural talent for something it shines through. i've always wanted to learn how to sing for example, but no matter how hard i try i can reach a level in which my voice is 'acceptable' by most standards, but it's not going to win me any contests or a record contract aha.

Skills does possess a cap, a limit in with you cannot improve anymore (or any further improvement becomes minimal and ignorable). When you reach that limit, the only thing that matter there is how you use that already mastered skill. Of course, that cap is different for each area, but baring physical tasks and the physical sides of some tasks, that cap is often reachable for everyone.

The how you use that already mastered skill is completely dictated by the unique personality, social circle, motivation, teamwork and hard work of that person, and how they decide to focus their efforts. For example Albert Einstein focused two decades of his live to a single theory, so he was able to grasp the math and logics of it, along the creativity he had since child he refused to lose because stubbornness. He was also lucky that his theory was in fact real, as some equally powerful theories were proven untrue later, for new physical evidence that wasn't unable at the time the theory was done and presented.

As for physical tasks comes, sadly our bodies are different and some differences are unchangeable. If you have bad eyes, there is little you can do about it, so you'll be unable to reach the cap of those skills who requires a good sight. What you can do, though, is to adapt to that reality and workaround. For example Mozart had audition problems most his live and was deaf in his later times, but he worked around that using his memory, his knowledge about music and his imagination to fill the gaps. His skill wasn't mastered, but he was able to excel even with an imperfect skill.

Of course, some physical tasks are harder to workaround as they are more restrictive in their requisites and because a lot of those have unreachable caps, or in other words, the gap between talent and lack of it is far greater as the talents will have no cap to reach. The best sprinters will be all with the best combination of body + hardworking and training methods as the unique task is well, run with the correct method, there is not workaround that.

Now, there is some elitism on all this anyway. To be honest people is rarely that hard working and dedicated to master a skill, so it becomes even more irrelevant all in all as it matters even more how you use those skills. It also happens that you don't need to be the #1 to actually do something productive and awesome, for example you can be a good amateur boxer rather a professional one, and that can also be really fulfilling.

anyone can do anything, but those who are naturals are different.

Natural talent is basically applied intellect, imagination, motor skills, strength, size, hearing, taste, sight, greed, empathy, drive and other traits that are applied to a skill. Nearly every skill is limited by your natural talents.

Do you think a unimaginative idiot is gonna be the perfect guy to write fantasy novels, or a klutzy, short, weakling is gonna be able to train up to be an Olympic High Jumper?

To answer your second question. People always compare, there is no way around it, speed of how well they take to something is usually the fast way of telling talent. Other ways is testing, and obvious trait comparison.

Naturally speed isn't the same for everyone, but the fast will likely get noticed because they quickly show they are better. If you took 10 years to get to a point that someone else took 1 year, you are still the same point, and you will both be considered talented but many will think the person who is so good after 1 year, they might continue to do better. However it really it really is difficult to be at the same time trained at something and being behind to be judged to be of the same potential.