This is generally true.
People can find extreme examples that “disprove” this but they’re generally wrong. Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them — they either choose a different path, have fewer choices, or just don’t care.
And yes, before you ask, this includes computer programming.
In _every_ activity I've ever participated in where I can observe many people's performance and progression - including powerlifting, bodybuilding, various ball sports, mathematics, chess, theoretical CS, software engineering, etc - it is transparently obvious that people's natural abilities vary dramatically.
Although it's not the most common scenario (training and experience do matter), I have seen many situations where someone with, say, 6 months' haphazard and lazy experience will absolutely crush the performance of someone with 3 years of serious and dedicated training.
Talent is real.
Talent is real, but generally speaking, ascribing failure or lack of progress to lack of talent is a mistake.
Not all failures are due to lack of talent, for sure. A blank statement like " ascribing failure or lack of progress to lack of talent is a mistake " in the context of our discussion is nonetheless a mistake as well.
Or, do you really think every 2-year old kid can teach their neighbor kids maths and then explained what groups are when he was 7-year old like Terence Tao did? I tried my own kids. Needless to say, I failed, miserably.
Without pointing to a vague notion of "we're different people", I think there's a few key things that were different, despite everything that was the same:
* She's the second child, I'm the first: there were some things in my education that my mother literally said "we are fixing that for her". (And I should note that I don't resent this: my mother was clearly doing the best she could with the information she had — and because she loved us. But she had more information during Round 2.)
* Education is a finite resource: in my home state, whether I got into a decent school (i.e., a magnet school) was dependent on the literal roll of a dice. (Literally literally. I.e., list of names goes in, gets shuffled, top n go to good school & gets educated, bottom m talent gets wasted.) In the worst case I was 5th? 6th? from the bottom of a several hundred person long wait list. She got in. She got a year in the magnet system that I didn't (I got entry a little over a year later). That missing year was an enormous detriment to my education and growth; it was such a clear detriment my parents were contemplating whether they could afford a Catholic private school (we're not Catholic) or simple home-schooling. Had they had the gift of clairvoyance, I think they would have the moment I was denied.
* Almost certainly the gift of a computer got me interested in CS. She didn't get one, and her interests are different. (She's still STEM, likely due to our parents.)
Education is following as similar course. Things like MITs open courseware, edX, etc. are making it increasingly easy to get the educational content from top teachers regardless of how limited these teachers are.
(Having access to an education is not the same as actually getting a degree, and getting a degree isn't always the same as getting an education.)
But there has probably never been a time in history where more people had free or inexpensive access to the top educational content in the world.
I see where you are coming from on access to labs, chemicals, and equipment. But someone who has fully availed themselves of everything they can learn from free/inexpensive online classes, books, forums, emailing people, etc. is headed on a path where they have a high probability of getting access to those types of things once that is the only thing blocking their continued education.
Not suggesting that, and it's wrong anyways: the point here is that we, as a society, want people to have a basic floor of an education by the time they reach adulthood. Not necessarily MIT, but not nothing either, and the track I was on for a bit in my childhood was closer to "nothing" than it was to "decent", and it was certainly way off course if I were to shoot for MIT.
For the students that never left that track… I cannot imagine that school did much, if anything, to produce a citizen with a high-school education.
That's true, but it's the small minority of tasks that require real intelligence that often matter the most. A regular person can probably be trained to 95% the skill of an anesthesiologist just by following instructions, but then they would kill the patient during edge cases.
The same thing applies to programming too. I had an internship at a regular company, and now work at a FAANG. The developers at the regular company are likely better at programming than me, especially when it came to regular tasks, but some of their technical decisions just didn't seem to make any sense.
You’re making the mistake of assuming anesthesiologists are something other than regular people with training.
Have you considered that maybe you're just unusually talented? I know most things people do are very hard for me, and the few things I do are very easy. Learning history is an uphill slog even though I love it, but math doesn't warrant effort. For a while I just figured people that failed math were lazy and people that passed history were geniuses, but it turns out people have different amounts of natural talent. It's not the start, it's the slope
Huh. To me it seems more narcissistic for someone to say that they have no special talent and that their success is entirely due to their superior work ethic and years of study and sacrifice.
I’m just like everybody else — can get pretty decent at a lot of things.
That's a very different claim than "innate talent doesn't exist".
Yes! This is why I never said innate talent doesn’t exist.