十萬個為什麼之天賦 A Hundred Thousand Whys: The Gift Of Nature

靈感來源 Source of inspiration

對我來說天賦這個問題算是我一個蠻重要的人生觀，影響了蠻多我做事的方式以及面對世界和他人的方式，因此接下來我會細細的討論這個主題。

首先第一個問題就會是最基礎的問題

For me, the issue of talent is quite an important part of my worldview, as it influences many of the ways I approach tasks and interact with the world and others. Therefore, I will delve into this topic in detail next.

The first question will be the most fundamental one.

什麼是天賦？真的有天賦這種東西嗎？ What is talent? Does talent really exist?

這些問題看起來很直覺

畢竟如果沒有天賦這種東西，那為什麼可以觀察到大家在接受了一樣的教育後人生卻可以差這麼多？這個問題對於人來說需要一個合理的解釋，而且需要一個跟純粹運氣毫無關聯的解釋，否則人生會毫無目標。

有人會說天賦就是出生以來每個人比起其他人可以做得更好的特性

但你不覺得奇怪嗎？為什麼剛好很多人的天賦都剛好符合目前社會有的東西？比如很擅長打羽球、很擅長物理或是很擅長英文之類的，天賦天賦，到底羽球、物理或英文這些東西哪裡存在在大自然之中呢？如果不存在在大自然中，那人們到底是怎麼從出生時就剛好擅長這些東西？難不成我們真的身處在某個虛擬遊戲裡面？所以出生時會被設定好擅長哪些技能？

因此我自己覺得反而比較有可能的方向會是，我的身體可能在反射神經上比別人快一點點，或是我的肌肉束比別人密集一點因此力量大了一點，但如果往這個方面思考會發現問題在於其實人類的技能並沒有這麼窄化，比如是抽象思考力強，那其實很多技能都會適合而不只是數學，比如電競遊戲的策略思考、程式語言的架構思考、商業策略分析、足球場的全局觀、圍棋的大局觀、各種藝術表達或是運動的全局觀等等等等，那為什麼我們會這麼容易地把某個人限定在只擅長某個領域呢？

因此我覺得天賦只是人類自己的事後解釋，這種把一個人可以有更多天賦的可能性扼殺的習慣，是否是自身在當前混亂社會中尋求明確自我的偏好，抑或是在速食文化中個人需要一個明確產品標籤來快速讓他人認識的渴望？

再來一點是即便別人的天賦比較高，真的有跟一般人差很多嗎？舉個例子，百米全世界跑得最快的人花了 9.58 秒，但其實一班人也只需要 13~17 秒，別人花了十年的時間練習也不會快過一般人兩倍，更何況如果一般人有稍微練習過的話這個差距還會更加接近。

綜合下來我覺得天賦只是每個人在做某些事情的時候比較開心就像是我喜歡吃咖喱飯一樣，是很主觀的一件事情（註 1），因此我其實可以今天喜歡吃咖喱飯，後天喜歡吃滷肉飯，不應該有很大的衝突。

These questions seem quite intuitive.

After all, if there is no such thing as talent, why do we observe such diverse life outcomes even after receiving the same education? This question requires a reasonable explanation from humans and needs an explanation that is unrelated to pure luck; otherwise, life would be aimless.

Some might say that talent is the characteristic of being better at certain things than others from birth. But isn’t it strange? Why do many people’s talents happen to align with the skills needed in current society? For example, being good at badminton, physics, or English — where do these talents exist in nature? If these skills don’t exist in nature, how do people happen to excel at them from birth? Are we really living in a virtual game where our skills are predetermined at birth?

Therefore, I think a more plausible explanation is that my body might have slightly faster reflexes than others, or my muscle fibers might be a bit denser, resulting in slightly more strength. But if we think from this perspective, we’ll realize the problem: human skills are not so narrow. For instance, someone good at abstract thinking is suitable for many skills, not just mathematics. It could be strategy in video games, architectural thinking in programming languages, business strategy analysis, global awareness in football fields, holistic thinking in Go, and various forms of artistic expression or sports. So why do we easily pigeonhole someone into excelling only in one area?

Hence, I believe talent is merely a post hoc explanation created by humans. Is the habit of stifling the possibility that someone may have more talent than others a preference for clear self-identification in the current chaotic society, or a desire for a clear product label in the fast-paced culture to quickly make oneself known to others?

Furthermore, even if someone has higher talent than others, is there really a significant difference between them and ordinary people? For example, the fastest person in the world only takes 9.58 seconds for the 100-meter dash, while an ordinary person takes only 13 to 17 seconds. So even if someone spends ten years practicing, they won’t be twice as fast as an ordinary person. Moreover, if an ordinary person practices a little, the gap will narrow even further.

In summary, I think talent is only the degree to which someone feels happy doing certain things, much like how I enjoy eating curry. It’s a very subjective matter.(Note 1) Therefore, I might enjoy eating curry today, but enjoy eating braised pork tomorrow. There shouldn’t be a significant conflict.

沒有天賦一定做不好一件事嗎？Is it necessary to have talent in order to do something well?

從第一個問題的脈絡可以理解，對我來說每個人的身體素質並沒有差別非常多，而且差別只在於有沒有興趣，因此即使沒有天賦，每個人都還是可以將某件事情做得不錯，只不過是做得不開心而已，我深信人其實學習能力是很強的。

而我所謂的做得不錯是至少每個人都可以在任何一個領域做到前 20%，甚至是前 10% ，只要是個人肯花時間下去練習和訓練，當然越後面會越困難，而且肯定會遇到天花板，比如我可能在羽球上的天花板是全世界前 17% ，那我這生可能只能無限逼近這條線而已，不可能超過，不過換而言之對我來說即便沒有天賦，一個人可以做到的程度還是可以到很高的。

因此對我來說即便是沒有天賦，在初期的時候也只是成長幅度比有天賦的人差了一點點，而且這一點點會是很大程度跟本身的主觀意志喜不喜歡這件事有關，當然到後面的瓶頸的時候，可能有天賦可以幫這個人走到更遠的地方，但沒有天賦的人至少也還是可以走到在這個領域上混口飯吃的程度。

If you follow the context of the first question. For me, everyone’s physical fitness doesn’t differ significantly, and the difference lies only in whether they have an interest or not. Therefore, even without talent, everyone can still do something well, but they just might not enjoy it. I firmly believe that people have strong learning abilities.

When I say ‘doing something well,’ I mean that at least everyone can be in the top 20%, or even the top 10%, in any field, as long as they are willing to spend time practicing and training. Of course, it gets harder as you progress, and you will definitely encounter ceilings. For example, my ceiling in badminton might be in the top 17% worldwide, and I might only be able to approach this line infinitely in my lifetime, without surpassing it. However, conversely, even without talent, a person can still achieve a high level.

So, for me, even without talent, the growth rate might just be slightly lower compared to someone with talent in the initial stages. This slight difference largely depends on whether the individual enjoys doing that thing. Of course, when encountering bottlenecks later on, talent might help a person go further, but someone without talent can still reach a level where they can make a living in that field.

假如沒有天賦說，那為什麼有些領域有幾個人會牢牢霸佔著前幾名的地位，而其他人完全超越不了？If we assume there is no talent, why do some individuals firmly occupy the top positions in certain fields while others cannot surpass them?

這個問題我會用幾種方式去解釋這件事

• 我們為了讓比賽可以被分出勝負，所以設定了強制的設定了比賽規則，隨便舉個例子好了，我跟全世界百米跑最快的人可能秒數相差不到兩倍，但因為比賽規則，我完全不可能比贏他
• 如果是複雜的比賽，比如我跟華爾街的股票交易員比賽投資績效的話（雖然有人做過實驗發現平均來說猴子也會贏過他們），雖然我也會在某幾次操作比他厲害，但由於每一次行為他的勝率都比我高一些，所以當進行了100、1000 次操作後，我會贏他的機率微乎其微
• 這個社會就是充斥著鎂光燈效應，每個人都只注視著那些最好最優秀的人，基本上連第二名的人都看不到

由於以上幾個理由，我們的世界乍看之下每個人的落差很大，但實際情況其實不然，因此我真的蠻討厭結果論的，結果一點都不有趣，過程的掙扎、學習、得到和痛苦，才是一件事有趣的地方。

I would explain this question in several ways.

• We establish mandatory rules in competitions to determine winners and losers. For example, even though the difference in time between me and the world’s fastest 100-meter runner may be less than double, due to the rules of the competition, I cannot possibly beat them.
• In more complex competitions, such as competing with Wall Street traders in investment performance (although experiments have shown that on average monkeys can outperform them), although I may perform better than them in some operations, because their winning rate is higher than mine in each action, after 100 or 1000 operations, my chances of winning against them would be extremely slim.
• Our society is filled with the spotlight effect, where everyone only focuses on the very best and outstanding individuals. Essentially, even the second-place individuals are hardly recognized.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, our world may seem to have significant disparities among individuals at first glance. However, the actual situation is quite different. Therefore, I really dislike determinism; results alone are not interesting. The struggle, learning, acquisition, and pain throughout the process are what make things interesting.

結論 Conclusion

寫下這篇文章，一部份是來自於跟朋友討論學習羽球這個運動時的挫折，和怎麼克服那個認為沒有羽球天賦的自己繼續前進，我自己比較推薦的做法是把每個行為當作一個小小的嘗試和遊戲，比如我會故意想打一顆有假動作的球試試看，一開始根本騙不到對手，自己還容易失誤，但說服自己這只是機率問題，會越變越好的，而且在成功的時候，看到對手驚訝的臉能帶給我成就感就是個鼓勵我繼續玩這種小遊戲的動力，而我相信只要能在每個我想要學習的技能上找到這種小遊戲，天賦不天賦根本不是重點。

Writing this article, partly from discussions with friends about the frustration of learning badminton and how to overcome the self-perception of lacking talent in badminton to keep moving forward. My recommended approach is to treat each action as a small experiment and game. For example, I deliberately try to hit a deceptive shot. At first, I couldn’t fool my opponent and made mistakes easily. However, I convinced myself that it’s just a matter of probability and that I’ll get better over time. Also, seeing the surprised look on my opponent’s face when I succeed gives me a sense of accomplishment, which motivates me to continue playing these little games. I believe that as long as I can find these little games in every skill I want to learn, talent or no talent is not the point.

註 1 ：也正因為如此，我覺得為什麼小時候的教育很重要是因為我覺得為什麼我的小時候會喜歡數學，可能只是因為在一開始接觸數學時，剛好教到的主題我回答不錯，先不管是運氣好還是真的有比別人強一點，而這份初始的鼓勵讓我對數學有好印象，讓我主觀地喜歡上數學，最後認定數學是我的天賦。

Note 1: Because of this, I believe that the reason why early childhood education is important is because why did I like math when I was a child, maybe just because when I first encountered math, I happened to answer the topic correctly. Regardless of whether it was luck or if I was slightly better than others, this initial encouragement gave me a good impression of math, subjectively making me like math and eventually convinced that math is my talent.