I don’t know if it happened also to you guys to know any talented individual; the probability is supposed to be high.
The “talent” is proposed by Wikipedia pages in my country as “the natural inclination of an individual to do something right”.
Actually everyone know how to do something right; as a consequence they are identified as talent whenever they obtain good results (1st, doing something right) with apparently low effort (2nd, naturally) .
What has not been sufficiently specified in this definition is the (3rd) element: the consistency. Unless the talented individual is not able to provide consistently the results in similar conditions, then he/she falls into a randomic or lucky result. That’s definitely not talent.
Similar condition are at the base because nobody would argue about Pelè’s talent just by watching him playing bad a basket match. The context in which he is expressing his talent is not anymore sufficiently close to his best.
Einstein said that we would not judge the fish ability by watching it climbing on a tree.
For this reason there will always be scenarios in which we will see failures, lack of natural inclination or bad results whenever the context will be different from the ideal one.
What does allow to obtain repetible results in a sufficiently stable context?
Very often a solid process based on standardisations serves as basement to obtain repetible results in a stable environment. Moreover, by letting our progresses to be in the hand of a standardised process allows us to obtain the mandatory achievements with a minumum effort. The standardisation ensures a certain repetibility of results.
Here we go with all the three traits we where looking for!
The standard process has unfortunately a negative side, to be not reliable anymore whenever the environmental conditions changes too much. Hey, that’s the same defect “talent” has.
The overlap between talent and ability to deploy and follow a process is very evident. It means that the talented individuals actually are able to follow a process that drive them consistently towards good achievements, regardless if they are concious or not about this.
To follow a stable and reliable process it may be the only mandatory trait to show talent, including educating the body towards specific movement which are the achievements which can be obtained with a good training program. We will probably not become all like Pelè as most of us will reach his natural limits, but we will develop our best talent on a widest range of activities.
We could eventually forget about the three traits as they looks much more as consequences of following the right process, they are evidences, not anymore starting conditions.
For these reasons it is much better to choose the cooperation of a concious talented other that an unconcious one. Why? Because the firsts have a clear perception that following a process is of vital importance to ensure outstanding results are concistently and fexibly achieved. The others run the risk of believing that the only important ingredient is their “magic presence” and do not work on their process improvements. Should you think to some stroppy “first ladies” in the professional sport context you may easily see what I mean.
To choose the firsts has an additional advantage, they are cheaper as the market tends to recognise much more the value of the talents who show some unconciousness compared to those who show they have a consistent and reliable process. The last one doesn’t smell of “magic inside”.
Do you have examples of famous talents who want to appear as unconcious talents but they are actually so concious as they work on their processes in a “hidden” way to maximise their market value? I’m thinking at Valentino Rossi as one of those….