Your understanding of talent influences your potential skill level

While Duckworth’s formulas outline the link between talent and achievements, it is essential to consider the nature of talent itself. Let’s focus on the first equation: Talent x Effort = Skills.

From my perspective, there are two dominant beliefs regarding the relationship between talent and skills:

1. Talent influences the speed at which a person acquires a new skill.
2. Talent also dictates the maximum level of skill an individual can attain.

The first belief suggests that talent determines how quickly someone progresses from novice to expert. Given equal effort, a highly talented individual like Emma will develop skills faster than someone less talented like Oliver. This definition aligns with Duckworth’s understanding of skill.

If this were the sole characteristic of talent, both Emma and Oliver could potentially reach the same skill level, but Emma would simply achieve it sooner with the same effort.

However, talent is often linked to the second belief. When talent defines the highest possible skill level, it creates a disparity between the potential skills of Emma and Oliver. Regardless of the effort Oliver puts in, he may never attain the same level as Emma. This notion is particularly prevalent in technical domains like mathematics.

In the illustration below, the potential skill levels of Emma and Oliver are depicted on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 symbolizes a complete novice and 100 denotes full expertise. According to the first belief, both can reach the same potential skill level. However, under the second belief, Oliver's lack of talent limits him to a maximum skill level of 60 points. When considering educational achievement, this could equate to a high school diploma, while 100 points might represent a PhD, assuming it takes 13 years to complete high school and 22 years for a PhD.

Effort can offset talent during education and training

Although talent is a significant predictor, Duckworth’s formula argues that the skill level we achieve is also contingent on the effort we put into developing our skills. In this section, I will explore how we can compensate for a lack of talent by varying our levels of effort in education and training, considering the two perceptions of talent.

For this analysis, Emma is depicted as highly talented, while Oliver possesses less talent, estimated at 60% of Emma's. For equal effort, Oliver will gain 60% of the skill points that Emma does. The table below illustrates the anticipated skill points gained from a year of education based on talent and effort, with high effort assumed to double the skill points earned.

In the subsequent sections, I will evaluate these assumptions regarding talent and skill points throughout an individual's 90-year lifespan.

Oliver’s effort can bridge his talent gap

In the first scenario, the only distinction between Emma and Oliver is the speed at which they acquire new skills (as per the first belief). Due to her greater talent, Emma will experience faster skill growth, but ultimately, they can achieve the same potential skill level.

If both dedicate high effort toward skill development, Emma will reach the potential of 100 skill points in 25 years, while Oliver will require 42 years to reach the same level. This results in Emma having more years to benefit from her skill investment, such as through higher earnings in the job market.

Conversely, if neither is inclined to invest significant effort, their skill growth rates will be halved. Emma would take 50 years to achieve 100 skill points, while Oliver would reach 100 points just before his death at 90, after an arduous 84 years of study. Lower effort prolongs the time needed to reach their potential skill level, diminishing their chances of reaping the rewards of their efforts.

The graph above conveys two additional insights. Firstly, both Emma and Oliver can attain 100 skill points during their 90-year lifespan. However, with low effort, Oliver barely manages to reach it at 84 years. A larger gap in talent or a further reduction in effort could mean Oliver never achieves 100 skill points.

Secondly, the outcomes shift depending on the level of effort invested. With high effort, Oliver can achieve 100 skill points in 42 years, while Emma would reach the same level in 50 years. Thus:

Oliver compensates for his lack of talent by increasing his effort.

Talent viewed as a barrier to potential skill diminishes Oliver’s efforts

In the second scenario, talent is perceived as impacting not just the rate of skill acquisition, but also the ceiling of skill potential. Oliver’s limited talent caps him at 60 skill points, regardless of the effort he exerts. This doesn’t affect Emma, who remains highly talented.

For Oliver, believing that his lack of talent constrains his potential skill level significantly impacts both the high and low effort scenarios. No matter how many years he studies or how much effort he invests, he remains limited to a maximum of 60 skill points. This belief restricts Oliver’s overall skill accumulation.

Moreover, the perception that talent limits Oliver’s potential skill level also reduces the incentive to invest significant effort. The skill premium associated with high effort is represented by the size of the triangle between Oliver’s high and low effort curves, which measures the advantage of reaching a certain skill level sooner. This triangle is notably smaller in this context than in the previous scenario, resulting in weaker motivation for Oliver to study or exert high effort since his lifetime skill accumulation is limited.

While Oliver experiences greater growth with high effort compared to Emma's low effort, this is only a temporary advantage, as he is still capped at 60 skill points. Consequently, Emma's skill accumulation quickly surpasses his once more.

Habits of effort are crucial for long-term achievements

To this point, we have explored various scenarios for the first equation in Duckworth’s formula regarding the connection between talent, effort, and achievement. The skills we acquire form the foundation for our long-term accomplishments. Now, let’s delve into the second formula:

Skill x Effort = Achievement

Achievements during this phase depend on the skill level attained in the prior phase, as well as the sustained effort applied. Regardless of skill level, one can choose to exert either low or high effort during this phase.

In the first scenario, the number of achievements mirrors the skill level. However, an interesting dynamic arises in the second scenario where Oliver applies high effort while Emma exerts low effort. Over time, Oliver’s higher effort can lead to greater achievements despite his lower potential skill level. Yet, a critical issue is that Oliver may lack the motivation to exert high effort during the skill-building phase if he cannot foresee the long-term benefits.

High effort enables Oliver to achieve more than Emma, despite starting with less talent.

Implications of our talent perceptions on educational economic theories

The causal links among talent, effort, skill, and achievements are central to educational economics. Two primary competing economic theories exist:

1. Human capital model
2. Signaling model

The human capital model posits that education enhances individuals' skills and productivity, making education an investment that enables one to tackle more complex problems, thereby earning higher wages in the labor market.

Conversely, the signaling model suggests that productivity and abilities are inherent traits. The primary purpose of education is to signal to employers and customers that an individual is a high-productivity worker. In this view, education serves not to enhance abilities but merely to communicate existing talent.

Both economic theories of education align with the perceptions of talent we examined. The signaling model corresponds to the second belief, where talent signifies an inherent and unchangeable difference among individuals. The human capital model supports the notion that individuals can invest in education to boost their skill levels and productivity.

In conclusion: Both educational economic theories and our societal views on talent significantly influence our motivation to invest in skill development and exert effort toward achieving long-term goals.

Adopt a growth mindset to expand your life opportunities

The distinction between the two perceptions of talent, along with the competing educational economic theories, relates to broader concepts of a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. Viewing talent as a prerequisite for growth encourages openness to strategies and investments that can help overcome various challenges on the path to achieving life goals.

As I discussed in a previous article, there are significant statistical disparities between individuals with high school diplomas and those with college degrees in the workforce. While genetics and talent play a role, particularly at the highest levels of achievement across various fields, it is important to recognize that groundbreaking accomplishments like those of Isaac Newton or Usain Bolt are not necessary to change the course of one’s life. Practically speaking, I believe that the skills required to make substantial progress are accessible to most, provided there is enough passion and persistence to follow through on the journey.