Understanding our perceptions on the causality between talent and success
Challenge your perception of the causal relationship between talent and achievements, to give yourself more opportunities in life.
Talent is a convenient way to explain why some people are successful, while others fail to reach the top. In “Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance”, psychologist Angela Duckworth challenges common perceptions of the causal relationship between talent and achievements. Her research has found that talent plays a role, but systematic and deliberate effort over time is most important for long-term success. She summarizes the relationship between talent, effort and achievement in a formula:
(1) Talent x Effort = Skill
(2) Skill x Effort = Achievement
Duckworth’s main argument is that effort counts both in the skill-building phase and when we apply our skills to achieve something in the long term. In her words, “effort counts twice”. Talent only counts once. “Grit” is the ability to persevere while applying long-term effort to build skills and achievements.
Duckworth’s formula is both simple and appealing. And more importantly from my perspective, I believe it to be true! Below, I analyze the consequences of her formula in two phases:
- The skill-building phase
- The achievement phase
Your perception of talent determines your potential skill level
While Duckworth’s formula explains the relationship from talent to achievements, we need to discuss the particulars of talent itself. We will look at the first equation in Duckworth’s formula: Talent x Effort = Skills.
Based on my observations, there are two prevailing perceptions of the causal relationship between talent and skills in society:
- Talent defines how fast an individual learns a new skill
- Talent additionally determines the highest level of skill achievable to an individual
The first perception is that talent defines how fast individuals move from beginner to expert in a field. For a given amount of effort, highly talented Emma will acquire skills faster than the less talented Oliver. This is the definition of skill Angela Duckworth uses in Grit.
If this is the only property associated with talent, there is no difference in the potential skill achieved by Emma and Oliver. The only difference is that Emma will reach her maximum potential earlier than Oliver, with the same amount of effort.
In my experience, talent is often also associated with the second perception. When talent determines the highest achievable level of skill, a gap is created between the potential skill of Emma and Oliver. No matter the amount of effort Oliver invests, he can never reach the same potential as Emma. This perception is especially common in technical fields, like mathematics.
In the figure below, the potential level of skills for Emma and Oliver are represented on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents an absolute beginner and 100 is complete expertise. With the first perception, there is no difference in the potential skill level Emma and Oliver can reach. With perception 2, Oliver is limited by his lack of talent to a maximum skill level of 60 points. Measured in educational attainment we can let 100 points represent a skill level equivalent to a Phd. 60 skill points would then be equivalent to a high school diploma, assuming that it takes a total of 13 years to complete high school and 22 years to complete a Phd.
Effort can compensate for talent during education and training
While talent is an important predictor, Duckworth’s formula argues that the skill level we achieve also depends on the effort we invest in building our skills. In this section I analyze how we can compensate for a lack of talent by investing different levels of effort into education and training, given the two different perceptions of talent.
In the following analysis Emma is a highly talented person, while Oliver has less talent. I assume that Oliver has 60% of Emma’s talent. For the same amount of effort, Oliver will gain 60% of the skill points Emma would. The table below presents the assumed number of skill points gained from one year of education, given talent and effort. High effort is assumed to double the skill points gained from one year of education.
In the following sections I analyze how these assumptions on the relationship between talent and skill points gained over an individual’s lifetime of 90 years.
Oliver’s effort can compensate for his lack of talent
In the first scenario, the only difference between Emma and Oliver is how quickly they learn new skills (perception 1 above). Because Emma is more talented, she experiences higher skill growth than Oliver. In the end, however, they have the same potential skill level.
When both invest high effort in building their skills, Emma reaches the potential of 100 skill points in 25 years, while Oliver has to keep studying for 42 years to reach the same skill level. The consequence is that Emma has more years available to reap the benefits from her investment in skill, for example through higher income in the labor market.
Imagine instead that neither Emma nor Oliver is interested in investing a high amount of effort into learning. With low effort, their skill point growth rates are cut in half. Emma now uses 50 years to reach 100 skill points. Oliver reaches 100 points after a whopping 84 years, just a few years before his death at 90 years old. The less effort they invest, the longer it takes to reach their potential skill level, and the less time they have to get a return on their invested effort.
There are two additional characteristics and consequences communicated by the graph above. The first is that both Emma and Oliver reach their potential level of 100 skill points within their 90-year lifetime. In the case of low effort, Oliver barely makes it after 84 years. There is no guarantee that an individual will reach the potential skill level within his or her lifetime. If the difference in talent was greater or low effort reduced the number of skill points even more, we could easily construct a scenario in which Oliver never reached 100 skill points during his lifetime.
The second point is what happens when Oliver and Emma invest different levels of effort. With high effort, Oliver reaches 100 skill points in 42 years. With low effort, Emma reaches the same level after 50 years. In essence:
Oliver has compensated for his lack of talent by increasing his effort.
Talent perceived as a limit for potential skill level reduces the effect of Oliver’s effort
In the second scenario, talent is perceived to affect not only the growth rate of skills, but also the maximum skill level an individual can reach. Oliver’s lack of talent restricts his potential to 60 skill points, irrespective of how much effort he invests. These changes in assumptions have no effect on Emma, who is a highly talented individual.
For Oliver, the perception that lack of talent reduces his potential skill level has significant effects in both the high and low effort scenarios. Regardless of the number of years he studies or the amount of effort he puts in, he is limited to a maximum 60 skill points.The main issue is that this perception of talent restricts Oliver’s lifetime accumulation of skill.
The perception that talent limits Oliver’s potential skill level also reduces the value of investing high amounts of effort.
The skill premium associated with investing more effort is represented by the size of the triangle between Oliver’s high and low effort curves. This triangle measures the benefit of reaching a given skill level at an earlier point in time. The triangle is significantly smaller in this scenario, than in the previous scenario. Hence, Oliver has weaker incentives to study because his lifetime accumulation of skill is lower. At the same he has weaker incentives to invest high effort, because the skill premium of effort is smaller.
Oliver has a higher growth with high effort than Emma has with low effort. However, in this case it is only a temporary effect, because he is limited to a maximum of 60 skill points. As a consequence, Emma’s accumulated skill quickly overtakes Oliver’s again.
Habits of effort matters for achievements in the long term
So far, we have analyzed different scenarios for the first equation in Duckworth’s formula for the relationship between talent, effort and achievement. The skills we build are the foundations for our long-term achievements in life. In this section, we dive into the second formula:
Skill x Effort = Achievement
Outcomes in the achievement-phase depend on the level of skill from the skill-building phase, as well as the effort we continually exert in the current phase. For a given skill level, it is still possible to exert low og high effort in the achievement phase.
In scenario 1, the number of achievements follow the same pattern as the skill level. However, in the second scenario, an interesting dynamic emerges when Oliver exerts high effort while Emma exerts low effort. In the long run, Oliver’s high effort will compensate for his lower potential skill level. Although his skills are perceived to be more limited than Emma’s he can achieve more by creating habits of high effort. An important issue, however, is that Oliver has weak incentive to exert high effort in the skill-building phase if he is not able to foresee these long-term effects.
High effort allows Oliver to achieve more than Emma, despite him initially being less talented.
Our perception of talent has ramifications for which economic theories of education we believe in
The causal relationship between talent, effort, skill and achievements are central themes in the field of educational economics. There are two major competing economic theories of education:
- Human capital model
- Signaling model
The human capital model argues that education increases the skills and productivity of individuals. Hence, education is an investment that gives you the ability to solve increasingly abstract and complex problems. In return, you are rewarded with a higher wage in the labor market.
In the signaling model, productivity and abilities are innate characteristics of individuals. The main reason to attain education is to signal to employers and customers that you are actually a high-productivity worker. As a signal, the role of education is not really to increase the abilities of workers, but rather just to communicate talent.
In many ways, the two theories of educational economics are compatible with the perceptions of talent we have studied above. The signaling model is compatible with the second perception, where talent represents a fundamental and unchangeable difference between individual abilities. In the human capital model, individuals can invest in education to increase their skill level and productivity in the labor market. Hence:
Both economic theories of education and our social perceptions of talent are important for our incentives to invest in skills and exert effort to achieve long-term goals.
Broaden your opportunities in life by applying a growth mindset
The distinction between the two perceptions of talent, as well as the two competing economic theories of education, are related to the broader terms of growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. By perceiving talent as a forutsetning for how you grow, you are open to strategies and investments that allow you to overcome minor and major obstacles on the way to your goals in life.
As I have argued in an earlier article, there are big statistical differences between workers with high school diplomas and college graduates in the labor market. Genetics and talent does play a role, and probably a relatively large role at the pinnacle of achievements in many fields. However, remember that you do not need groundbreaking achievements like Isaac Newton or Usain Bolt to make a big difference in the trajectory of your own life. In practical terms, I believe that the skills needed to make big leaps in our own lives are available to most of us, if we have the passion and perseverance to see the process through.
