Panich said:[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I agree. Talent, in my opinion is more of a trait that allows teachings to come easier to others. It's not a trait limited to one field, but say you have perfect pitch or with Shine's example, the ability to break down or easily replicate pieces of artwork by looking at it. Even people who are able to figure out extensive math equations in their heads without hesitation. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What may be hard for one person, could come easier to another. And that's where people see it as a "talent". [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The misconception about talent is that if someone's good at something, people will give credit to you for being made that way. You're so talented, but they could never be able to do what you do. [/font]When really you may have been working and honing that skill for years. It may not have even come easy to you!
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]A[/font] person with "talent" is the same as someone without it. They can learn the exact same skill and be amazing at it. It may take some different steps for a "talentless" person to get it, but they will. Because they have the capacity to learn and develop it.
And then again that's just another can of worms that can be thrown into this debate. People may be similar in how they are taught but they ultimately learn things differently. So whether or not talent is even real is irrelevant.
Cause you can quite literally learn anything you put your mind to if you work at it hard enough.