- 19 Nov '17 14:54 / 1 editSo, what percentage of talent or work ethic equals success in a given field? It'd say it's about 20% talent and 80% work ethic. Anyone else care to throw out some numbers?

An interesting article in this subject below.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-procrastination-equation/201110/hard-work-beats-talent-only-if-talent-doesn-t-work-hard - 19 Nov '17 14:59 / 2 edits

What are you considering “success”?*Originally posted by @mchill***So, what percentage of talent or work ethic equals success in a given field? It'd say it's about 20% talent and 80% work ethic. Anyone else care to throw out some numbers?**

An interesting article in this subject below.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-procrastination-equation/201110/hard-work-beats-talent-only-if-talent-doesn-t-work-hard

Anyhow, I’ll take talent anyday over work. Talent is effectively the rate at which you can do work. So individuals with higher talent can achieve more per unit work than individuals with lower talent. So starting at the same point on those graphs, talent wins. - 19 Nov '17 17:11

For Thiefy Thomas, 99% of both the inspiration and the perspiration were someone else's. His success was 99% patent fraud.*Originally posted by @athousandyoung*Thomas Edison:

Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration. - 19 Nov '17 18:11 / 1 edit

Wrong!*Originally posted by @great-king-rat***If free will is an illusion then words like "talent" and "hard work" are just cover-ups for "luck".**

Any success we have in life is due to government, specifically left wingers.

Without them we would all be dying in the streets! - 19 Nov '17 22:26

It depends upon the field. In some fields, success depends more upon natural talent*Originally posted by @mchill***So, what percentage of talent or work ethic equals success in a given field? It'd say it's about 20% talent and 80% work ethic. Anyone else care to throw out some numbers?**

An interesting article in this subject below.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-procrastination-equation/201110/hard-work-beats-talent-only-if-talent-doesn-t-work-hard

and no amount of hard work can compensate for a lack of natural talent.

If an average man could train 24 hours per day, he would be unable to sprint nearly as fast as Usain Bolt. - 19 Nov '17 22:51

With the general disclaimers about different fields, different people, etc., I'd go with about 40% talent, 35% work ethic and 25% luck.*Originally posted by @mchill*

An interesting article in this subject below.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-procrastination-equation/201110/hard-work-beats-talent-only-if-talent-doesn-t-work-hard - 19 Nov '17 22:58

Timothy Gowers (who won a Fields Medal) has claimed that success of mathematics is 100% due to hard work.*Originally posted by @sh76***With the general disclaimers about different fields, different people, etc., I'd go with about 40% talent, 35% work ethic and 25% luck.**

He apparently believes that anyone who works hard enough can earn a PhD in mathematics.

I disagree. I have met a woman who somehow got a M.A. in mathematics even though

she evidently has about no talent and the other faculty in her mathematics department

privately held extremely low views about her comprehension of mathematics.

(She was assigned to teach only the most remedial classes--before calculus--for undergraduates.)

I suspect that her lack of talent had prevented her from going further to get a PhD. - 20 Nov '17 10:23 / 1 edit

I'm starting actuarial science in January (having already done maths, ecos and stats). I have a natural talent for stats and probability theory (Not to blow my own horn, just for the sake of the debate). If I don't give it my all I can usually scrape decent marks, but the extra work really DOES pay off for getting that last 10-15%. On the other hand, good luck if you don't have the talent. Some things can't be done with hard work alone.*Originally posted by @duchess64***Timothy Gowers (who won a Fields Medal) has claimed that success of mathematics is 100% due to hard work.**

He apparently believes that anyone who works hard enough can earn a PhD in mathematics.

I disagree. I have met a woman who somehow got a M.A. in mathematics even though

she evidently has about no talent and the other faculty in her mathematics d ...[text shortened]... raduates.)

I suspect that her lack of talent had prevented her from going further to get a PhD.

I think that talent gets you most of the way, and hard work gets the last extra mile. - 20 Nov '17 11:14

Well for the big guys like Einstein, I think it more like 50/50. He solved about 100,000 math problems to get to general relativity. But a lesser scientist would maybe not have even thought of the idea of menally following a beam of light even if he was a Dirac or Newton.*Originally posted by @kazetnagorra***Depends on what you define "success" as I suppose. In general I'd go for something like 20% talent, 10% hard work, and 70% luck and circumstance.** - 20 Nov '17 14:10

In math, I'd also estimate that the ratio of talent is higher and luck is lower.*Originally posted by @duchess64***Timothy Gowers (who won a Fields Medal) has claimed that success of mathematics is 100% due to hard work.**

He apparently believes that anyone who works hard enough can earn a PhD in mathematics.

I disagree. I have met a woman who somehow got a M.A. in mathematics even though

she evidently has about no talent and the other faculty in her mathematics d ...[text shortened]... raduates.)

I suspect that her lack of talent had prevented her from going further to get a PhD.

I'm not on a high math level by any stretch, but I've taught a lot of math and I can see there's a pretty significant percentage of the population that just have a mental block when it comes to math. They just don't get it.

With a lot of hard work, they may become minimally competent in math, but I can't possibly believe that the people who just can't get my basic algebra class are going to be able to get a PhD in math. - 20 Nov '17 16:38

It depends on how you look at it. Of course a random person isn't going to be talented enough to obtain high proficiency in math. But on the other hand there are many very bright mathematicians, and only a few of them make major discoveries/breakthroughs. Are these the particularly talented/hard-working ones, or the lucky ones?*Originally posted by @sh76***In math, I'd also estimate that the ratio of talent is higher and luck is lower.**

I'm not on a high math level by any stretch, but I've taught a lot of math and I can see there's a pretty significant percentage of the population that just have a mental block when it comes to math. They just don't get it.

With a lot of hard work, they may become minimally ...[text shortened]... the people who just can't get my basic algebra class are going to be able to get a PhD in math. - 20 Nov '17 20:13

I don't think that one needs to make a major discovery of breakthrough to be considered a success.*Originally posted by @kazetnagorra***It depends on how you look at it. Of course a random person isn't going to be talented enough to obtain high proficiency in math. But on the other hand there are many very bright mathematicians, and only a few of them make major discoveries/breakthroughs. Are these the particularly talented/hard-working ones, or the lucky ones?**