Talent Development: Effort, Opportunity, and Growth Mindset Over Innate Ability

Key Quotes

"We see it as an either or when like most things it's a both and it's context dependent everything freaking matters so those who go around and say hey like just develop the culture develop the athletes they'll get better i'm i'm i'm here to tell you that yes that that's true but at the highest level you need a baseline of talent we need it right we cannot have a team no offense of clay skippers and brad stulbergs at the cross country team for houston or vanderbilt or whoever we're not going anywhere sorry guys no matter how good of a job i do as a coach we've got to have some baseline talent and that's i think number one is this not an either or"

Steve Magnus argues that the common perception of talent as either innate ("nature") or developed ("nurture") is a false dichotomy. He emphasizes that both are crucial and context-dependent, and that while development is important, a foundational level of talent is necessary for high-level performance.

"i think the other things where we kind of really mess up the talent development idea is we really kind of suck at predicting talent we walk around with this idea of like oh i can identify the best eight year olds the best 12 year olds even the best 18 year olds and it's not easy and i'm coming from a sport that is as objective as you could freaking get did johnny run faster than jamie or not but even with that objective nature you look at the best track or cross country teams they're often not the ones who got the fastest you know high school kids or the fastest transfers and put them all together because even in something super objective predicting talent is really freaking hard"

Steve Magnus points out a significant flaw in how talent is approached: the difficulty in accurately predicting future talent. He notes that even in objective sports like track, the teams with the most naturally gifted young athletes are not always the most successful, highlighting the challenge of forecasting potential.

"i think one big takeaway from today's episode is that we need to broaden how we think about talent and maybe you can think of it as having four different components one is capacity and that could be like innate ability what we usually label as talent right just your inborn ability to do something two i think is opportunity so that's like what is the coaching you get the resources you have to sort of harness that talent and to bring this into something like academics you know do you get put on a fast track as a young kid to be in an advanced math class or advanced english class right that's sort of opportunity meeting capacity and then two other two other elements of this are fit and grit both these i think relate to motivation so fit is like how intrinsically motivated and emotionally connected are you to your capacity and then lastly grit is like how much motivation and just straight grinding work ethic do you have so that's capacity meets opportunity meets fit meets grit that sort of i think composes um talent in some ways"

Brad Stulberg proposes a more comprehensive model for understanding talent, moving beyond a simple "nature vs. nurture" framework. He suggests talent is composed of four key elements: capacity (innate ability), opportunity (resources and coaching), fit (intrinsic motivation and emotional connection), and grit (work ethic).

"i think this is why it's so important that we broaden our definition of talent and think really hard about who we apply the label to because to go to your point but also to what the point brad was making about his sort of early verbal intelligence people who are get labeled talented at something at a young age often get filtered or funneled into situations that exacerbate that talent or highlight it right if you are told that you're a great writer and you get put in sort of advanced english as a second grader well you might have some innate talent but also certainly from getting the advanced teaching if you are ready for it it's going to improve your writing and whether or not you had an innate talent you're going to become better at it probably and that creates a disadvantage for people who aren't put into those into those funnels"

Clay Skipper emphasizes the impact of labeling individuals as "talented" at a young age. He explains that such labels can lead to them being placed in specialized programs that further develop that specific talent, potentially creating an advantage over those who are not similarly identified or funneled.

"well i think this is coaching and parenting and managing in the office 101 you might identify someone that is insanely talented and that might affect your decision making about what to do with them but you don't tell that person that you tell that person that they're working really hard and they're getting good because they're working hard and you just beat that drum over and over again like these are incredible results keep up the effort keep up the hard work keep practicing you're only going to get better and this is the crux of carol dweck's growth mindset um which is just that like if you tell someone that you're really good they develop a fixed mindset which is i was born this way and i can't change it and when things go bad i can't change it and this is just who i am and when you tell someone that you're good because you're practicing well then they develop the belief that they can influence how good they are based on the work they put in"

Brad Stulberg advocates for a coaching and parenting approach rooted in Carol Dweck's growth mindset. He advises against telling individuals they are inherently talented, as this can foster a fixed mindset. Instead, he suggests praising their hard work and effort, reinforcing the belief that improvement is a result of dedication and practice.

"so to me it's like setting them up to go on a journey of like let's see and let's see if we can confront our limits and if they're not what we wanted like great we went on the journey to discover it i think in the case of a college athlete especially at the d1 level like the range is already restricted pretty good though like you're not getting a 27 minute 5k um so i think that there's also like this second component which is i do actually think that at a certain point you can kind of say like alright like you know you got a shot or you don't and then for the people that got a shot like once you get into that top 5 then you don't know unless you try and find out um and this kind of gets back to the importance of innate capacity like you're not you're not going to take a 27 minute 5k and make her a 17 minute 5k probably not at least um but you might take a 21 minute or a 20 minute 5k and make her a 17 minute 5k"

Steve Magnus discusses the balance between instilling hope and acknowledging reality when guiding individuals, particularly athletes. He suggests encouraging a journey of self-discovery to confront limits, while also recognizing that certain genetic constraints might restrict potential outcomes, such as a significantly slower initial pace in