People have always debated on the ideas of inborn talents and acquired talents, discussing its validity and supremacy. However, it highly depends on the penchant inclination of a child, which inspires him to master the skill. With the help of studies from Oxford University and examples, I will discuss both the views.
On one hand, some people believe you can master, sports or music, through continuous learning and practice, but there are so many cases which contradicts this. For instance, if you cannot hear the difference in music chords such A Minor or B Flat, irrespective of how hard you try, you won't succeed at it. There are also examples, where children playing a sport under parental pressure, eventually burn out and succumb to failure. So, even though learning a skill can get you to a particular point, but succeeding at it depends on various others factors which cannot be derived from hard work and teachings.
On the other hand, people might be born with a particular talent, but that does not mean they would be good at it. For example, there are many people who have a perfect pitch, but they might not be great at utilising it, to make mesmerising music. Inborn skill gives the child a head start, but to maintain the lead they have to continuously work on improving it. A recent study from Oxford university showed that, nearly 30% of the celebrities who are among the elite in their field start their careers later in life. Thus, the given examples show that even though you are born with a skill, does not necessary mean that you will be the best at it if you pursue it.
In conclusion, I would like to say, a skill is a dynamic factor in life, irrespective if you born with it or you have learned it, you will have to keep on learning it. As change is the only constant, any skill will get obsolete if not learned further and if you are not good at something, how much ever you try you might not be able to learn something in life.
People
have always debated on the
ideas
of inborn talents and acquired talents, discussing its validity and supremacy.
However
, it
highly
depends on the penchant inclination of a child, which inspires him to master the
skill
. With the
help
of studies from Oxford University and
examples
, I will discuss both the views.
On one hand,
some
people
believe you can master, sports or music, through continuous learning and practice,
but
there are
so
many
cases which contradicts this.
For instance
, if you cannot hear the difference in music chords such A Minor or B Flat, irrespective of how
hard
you try, you won't succeed at it. There are
also
examples
, where children playing a sport under parental pressure,
eventually
burn out and succumb to failure.
So
,
even though
learning a
skill
can
get
you to a particular point,
but
succeeding at it depends on various others factors which cannot
be derived
from
hard
work and teachings.
On the other hand
,
people
might
be born
with a particular talent,
but
that does not mean they would be
good
at it. For
example
, there are
many
people
who have a perfect pitch,
but
they might not be great at
utilising
it, to
make
mesmerising
music. Inborn
skill
gives the child a head
start
,
but
to maintain the lead they
have to
continuously
work on improving it. A recent study from Oxford university
showed
that,
nearly
30% of the celebrities who are among the elite in their field
start
their careers later in life.
Thus
, the
given
examples
show
that
even though
you
are born
with a
skill
, does not necessary mean that you will be the best at it if you pursue it.
In conclusion
, I would like to say, a
skill
is a dynamic factor in life, irrespective if you born with it or you have learned it, you will
have to
keep
on learning it. As
change
is the
only
constant, any
skill
will
get
obsolete if not learned
further
and if you are not
good
at something, how much ever you try you might not be able to learn something in life.