The untalented

[andrewducker]

One of my favourite blogs at the moment is AllMenAreLiars , which I don't always agree with, but constantly makes me think, which is something I value far more.

Today he's talking about success, fear of success and fear of failure, and had this fascinating set of quotes from Eric Hoffer

"It has been often stated that a social order is likely to be stable so long as it gives scope to talent. Actually, it is the ability to give scope to the untalented that is most vital in maintaining social stability."

"For not only are the untalented more numerous but, since they cannot transmute their grievances into a creative effort, their disaffection will be more pronounced and explosive. Thus the most troublesome problem which confronts social engineering is how to provide for the untalented and, what is equally important, how to provide against them."

Hoffer argues that when people are untalented, they tend to focus their energies "into the management, manipulation, and probably frustration of others. They want to police, instruct, guide, and meddle.

"In an adequate social order, the untalented should be able to acquire a sense of usefulness and of growth without interfering with the development of talent around them," he writes.

===
And this rings very true with me - most of the problems with society aren't with the people who are successful in life, but with the people fallen off the bottom of the ladder. And what I largely see is a lack of interest in providing the right kind of help, for fear of being seen as soft on people who, let's face it, frequently aren't very "nice". I'm a committed social meddler, not just because I want to help people (which I do), but also because I believe that massive social inequalities are bad for pretty much everyone in society, because of the amount of discontent they cause, and the problems that this in turn causes.

I vary back and forth, and sometimes seem to contradict myself on this one. Because on the one hand I believe that people are responsible for their actions, while on the other hand I believe that we are all made by our surroundings. These two things are different merely because they look at people from two different directions - the personal and the societal.

I know how malleable people are, and that if you train them to act in barbaric ways then they will tend to do so, and so it's vital to change the environment that trains them to do so. But I also also know that individuals cannot change without taking responsibility for their actions, because if you don't believe that you control your actions then you're never going to put in the huge amounts of work that are necessary to effect personal change.

Comments

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

How do you define talent and untalent? I'd be tempted to say that the distinction is often more between those who have a talent that is socially accepted, recognised and rewarded, and those who have a talent that isn't.

What if my talent, my raison d'etre, is that of serving as a warning to others?

[andrewducker]

The majority of people don't even read, let alone write. And this is true across all kinds of creative endeavours. There are huge swathes of people out there who are not at all creative.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

But that isn't about talent or lack of talent so much as creativity or its lack, I'd say.

For example, with the European Championships on at the moment there are all these footballers who have a talent they get stupid money for, but they aren't necessarily creative. (I wouldn't count football as an artistic form here, since at the end of the day victory always goes to those who score the most goals, not who play the most creatively or whatever.)

"Having a talent is not enough: one must also have your permission to have it — right, my friends?"

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Unless you consider the playing of a game as the appreciation of an art form, which is then further made strange as that makes the football game itself the work of art, and the players not only the creators but the audience.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Well, you could say that football is like performance art in this sense, but I don't think I'd quite accept that because it's still somewhat rather more goal directed (excuse the pun) with clearly demarcated criteria for success and failure that the art work tends not to have.

Typically I'd say the players are more focused on winning the game than reflecting on whatever they might be creating moment to moment or of establishing a theory to interpret their performances, descriptively or prescriptively.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine turned me onto the idea of 'game players as art appreciation' when we were discussing whether or not video games could be art.

Or rather, whether or not a game itself could be art.

We never really settled the argument, but tentatively, I really like the idea of considering game a form of art, a very strange form of art with funny rules.

Additionally, since art can arise in unusual ways, and not necessarily with the creative urge...and I don't know where I'm going with that.

However, I understand your reservations about criteria and what not. I just think it's possible that it could be a form of art. Although now that I think about it, that might be a way to all-inclusive description of art.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Replying to both andrewducker and khbrown:

Reading and writing aren't good surrogates for being talented. There was a huge swath of prehistory when everything that was invented (and there was quite a bit) was invented by illiterate people. Even now, illiterate people are at least making language and music.

As for sports, I strongly recommend Moneyball-- it will show the original thought that can go into baseball, and I'm sure other sports are no different.

More generally, I'm not sure what's meant by talented and untalented. Is the idea that untalented people don't have the harmless pleasures of doing things well, and therefore spend their lives on making trouble, or is it that lack of talent tends to lead to getting so little respect that untalented people are available for destructive social movements?

Or maybe it's a combination....if a person has low status and can't make their own fun, they're available for thuggery.

[andrewducker]

There are lots of people who have no particular interest in self-realisation. There's nothing they want to _do_, no talent they want to work on. They may have skills, but that's not the same as having something that drives you.

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

Don't agree.

First of all dividing the world into 'talented' and 'untalented' is very draconian. Everyone can do something reasonably well and enjoys doing something. The two somethings are of course often different. To say someone is 'untalented' is a social injustice that could reach the scale of something like apartheid should it take root in society.

Secondly, using me as an example 'cause I don't like speaking for others, I'm by the definition of 'talented', very talented. I learn quickly, have many useful skills and can channel my grievances into (frequently explosive) creativity.

The mass of humanity has often risen up explosively when disaffected - look at the history of revolutions and violent social changes in the world. But each time there are usually a few very few charismatic leader figures who spearhead the process of change. Without that, man-on-the-street(TM) will just get by and moan to his mates at the local equivalent of the pub.

[andrewducker]

Doing something well is not the same as having a talent. A talent comes with drive - it's not just saying "I can do X." but having X be something that is built into you. I write. If I have no paper, I write in my head. It drives me. I enjoy the self-realisation it gives me.

Many people just aren't like that - they have no interest in self-realisation. It took me a long time to come to that understanding, via many people who were content to just _be_ and couldn't understand why I had to be doing all the damn time.

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

But by that definition, self-realisation is a description of what it takes for someone to be happy or fulfilled - for most of the world worrying about the big questions doesn't really matter, and day-to-day life and its social interactions are sufficient unto the day as it were.

Possibly it's about confidence in your own opinions and abilities - to me most of the world seems to live conservatively and where I'll say, 'Let's try doing **something new or different**!!", the standard response is something along the lines of, 'Oh, don't know about that. It's a bit new/different/radical isn't it!'...

I once had a conversation with someone who described the urge to change/do things as 'The Activist Gene', which is a fairly broad brush stroke admittedly, but does seem to describe those people who are fulfilled by/driven to/want to challenge either society, themselves or both.

[andrewducker]

But by that definition, self-realisation is a description of what it takes for someone to be happy or fulfilled

Nope, they can also become happy by managing other people and exerting control over them. Or by getting drunk.

It's not about The Big Questions - it's about having something that fulfills you - a hobby would fulfil this just fine. If knitting is what drives you, then fine. If raising children is your vocation, that's fine too.

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm. So people compensate for not having or having found a vocation by taking it out on the rest of the world? I could maybe go with that, being a firm believer in the idea of promotion to the level of incompetence :)

The problem with that idea is it casts the world as either bullies or victims with only the occasional square peg bucking the system.

[andrewducker]

There are more than the occasional square peg. Most of my friends seem to have things that drive them in some way.

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

Guilty as charged Y'Honour!!

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

most of the problems with society aren't with the people who are successful in life, but with the people fallen off the bottom of the ladder.

Hmmm, I would argue that many of those at the bottom, fallen off or clinging on by their fingertips are there because of society favouring the successful at the expense of the rest. They are at the bottom as a consequence of those successful few's actions to get success for each other. It has always been in their interest to stifle the creative urges of the 'lower' echelons too.

[andrewducker]

Exactly.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I know how malleable people are, and that if you train them to act in barbaric ways then they will tend to do so, and so it's vital to change the environment that trains them to do so.

I would say people do not need to be trained to act in barbaric ways - that is the natural state of affairs. Rather, people need to be trained to not act in barbaric ways.

[andrewducker]

I disagree. People will naturally cooperate fantastically well. They'll do _both_ fantastically well. If they're only doing one, then that's because their environment has trained them that only one is effective.

[davesangel.livejournal.com]

Because on the one hand I believe that people are responsible for their actions, while on the other hand I believe that we are all made by our surroundings.

I don't know what to believe about that anymore...I've encountered textbook definitions of sociopaths over the years, and these are people who had the best upbringing, have lots of friends, and talent (but for particular things), and popularity, and success in some particular field. And yet they are the most destructive people imaginable, and there's no real logical reason for it because if you've got such a great life why on earth do you have to be such a scumbag?

Re: the malleable thing. Yes that's very true, but only in regards to a certain type of person (those who aren't 'talented' and who are emotionally 'troubled', which could be connected to the lack of talent and suggests troubled nature because they know they're not really good at things that lots of other people are). And some people can pick up on this characteristic and exploit it, offering to 'fix' the untalented but really just using them. And none of them ever take responsibility for their actions, perhaps because they think that due to not being 'talented' that they are owed somehow?

Hope some of this made sense - I was at a training session all day in work so am a tad tired :)

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

You know, I was reading recently that it's actually the very rare sociopath...or psychopath, whatever the best/most accurate/currently in use term is...that does horrible things and harms people.

The point of whatever I was reading was that sociopaths share a common thread in that they feel different, desire to be not different, and so essentially play at hiding within the mass, pretending to be normal. Therefore, it was actually a failed sociopath that stood out by doing horrible and destructive things.

[andrewducker]

I've encountered textbook definitions of sociopaths over the years

And there do seem to be some people who are inbuilt sociopaths. But there are also a lot of people out there who are destructive who aren't that way 'naturally'.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Could I ask you for more specific information about this quote?

"And this rings very true with me - most of the problems with society aren't with the people who are successful in life, but with the people fallen off the bottom of the ladder."

Are you saying that most of society's problems are created by people at the bottom, or that they represent the population most affected by the problems of society?

"Because on the one hand I believe that people are responsible for their actions, while on the other hand I believe that we are all made by our surroundings."

Also, in this comment, what do you mean by 'actions'? If we're talking about homeless people, for example, are you saying that they're homeless through their own actions? Or are you referring to something else?

[andrewducker]

The people at the bottom cause the most day-to-day obvious problems. They're statistically more likely to engage in casual violence, theft, etc.

And they are also the most affected by it. Particularly when the crimes of the underclass against the underclass are the least likely to be reported and dealt with.

I don't consider "Being homeless" to be an action. It's a state, and it can come about for a variety of reasons.

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

When I read these words: Hoffer argues that when people are untalented, they tend to focus their energies "into the management, manipulation, and probably frustration of others. They want to police, instruct, guide, and meddle. ..." I think not of untalented people at the bottom of the ladder, but the evangelical christians and social conservatives who are making a mess of the United States. They're doing quite well, economically.

[broin.livejournal.com]

"And this rings very true with me - most of the problems with society aren't with the people who are successful in life, but with the people fallen off the bottom of the ladder."

What does the ladder have to do with talent? What does success have to do with talent? And most pertinently, if you're going to sort out problems like unsustainable living and climate change, it's the talented ones who make the CFCs/houses/disposables/cars/advertising.