We really do mean well when we refer to someone as a 'natural'. While it may strip them of their agency as it may suggest factors outside their control are responsible for their skill, the intention is really to communicate an appreciable effortlessness in their craft. After all, effortlessness is a distinction of the highest order, a telltale sign of a professional.
In an urbanized world where roles are well-defined with narrowed scope, specialized professions are the norm and effortlessness has become an expectation. Collaboration means that others can compensate for the weaknesses of the rest, meaning that the quality of the work becomes a lump sum of individual expertise. The generalists’ lower heights of knowledge in individual domains becomes a liability as they become unable to raise the ceiling in a cooperative environment. Even in the day-to-day, there is no need to know how to unclog your plumbing or to even prepare your own meals. To pursue a field of interest, especially as a career, is understood to be a process where one's means and desires align somewhere in the middle (ideally). Fail to make them meet and you will fail to apply yourself effectively.
This is, for better or worse, a colloquial truth. It doesn't feel worthwhile to contest this as what sort of behavior is rewarded is well beyond my say. What I do take issue with is this truth permeates into the way we view personal development. I am convinced that our tendency to exalt effortlessness comes at the cost of many failing to engage with their curiosities.
Late into skill development, we may view one's competence as expertise and their drive as prolificacy. During the learning process though, these factors are judged by different metrics. Competence is not judged by expertise, but instead by talent which could be acted upon through driven effort. Thus, talent is established to be a measure of potential.
Robinson and Csikszentmihalyi in their analysis of talent point out that talent and giftedness are interchangeable as they are usually portrayed as a stable attribute, something that is either present or not.1 This is especially harmful when these ideas are encountered early, à la grade school talent shows. Using this language is exclusionary, providing a limited few with exceptional encouragement, but spurning most who are not reinforced. Even those who initially benefit from this routine of focused attention can suffer from the pressure to perform.
Admittedly, with little experience it is not unreasonable that this rhetoric is used early --- potential is the most apparent attribute that can be meaningfully assessed. However, not revisiting and revising this idea that talent is innate and skill is largely dependent on pre-determined factors can be quite harmful down the line. Once again, those singled out by the heuristic of talent possession may find themselves unable to meet expectations and find themselves struggling with a sense of identity. What I am also emphasizing is the inversion of the 'gifted burn-out' archetype. An admittedly unmeasurable, but likely larger population who were given minimal to no expectations and either found themselves uninspired or discouraged.
The 'gifted burn-out' is much easier to spot. At one point, they were singled out and set aside, encouraged to enroll in advanced classes or afterschool programs. Often, they do make their way into higher education and find themselves unable to integrate with the ease that is expected of them. They self-handicap, developing ways to offload the emotional burden of an assimilated responsibility to overachieve. This commonly manifests in harmful perfectionist tendencies, procrastination, and an overall disengagement with their studies. Excuses are unconsciously created for not reaching their potential; the ego is protected at the cost of self-fulfillment.2
So, then, the result is not too different from those who are not provided encouragement in the first place. While external factors do not reveal the full story, a lack of support is always going to harm feelings of self-efficacy. Of course, we are well aware of this and the problem of providing adequate support for all students from both within and outside of the classroom environment is an evergreen line of inquiry.
But the true golden standard of learner empowerment is intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic encouragement appears to play a part in the formation of intrinsic motivation, but it changes from person to person. Intrinsic motivation may be finicky to create, but once present it has the ability to self-sustain.3
Yet from the get-go, children seem to harbor quite a bit of intrinsic motivation. Their curiosities compel them to act spontaneously, frequently against the wishes of parents or others.This drive is usually quelled over time, but some curiosity can certainly be carried over well into adulthood.
Now, the question is how much do you think you have? For me, three years ago, it was not all that much. It is hard to pin this stagnation upon external factors as I was fortunate to have access to a lot of resources growing up. However, they all became academic tools and built towards a final deliverable of the venerated college application. My engagement with my community, sports, and hobbies were driven by external motivators.
In my case, I can only be thankful for the fact that I had been initially pushed by outside forces. If it weren't the case, it is not a guarantee that I would have had the exposure to hobbies and rabbit holes which later proved my competence to myself. I was held back by the mindset that my engagement with the world was best done through whatever means for which I was labelled ‘gifted’. Limited to almost purely academic contexts, it was hard to fathom what value I would provide and what fulfillment I intended to chase outside of school. I completely bought into the myth of talent and it was impossible to build my self-esteem while it was true.
The idea that effortlessness is a necessary and sufficient indication of a worthwhile pursuit, that nothing could ever surmount a natural proficiency for a skill, kept me from getting hands-on with my interests. The myth of talent is a tall tale, a mere inclination with a potent propensity to learn is almost never enough to consistently achieve in any space. No matter the role model, people are simply not born with the skill and know-how to make a name for themselves. The world is built from individual contributions derived from trials and tribulations, talent helps but never tells the full story.
Of course, hard work leads to results, everyone understands this. But the question is why effortlessness has become a virtue. As for my two cents, it seems to be for pure narrative appeal. The heroism of a true prodigy becomes so undeniable, so head and shoulders above the rest, that they seem unable to struggle in the same way that others will on their way to mastery. It is a fiction that we choose to believe, perhaps because it is more interesting, but also perhaps because it plays into some negative ideas we hold about ourselves and what we are capable of.
The myth of talent has dangerous synergy with the mindsets of the burn-outs and the unmotivated. Expecting even the possibility of effortlessness is a harmful self-handicap, ensuring that no matter what it is you are learning, you will feel inadequate. It is hard to say who benefits from the conviction that talent is necessary to make a worthwhile contribution. It is important to separate fact from fiction and the fact is that if you care, you should do something about it.
Adopting this belief set into my behavior, despite how obvious it seems, took a lot of time and effort. I became a lot more comfortable with failure until it felt normal. What made a difference was finding people who seemed to feel similarly, who were actively and visibly learning. This meant making mistakes that didn't take an expert to realize that they had no idea what they were doing. Outsiders could look in and be well aware that they were watching a beginner. Maybe I found solace in being another klutz in a clumsy crowd. I am more inclined to say that it was the constant action over inaction which I found reassuring.
I still suck at a lot of things. I love sewing but even H&M would never accept the quality of my projects. I love making linocut prints but the color and texture changes from card to card. I love making films but I inject awkwardness into every step. I love DJ'ing but when the tempo comes up I start to sweat. I love sketching but my figures are always a little alien. I love writing but, well, you can be the judge. There are a lot more things I could name too. This may not be inspirational and that's ok, I didn't plan for it to be. I just wanted to be honest.
Kick the myth and look like a fool. It's been making me feel better.