It is sort of like the "story-problem" wall that divides good mathematicians from auditing clerks. Some people are very good with numbers, but have a hard time putting a real world problem into a mathematical equation.

So when someone gets to the point, where they can produce excellent models, AND can write excellent technical code to implement the model.... you have a talented individual. (Of course he may not be able to tie his own shoe's. :-) ).

I think you will see more "talented teams" than talented individuals, because there probably is a left-right brain symmetry thing going on here, and normally an individual will not excel at both.

Of course chemistry can help...... get high and do some ingeneous modelling, and the next day, drink coffee and code. :-)

Of course he may not be able to tie his own shoe's

Or use apostrophes correctly. *ducks*

Seriously, though, that's an excellent point in any field: the truly great at something often tend to have a form of hyper-focus that seems to preclude them from acquiring skills seen as non-essential to their chosen focus. I think that's where the stereotype of the "socially-inept geek" comes from; many geeks are so focused on improving skills within their geekdom that social skills are neglected as "unimportant".

I figure that's why it's so rare for really tallented developers and the like to make it into management.

<-radiant.matrix->
A collection of thoughts and links from the minds of geeks
The Code that can be seen is not the true Code
I haven't found a problem yet that can't be solved by a well-placed trebuchet

Not that I am disagreeing with the basic point, but the phrase "make it into management" pre-supposes that their goal is to do so. There is an assumption I've noticed among the 'corporate ladder' minded people to assume that everyone should want to become managers. If you aren't interested in being 'promoted' to manager you lack drive or ambition.

It defines 'success' as 'being a manager'.

I define 'success' as being the best at what I do while doing the job I am most happy doing and earning enough to make a reasonable living.

Yeah, I was thinking about the best "hyper-view" advice I've ever seen, and I've solved countless problems with it.

It was back when I was studying physics and the common encountered duality problem, like the wave-particle duality. Anyways, some great physicist( probably Feynman or Einstein) was asked a question, that given 2 opposing, yet equally valid theories, which one was correct. He replied 'both'. His point being that when you encounter such inconsistencies, it almost always means that you are overlooking a solution, that allows both views to be considered correct. It reminds me of the recent XY-problem node.

The best physics solution(in my limited experience) which incorporated this, and I still boggle my mind when I contemplate it, is the D'Alembertian (my spelling my be off ). It's a 4-dimensional equation which represents all 4 of Maxwell's equations in a single 4-dimensional operator statement, of the form 'del'(phi)= theta. IIRC

The jist of the whole thing is that we are commonly taught that the electric and magnetic are different entities. But the equation shows that they are the same stuff, just viewed from a different space-time perspective. Thinking about it is about all I need to start drifting off into never-never land. :-)

---

I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. flash japh

While I have some level of skill with Perl, I don't have the talent of someone like merlyn, TheDamian, or Ingy döt net.

Talent is something that you have innately and you don't really need to be taught (although learning and experience can enhance it). Skill is something you can acquire with enough hard-work, patience, and bruises even if you don't have talent (just look at me :)

That's not to say that talented coders are that skilled either. They might have the goods without knowing how to use them, so they lack skil and judgement.

In the artistic world, the "talent" are the people whose name appear "above the line", meaning in the programs and on the posters and so on. In the opera world, my wife is "talent", gets her own dressing room, signs autographs, and so on, but she's backed by tens of skilled people holding union cards, tools, wireless headsets, and so on so the show goes on as it should. They have amazing skills in their area, but they aren't considered "talent", even if they are a natural with a chisel and a piece of wood. :)

The Perl community is similar. We have are "talent", but there are a lot of skilled people ensuring that they get to do what they do. For instance, Stonehenge wouldn't be the big deal it is without the fine people at O'Reilly publishing our books. It's not just that they publish them, but the editorial feedback, marketing efforts, and community involvement make the books (and our benefit from them) so much better. Randal is "talent", but a lot of skilled people are behind that.

I don't agree that talent is innate and doesn't need to be taught. Talent without learning and experience exists in a void context. Nobody is ever going to see it if nothing is done with it.

Hmm ... on closer reading, maybe I don't so much disagree with you as have a strong issue with the word "talent" and the way it gets abused in common conversations. Too many people immediately throw their hands up in the air when trying something new, and blame it on their lack of this mysterious "talent" thingy. "Oh, it's hopeless. I'll never draw / program / knit / brush my own teeth. I just don't have the talent for it."

I have little or no talent in anything, but that has done nothing more than present me with a challenge. If I want to do something, then I'm damn well going to learn how to do it. That may mean spending countless frustrated hours tracking down stray pointers in C, drawing female figures that look vaguely like horses in drag, messing up contexts in Perl, or miscounting when to knit and when to purl. I'm going to learn it, and I'm going to revel in the smug satisfaction of having learned it as my skills progress.

Of course, this approach may not get me the above-the-line "talent" status, but I'm okay with that :)

"Radio personality" is like anything- a combination of your own personality and the skill you develop, which presents as your style. I think it's quite like most activities, including programming. Some people have the capacity to handle the technical aspects, but their code is nothing you'd want to spend time trying to understand. Some people are great at documenting their code, but they never bother doing much of interest...

From my experience as a DJ (currently @ WESU, Middletown), a lot of the skills are acquirable- feeling comfortable on mic, controlling your quality ("ummm", "uhh", etc), knowing how to segue, and all the technical operations using the equipment. It takes dedication to learn them, but no atypical capacity for learning is required.

However, some people just have more listenable voices, or a quality of speaking that's more appealing to listen to. There's a subjective element provided by the listener / user that will vary from case to case.

Talent is the ineffable quality that cannot be classified as the mere cumulative result of hours and hours of practice.

This sounds in contradiction with the word from Edison "Genius is 10% inspiration, 90% transpiration". I've found actually that the most talented people I know are those who are able to focus extremely tightly on their work : being able to spend 8 hours a day for two months working on the same 5 minutes piano sonata isn't given to everyone, especially not to me :) and that does a hell of a difference.