>>5045770>To the point that the effort can be called the talent.i agree with that. talent is a really broad category. personally, i categorize any genetic predisposition that would help you succeed in your chosen field as 'talent'. i'd even say that iq is a subset of the 'talent' category.
>i do believe thay different people will get different results regardless of the amount of time and effort they put into learbing somethingbut it seems that you do think that talent comes in forms other than the ability to work hard, so i don't see the point that you're trying to make here.
it just seems that you subjectively value the talent to work hard above all else
but if we're talking about
>the absolute base of talent from which everything else is built onthen its no doubt iq
iq is the best predictor of success, across the board. and it's also one of the few kinds of talent that can actually be scientifically measured (though i do think that other kind of talents are also important, especially in art).
there has been attempts to 'debunk' this with concepts like 'grit' (which seems pretty similar to what you're saying), but they all tend to be dubious and lack the well-replicated predictive power that iq possess.
