So the message was get fucked if you have no talent...

So the message was get fucked if you have no talent, even the hardest work won't get you far and move your lazy ass if you have talent?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A5_7KKVj1K4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24807838
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The message was life is unfair but there's no use dwelling on it, give it all you give so you won't have regrets.

What were you expecting? Friendship and hard work conquers any problem?

That's how real life work, kid

Just confused. I always thought hard work in itself is a talent, maybe one of the greatest talents to have. I mean everyone on this board could become someone if they put in the work but no one does because they can't. In Ping Pong talent and hard work are completely separate though.

>I mean everyone on this board could become someone if they put in the work
that's not how life works.

Yes it does. I wasn't even specific. Anyone on this board could achieve something if they put in the work, but no one does because they don't have the talent.

So you say there are only NEETs on Sup Forums? I don't think that's true.

hard work doesnt necessarily mean right effort. A lady who scrubs floors 10 hours a day works hard but I wouldn't call that talent.

Not necessary NEETs but you're obviously performing under your potential if you browse this place.

Repeating a single task without leaving your comfort zone and going for something challenging is not hard work.

We shouldn't lead this into semantics when I obviosuly meant working hard towards a specific goal in mind.

What makes you say that? This place is a form of entertainment like anything else.

>you're obviously performing under your potential if you browse this place
What's the point of "achieving your maximum potential" if you're gonna die anyway?
Everyone is heading to the same place, just enjoy the trip.

The topic is fine but the discussion on here itself is just pointless banter and circlejerking most of the time.
Nihilism is not an argument.

It's about having talent, working hard and loving what you do, any of the mentioned by itself will get you only so far so you need to love what you do and invest time in it.

You can't become one of the top players in any sport without talent.
Working as hard as your body allows is a given in the first place for most athletes.

In the world of sports yea. You need an affinity to be the best

In the real world for a regular job like say engineer or dentist then studying will make you one pretty easily. Long as you put in 100% effort.

Shit user, I admit it, you're right, I'm underperforming dirt poor pleb in my last year of a prestigious field of study which I don't enjoy who plans to study some liberal arts thereafter to preserve mental sanity, but I still hope to make something out of myself.

Did you completely miss the point?
Peco didn't unlock his talent until he started working hard

babby's first existential crisis

>but you're obviously performing under your potential if you browse this place.
That hurt user.

>Nihilism is not an argument.
>I can just completely dismiss this sect of philosophy that generated a huge amount of literature and debate with a sentence
Not even a big fan of it, but are you fucking retarded?

the actual message, you fucking pedestrian, was that you can be good at ping pong only if you have a loving family. Orphans and the unwanted child will never win.

The show was not anti-hard work

It was just pro-friendship

So are most arguments in this world.

But the talent one even makes more hard work than you.

Depends on the person. In the end he IS right.

Did smiles throw that match?

In the series dragon actually worked way fucking harder than anyone else but he had no fucking talent.

>everyone on this board could become someone if they put in the work
They could become "someone". But to become "someone great" you'd have to be naturally talented in addition. That's the point.

no

The anime didn't share this philosophy so the fuck outta here.

He had talent he just ended up hating the sport.

Then delete your post here since it wasn't talking about the anime, faggot

Even in most skill based departments you need more luck than skill. Many famous scientists in the past just stole unpublished material from deceased scientists.

-Working hard won't always get what you want. Life is unfair.
-Enjoy what you do.

Wouldn't you have more regrets by not using your limited precious time in what you can actually succeed rather than trying hard in what you are doomed to fail?

>Enjoy what you do
How? I hate working.

You can at least say you tried and there's no way to know if you are doomed to fail at something if you don't even try it.

>I always thought hard work in itself is a talent, maybe one of the greatest talents to have
This is bullshit and anyone with common sense knows it. No matter how much time you spent training or how hard you do it you will never be the fastest sprinter. Same applies to every area. Aptitude is what matters in the end.

No since that would go against his character progression arc.

Then work just enough to support doing the things you enjoy.

In reality was Do what you enjoy.

Write a book, draw pictures, dance for a living, play games and record it, become a philosopher. There must be something you enjoy which can be monetized.

Yep

Talent+hard work>hard work
Hard work>talent+being lazy

no it means you need to be talented and work twice as hard as anyone else.

> There's no way to know if you are doomed to fail at something if you don't even try it

The fact that you don't know in advance whether your choice will lead to something positive or not is precisely why people have regrets.

why aren't there more directors like Yuasa?

>No matter how much time you spent training or how hard you do it you will never be the fastest sprinter.
Irrelevant. You don't need to become the very best. This is not some anime, this is reality. Many areas don't even have a linear ranking where you can say this is the best one and this is the second best one.

>people think "talent" matters for anything other than a minuscule percentage when you're among the top of the top

Here's a tip : being tall is more advantageous when running fast. That's why there's a history of tall people having the 100m record. However there are also some short people who managed to get in the top 3 or top 5 at various points in time. Talent will only help you in 1% of situations, when confronting someone of similar level after you've already reached the top.

The most important thing is experience. The absolute key to success is not talent, it's starting early, generally when you're a kid. If you do that then you're 10 years of experience ahead of everyone who started when they were 20, years which they can never catch up to if you keep working the same amount of time from that point onward.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick something up if you've passed 20 years, you'll just have to understand that you'll never reach the absolute peak, but then again not everybody needs to (or wants to) become the best in the world. You don't need to be Michelangelo to make a decent living as an artist, right?

90% of humans won't enjoy what they do for a living 90% of the time.

Even taking something you enjoyed as a hobby and turning it into a living can ruin the enjoyment you get from that activity.

The idea that there is a dream job for everyone that they will definitely enjoy is a fantasy people tell kids.

The point is those regrets are senseless and dwelling on them is really dumb.

>90% of humans won't enjoy what they do for a living 90% of the time.

Source on those statistics?

I don't agree with that guy, saying that everyone should pick up a job they like. Because then we wouldn't have janitors and store clerks.

But I agree that you can monetize something you enjoy. Average people just don't have enough education and initiative to realize that. (Or maybe they lack the initial funds required for the investment)

People have regrets because they don't try their best at it knowingly that they could fail, they imagine that by doing their best things are going to be ok and that's not true, hell even if you eventually succeed it doesn't mean you didn't suffer like hell.
Now i must agree there are times in which trying is not good enough, like trying to win the olympics while you are an amputee with asthma.

/thread

Actually not true. You can work 10 years ineffecient and someone may surpass you in just 5 years trough being more effecient in learning. That's what is called talent or at least one aspect of it.

So what. Fuck the 90%. Get to the top, do what you think is right, this is the only life you have. You either try your hardest to achieve whatever you want or you decide to live with compromise, deal with it.

I'm a fucking failure. Don't rub it in.

>you'll just have to understand that you'll never reach the absolute peak
not true

not everyone who practices something does it efficiently

someone who picks something up at say 20 and works their ass off at it can without a doubt become better than someone who has 10 years of lackluster experience

What part of
>"if you keep working the same amount of time from that point onward. "

did you not understand?

I obviously didn't mean just a vague "yeah we both worked 10 years". Because some people work 2 hours a day, others work 4 hours a day, others work 6 hours a day. This leads to vastly different notions of "I worked 10 years".

Some people just passively go through their training, while others are actively motivated by a goal. Some people have moral support while others do it alone through depression. There's a million factors so for the sake of the argument "the same amount of time" obviously means the exact same circumstances and time spent.

I'm sure there's plenty of idiots who just halfassedly pursue a skill and then complain about talent when someone who worked "half" their time is doing better.

>being more effecient in learning. That's what is called talent
If that's your definition of talent then this conversation won't go far. At least not until we agree on a common definition of talent, because you clearly have a vague idea about it, probably something similar to luck.

What I personally consider talent is genetic predisposition towards certain activities, like pattern recognition, reflexes, memory, analysis, some things the brain is slightly more inclined to do. But humans are capable of doing all those, you have to or else we wouldn't have been capable of surviving for millions of years. What exactly do you consider talent? Because there's no such thing as a specific "talent for chess" or "talent for music", it's one of the things I mentioned used in tandem with other skills.

If aptitude works one it in the other as well. A person deaf from birth will newer make a living as a composer. Ping pong is absolutely right in what it's preaching since in the environment present in the series talent is the deciding factor.

>If aptitude works one it in the other as well. A person deaf from birth will newer make a living as a composer.

Not that guy but that's a retarded example to use and you fucking know it. You can't compare being physically handicapped with talent or lack of talent. You could imprison someone from birth into a cell and never allow him to do any activity, that doesn't mean he couldn't do something if the circumstances of his life were better.

The message is that you will never be the guy but you can still have fun.

We should start looking at the reality of the matter.

We have a 10 year old child and a 20 year old adult. Both learn the same skill, but something focused on the mind, nothing athletic. The first years the child will learn worse than the adult. It's actually a meme that children learn better than adults. So the start of the 20 year old will be more effecient.

Naturally both begin figuring things out with time. The 20 year old will figure things out faster than the 10 year old. We skip 10 years ahead. The 10 year old is now 20, he has a good kickstart, learned lots of things and as a bonus he has some exceptional developed mechanical skills trough the adaptive muscle memory of his entire childhod. The now 30 year old learned way more in those 10 years, his motor skills may never reach the skill level of the 20 year old but otherwise he is doing good.

Now here comes the point, let's skip 20 years ahead. At some point both reached mastery. At this point gaining skill would be a waste of time. For even a small gain of skill you would need an exceptional amount of time. Let's say the 10 year old reached mastery with 30 while the 20 year old reached mastery with 40.

Both of those won't learn much more in this skill troughout their lives. They will get better in some areas, worse in other ones. But they will always operate of the base level of a master. Both will spend the rest of their lives using this skill to their advantage. The younger has more time to use his skill but if we look at the actual skill level they're both on top. Both have unique traits obviously and the younger one may have better motor skills trough the early start in his childhood but they're at such an high level that such things don't matter that much anymore.

That's what it actually means to reach mastery. You will take 20-30 years of learning but at some point whatever you learn will be insignificant and it's better to invest time into producing or learning something else.

It's an extreme example but it illustrates well the importance of genetic predisposition for success. The guy just moved the goal posts to whether you can become "good enough" at something if you invert the time into it which is a pointless hypothetical argument.

>We have a 10 year old child and a 20 year old adult. Both learn the same skill, but something focused on the mind, nothing athletic. The first years the child will learn worse than the adult. It's actually a meme that children learn better than adults. So the start of the 20 year old will be more effecient.

The whole premise starts off wrong and completely missing my point. Let's take two kids, both 10 years old. One does not learn that specific skill and just goes on his way enjoying life. The other starts now when he's 10 years old.

10 years pass, the second kid now starts learning the same thing. It doesn't matter if he's 20 and has his brain better developed, because the first kid now has his brain better developed too, except with a huge headstart. The second will never reach up to the first, assuming AGAIN that they both dedicate the exact amount of time and effort.

This is of course just a hypothetical thought experiment, in real life people can hardly dedicate themselves entirely to something, and you can surpass someone who started at a younger age if he's less serious than you.

>It's actually a meme that children learn better than adults.

No, you're just misunderstanding what people mean by that. Children have better brain plasticity because their brain is still developing. They can't make full use of their brain at that age, but they can train it in preparations for future activities. (Or rather the brain adapts) A kid who starts doing calculus at 10 years will better train that specific part of his brain than someone who starts at 20-30, because an adult brain is less malleable.

So yes, someone starting to draw at 20 years old will learn a lot more in a year than a 10 years old kid, but that kid will build a foundation that will surpass the foundation the 20 years old had.

>the message
some people are given talents they don't want
do what you want to do, not what is expected of you
there is always someone better than you, just accept it

>It's an extreme example but it illustrates well the importance of genetic predisposition for success.

Nope sorry, if you bend something too hard, it breaks. In this case it's your argument.

Being deaf does not qualify on the genetic predisposition scale as much as it qualifies on the genetic defect scale. It's not something that is intended and not something that would help you survive in nature. Being a mutated baby with no arms is in no way comparable with "having no talent" for ping pong or any game requiring hands.

Yeah but your scenario doesn't change the point I made.

In your first year of learning a new skill you learn an absurd amount in a very short time frame. You will learn less and less relatively to time spent till you reach a point where you have abysmal gains where continuing to actively learn is a waste of time.

Even when kid A reaches this point at 40 and kid B reaches this point at 50, both will have reached mastery. If we take drawing like you said it will become a really subjective matter to say who is better at this point since both of them are at an absurd high level.

Of course that's working with the premise that both of them have the same potential.

>In your first year of learning a new skill you learn an absurd amount in a very short time frame. You will learn less and less relatively to time spent

Nah, it's just that your improvements are much more noticeable when you compare them to a state of nothing whatsoever instead of the accumulated progress of three decades.

People don't realize how high the top really is. You don't have to reach for it, just try to live without regrets.

Did you learn any skill actively in your life? Any skill has fundamentals. In the case of drawing once you reach a certain level in those fundamentals you pretty much have complete freedom to put anything in your mind on paper.

At this point creativity becomes the whole focus and I would argue that the kid that played video games in his childhood instead of learning like the other child has a much more developed creative mind.

You never joined a sport club right?
I was in football for 4 years, busted my ass off to improve, became a fucking nobody before I got fed up and left. There is always someone who is better at what you do, who is faster, stronger or has better reflexes or even luck.
The very second you were born your genes decided what you could be good in.

And yet if I watch baseball, football or any other competetive sport I always wonder where the consistency is of top level athletes. Often they play absolutely horrible for no good reason. This is why I stopped watching sports, I get depressed when I see that lacking consistency.

youtube.com/watch?v=A5_7KKVj1K4

Team sports are pretty crap for that exact reason. I never quite understood the fascination with American football from nearly everyone around me.

Watch tennis. It's one of the best examples of some people just being the best despite everyone near the top ostensibly putting in the same level of effort.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24807838
Well whatever you think about my example the fact remains that talent trumps hard work. Here have a study about it. Apparently genetics matter a lot when it comes to endurance. I think the same applies to more cognitive tasks as well. Or do you think that that really stupid kid form that one class could have been a great quantum physicist if he just applied himself.

No one questions that but what has this to do with anything?

You guys are aware of the fact that we're not talking about supercomputers, right?

I think you failed when you started doing this thing to "be the best" rather than "to have fun".

There are a lot of examples of artists/athletes who reached their peak at later stages, maybe you was one of these.

Also, does it matter if a kid can learn faster than you? I mean you're not a kid anymore and cannot redo past decisions, so you're just going to give up the things you want to do in life? Not everybody came from a decent family and had support to play a guitar since 5, some (if not all) of us suffer/suffered from major depression and stuff like that so it's not fair to put this pressure on you. Some of us aren't going to make it but everybody deserves a chance.

Talent is a meme.
The only things you need to have to reach the top are :
>Starting very early
>Working hard consistently and for a long time
>Luck

The point was sometimes hard work pays off (Peco winning over Smile) but most of the time unless you're naturally talented get fucked (Smile in general).

Bullshit.
To be the very best you need the best genetics, and to even have a shot you need to have not-shit genetics. Much more is heritable than you may like to think.

Thats just not true. For example,Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan was a matematician who, with hardly no studies whatsoever achieved more with such a big disadvantaje than any of the others who had been studying since they were little

So Mozart just put a lot hard work in to play for royalty at 6 years old right?

In order of importance

Genetics and talent > Being born in a family where you are wealthy enough to purpose whatever it is you want to pursue > Hard work

>I think you failed when you started doing this thing to "be the best" rather than "to have fun".
Being the best is part of to have fun. No one has "fun" losing 100% of the time. If you actually enjoy being bad and a total failure there's something inherently wrong with you as a human being.

When you are not in any official matches because you are on the bench every time, that's real fucking fun!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
>By age 11, he had exhausted the mathematical knowledge of two college students who were lodgers at his home.
>With hardly no studies

The truth is that you can make a genius out of anyone, as long as you're healthy, you start young enough and get the appropriate education the thing you want to master. That's the "luck" part actually, being born in the right environment.

Oh, I get it. You miss the entire point, kek.

Remember to build up your contacts user!

Contacts are very important to get ahead in life!

>Write a book
>play games and record it
Win a lottery is also a good one.

What is talent?

>Mozart
>Born in a family of musician
>Had to ear music as soon as he was out of the womb of his mom

Also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period

To be able to git gud at something much more easily than the average person.

He was being sarcastic lad

Of course by the time he made the discoveries he had the knowledge... But he attended a shitty high school and learnt more there than a fucking average person would in hardvare

You're missing the point. What's important is the journey, not the destination. I'm not telling you to not take your art seriously, but if you're obsessed with being the best eventually failures (which do happen) will led you to frustration.

Why you're in the bench, tho? Raw power/dedication is nothing if you're not self aware about your mistakes to fix them.

Talent doesn't exists you fucking idiots. Sports is all about genetics and hard work, nobody becomes a fucking sports genius in Day 1. Anything outside of sports just requires hard work and practice.

Nobody wants to stay in this shit industry.