<p>Okay, if there was a pie chart on success it’d be 40% work/determination, 10% talent, and 50% luck. Also maybe I should put in something to do with getting along with people and personality but maybe that’s talent or luck.</p>
<p>Talent and hard work are useless without opportunity and likability. Likability opens the door for opportunity which leads to success. Whoever has more opportunity and likability wins the debate (sorry if this is off topic).</p>
<p>Talent >>>>>>>> Hardwork.</p>
<p>How many 4.0 GPA kids have low test scores?</p>
<p>How many 2350+ SAT kids have low GPA?</p>
<p>Let common sense answer that question…</p>
<p>^ But the SAT certainly isn’t an accurate metric of talent.</p>
<p>Talent won’t get you anywhere in college where everyone else is as talented, or more talented than you.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that efficiency is more important than effort. It’s better to put little time and effort into something than to put much time and effort into the same thing and achieve the same result. I’ve heard that people can be classified into 4 archetypes, ranked from most preferable to least preferable (obviously, it’s just stereotyping, but it’s interesting nonetheless): the intelligent overachiever, the intelligent underachiever, the unintelligent underachiever, and the unintelligent overachiever.</p>
<p>Work ethic/determination>>>>talent.</p>
<p>Of course, that’s by the time you’re older. In elementary school, for example, I received straight A’s without putting in effort because I was talented. But by high school, even people who are talented at writing need to edit and re-edit that essay if they want a good grade.</p>
<p>Talented writers can get an A paper with a rough and final draft. </p>
<p>In my mind, because SAT is standardized, it is the best indicator of talent. Any standardized test would be decent. </p>
<p>If u disagree, please tell the education Ph.D’s a better method of measuring intellectual talent.</p>
<p>Furthermore why stop there?*Why don’t you tell the sociologists how to measure happiness or how smart a chihuahua is compared to a rotweilet?</p>
<p>My point? If there is a better way of measuring talent, it certainly won’t be discovered by a seventeen year old kid behind a computer screen. We have legions of Ph.Ds, teaching professionals, and sociologists who have yet to develop a better indicator for measuring talent in high schoolers.</p>
<p>^^ False. I can write a paper once without editing and receive an A on it. In math I can just sit there and then take a test and have a 100.</p>
<p>^^^ Even better. </p>
<p>See? Talented people don’t need to work as hard as the average chug and plug mentally disabled person.</p>
<p>I think you guys are being really silly in considering English papers and math tests the measure of success. I’ve actually put a lot of effort into studying this issue. If you can show me a single person who made a big splash in history without hard work and determination, I will concede the point. However, every great figure I have studied - Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Malcolm X, Michelangelo, and more - were talented to varying degrees but all had unshakable determination and an extraordinary work ethic. I mean they were all highly intelligent, but you couldn’t really call Adams or Malcolm X geniuses. Yet their achievements surpassed men of greater natural abilities because they wanted it more and they were able to do what they needed to in order to get it.</p>
<p>^^^^
Einstein. Regardless of how much he worked, his talent dwarfed his hard work.</p>
<p>I’d say his success is due to 20% work ethic and 10000000000000000% genius.</p>
<p>Sure he worked hard… It’s just that his IQ worked even harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without editing AT ALL? You don’t pause in the middle of a sentence, backspace, and reword it? You never misspell words or use “our” instead of “are” or write in fragments? And you write an entire five page essay in one sitting? Wow. You are clearly a writing GOD! ;)</p>
<p>Sadly, it’s not like that for me. I’m a talented writer, and I could probably get a decent grade on the first draft. But I would never be satisfied with handing in a draft that hadn’t been thoroughly edited and looked over, because I know it’s not the best I can do. <em>cough</em>overachiever<em>cough</em></p>
<p>In fact, I’m actually slightly offended when people act like I’m so lucky to have gotten a good grade on a paper or a test. It’s as if they think I was born with some magic gene, and that’s why I get good grades. But that sort of thinking diminishes the hard work I put into every class. I’m prouder of that hard work then I am of any natural intelligence I posses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With great geniuses, I’m sure that’s true. But to succeed academically (at least at my school), even smart kids have to put in a LOT of hard work.</p>
<p>So I stick by my point: Unless you’re a true, one-in-a-million genius, natural intelligence can only take you so far.</p>
<p>you can control hard work, it is a result of who you are.</p>
<p>talent is just winning the genetic lottery.</p>
<p>If I ever got straight As (I never have), I would value them a lot more than scoring in the 99th percentile on SAT (which I have).</p>
<p>You achieve grades, you are born with an aptitude.</p>
<p>In success</p>
<p>40% talent
30% physical appearance
20% luck
10% hard work</p>
<p>Beautiful people are statistically more successful.</p>
<p>I’m talented but extremely lazy. Most of the top students are the same way.</p>
<p>Think of it this way:</p>
<p>Would you rather be Vince Carter or Derek Fisher?</p>
<p>Talent>Hard work</p>
<p>“I think you guys are being really silly in considering English papers and math tests the measure of success. I’ve actually put a lot of effort into studying this issue. If you can show me a single person who made a big splash in history without hard work and determination, I will concede the point. However, every great figure I have studied - Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Malcolm X, Michelangelo, and more - were talented to varying degrees but all had unshakable determination and an extraordinary work ethic. I mean they were all highly intelligent, but you couldn’t really call Adams or Malcolm X geniuses. Yet their achievements surpassed men of greater natural abilities because they wanted it more and they were able to do what they needed to in order to get it.”</p>
<p>I agree with this response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you’re in high school, and it isn’t just natural, you aren’t born knowing math and how to write, you spend hours in school learning it and that is considered “work”. I mean, usually I can just write something or get a 100 on a math test also but this is high school, not college or even close to the real world. Also, go get friends if you don’t need to waste time studying.</p>
<p>I can’t tell if that one Einstien example is a joke or not. I mean he worked so hard daily, sometimes he forgot to eat he was so determined and it wasn’t just a stroke of genius it was years of hard work and determination.</p>
<p>Like, I wanna go into robotics one day and I plan to work my ass off daily at college doing research and homework and I feel a bit afraid to work so hard but you want to know how long it takes to become an expert at something? About 10,000 hours, according to research. And it’s impossible to just be naturally gifted at something like robotics, there’s no baby out there that is born knowing it. I can be naturally good at math but that won’t mean a rats’ sh1t if I don’t work hard.</p>
<p>If you don’t realize this your going to go into the world completely confused as to why people just don’t see your natural talents and throw cash at you. People that don’t value work, don’t get work, and end up another “misunderstood genius” that just couldn’t understand how the world works despite their talent.</p>
<p>^^^^^
Five page essay in one sitting can be easily achieved by me. Not to sound entirely like a ******(a bit too late), but that can be done within an hour. I don’t misspell things and don’t reword things. However, I am not a writing god.</p>
<p>^ Einstein really did work hard. His life was in his work.</p>
<p>And my math books are friends. They really are.</p>
<p>Saugus, you can have Vince Carter debate that one with Michael Jordan.</p>
<p>And I would hardly call Einstein’s success attributable to exclusively, or even mostly, talent. Einstein, like most great geniuses, had a predilection for extraordinary focus. He lived and breathed physics; it was practically all he could think about. Like Michelangelo, his ample natural faculties were mobilized by his capacity for wonder - his passion, if you will (Note that I don’t throw around the word passion easily unlike a lot of people on CC. In my opinion, you are only passionate if you love it as Romeo loved Juliet). Perhaps any man of Einstein’s intellect could have found material success and the esteem of his peers, but only a man of Einstein’s single-minded devotion could have changed the world.</p>