Thankfully, all of the various performances are finished for the year after tonight's school Christmas party. I like seeing Smallsteps perform, but other than that, I don't get much out of them as they are in Finnish. Still, it is fun to see the various kids try their hand at "acting" on stage, which is always painful. It reminded me of the time I was on stage at around seven or eight years of age, playing Rudolph in the school play. My home teacher was also the school drama teacher, and the play was complex for our age group, but I think we did a pretty good job.
From the memory of a seven year old.
I am not a performer.
I don't like the spotlight. I don't even like the areas partially lit in the background. If I had my way, I would just be in the eternal darkness. Unfortunately though, that is rarely the best place to be. Instead, I have to often "pretend" to be more sociable than I am, and be in front of people. As I was saying to a good friend the other day, I have my "trainer personality" that I put on when in front of a group.
We were talking about another mutual friend of ours and an ex-colleague of mine and one he still works with. While this person has to be in front of customers often for their work, they are awkward and strange, with various communication quirks that get in the way of clarity. It isn't an endearing presentation, it is hinderance, not help. It makes me wonder if they are in the right role, as if they aren't willing (or able) to shift their style to suit the needs of the role, perhaps they are better suited elsewhere. Of course, it is very possible for this person to learn how to communicate more clearly with the target audience, but it doesn't mean it is natural.
Why do we put so much weight on natural ability?
Natural ability is great and it is brilliant if it is there as a foundation in a particular skill area oof interest, but putting so much weight on it also means that people feel that they don't have to learn how to be great at something. For instance, while a person may have a natural talent for music, no one has a natural talent to play an instrument. There was no one a thousand years ago that was a natural piano player, considering the piano was only invented 400 years ago. All that kind of skill is learned, even if someone might have some physical benefits to play over others.
When it comes to communication, most of us naturally change our behaviour based on who we are talking to, because most of us have some kind of natural social understanding that automatically shifts the way we speak to a five year old, from a fifty year old. However, I know a few people who talk to five year olds like they are fifty. Suffice to say, it is poor communication.
But anyone can learn to be a great communicator.
At least, anyone can vastly improve if they currently suck. Even people who are introverted. Even people who have autistic tendencies. Even people who hate other people. Because communication is just a set of signals and patterns, where one signal indicates which pattern should be played. For the greatest communicators, they might have a wide range and highly refined set of trigger signals and pattern playbacks, but everyone can improve what is in their own toolbox.
Over the years I have helped many "unnatural" communicators, improve their communication abilities, but it requires a certain amount of acting. But it isn't lying, nor is it being someone else they are not, it is rather using sides of themselves that are less visible, less utilised, and therefore, more uncomfortable to show. Maybe inside each of us is the potential for an academy award winning performance, but most of us will never get over the discomfort of behaving in ways that are not "natural" to us. With natural being, what we are used to doing.
Before any person first sang a note, there must have been natural singers that never utilised their skills. Similarly, there must have been people who had the ear for music before music was ever performed. The hardware was there, but the opportunity was not.
Talent dies on the vine if it is not used.
But talent will only get any person so far, before they hit the ceiling of talented potential, without work. Percentage wise, there are probably just as many talented people as there ever was, but if we aren't applying and trying, failing and approving, our talent is latent talent.
Undiscovered greatness?
We all have excuses for why we aren't good at this or that, and stories of the times we have tried and failed, proving our case. But I suspect a lot of our stories and arguments are just excuses, where we couldn't push through to overcome the feeling of discomfort we all get from the unfamiliar.
For me, even the familiar is uncomfortable, which tends to make me feel pretty downcast about life in general. But perhaps I should look at it in a different way and say, since I am already uncomfortable, I might as well try something different.
The potential is there.
The performance is lacking.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
Certainly it is possible to improve anyone and any skill, but I think people do tend to have natural talents and by the time they are adults they develop certain skills more than others so it is best to focus on natural strengths than weaknesses. Play to strength so to speak.
If something is a glaring weakness it should definitely be addressed to at least grab the low hanging fruit of the possible improvement. But if I am better at technical stuff it really makes sense to focus on the technical career path of going towards a technology architect versus a manager... As I moved up to the Architect certain people skills definitely had to be improved and I am still focusing on those, but switching over to the management path just doesn't make sense and people skills are not my natural strength...
The problem is when the roles in for instance a company have changed a lot over the last decade or two, so it means that each role has a cluster of important skills needed, that might not be present in anyone. Most people would need to improve themselves in the weaker areas, to at least get a passing grade.
For you that makes sense. But for the people (like the person I mentioned) who has a customer-facing role, they have to be good enough at it, or move on and let someone else who is, because the cost to not do well is too high. People (like my friend) have to rely on the person to do well, but if they are underperforming, it costs my friend commission.
That makes sense. I am glad that all of my customers are internal and there is a limited number of them so that I can adjust to each one of them and tailor my approach over time while also building relationships with them, when you are truly customer facing that is way more challenging...
The way you are doing it is the way I like to. I prefer to work with people over a longer period of time so we can better tailor to the individual or small group. Still, I don't mind direct customer work also, but I was better at it pre-stroke.
something my old dance teacher said to me a long time ago, she said... "when i have kids come into my studio and they are "amazing" naturally talented, flexible, charasmatic, good neat technique, front row and ace exams. Im always cautious, these kids often don't become career dancers. They don't join the ballet company. Its the kids that are 2-4th in the class. the ones that LEARNT TO WORK, learnt to push, were happy (or not) being just behind the best. They learnt the techniques of hard work. THEY are the dancers in my class i keep an eye on. THOSE are the kids the make it in this world. Makes sense...
As soon as the naturally tallented kids stop being the best without working hard, they either buck up and learn the skill to become the best again, or they simply leave the studio because they are no longer the top cheese.
does smallsteps like performing?
anyway, have a great day.
blingit
The dance teacher had good insight. Talent has a ceiling, hard work doesn't. There are plenty of sports stories of the less-talented becoming the most skilled.
She loves performing, but hates the attention.
she did,
well hopefully she finds her Zen skills then and finds something that makes her happy. Mine love performing. rolls eyes at the diva children
I don't know, I feel like I would be being fake if I were to suddenly be good at speaking in public. Though my wife says I do fine at it, it's a struggle for me. Like panic attack nauseous and shaking. Plus, I don't have much of a filter once I get rambling, so who knows what will come out of my mouth.
Isn't it funny? We tie our identity to the things we are bad at too. It can stop us from improving.
We should do a podcast together!!!
Oh gosh. I don't like the way my voice sounds. I think that would be quite embarrassing. I'd probably end up getting cancelled for something I said.
I hate my voice too, but some people have said they like it. Weird!
Do you have an accent? I bet that's it! Everyone loves accents.
In my opinion, not belittling yours, I think excellent musical instrument players or most of them are born with the ability. The reason they have to learn how to handle musical instruments is because it requires muscle memory. And once that clicks, everything goes on smoothly from there.
It's the same for all neuromotor activities. The "neural" aspect is already embedded in the mind, it's the "motor" aspect we have to practice on to become competent performers of that action.
That's why people can practice on an instrument and one group will perform excellently and the others barely average, even though they practice the same amount of time and with the same level of intensity. Or one group can learn the "motor" aspect and sound considerably competent on that instrument, but when somebody with a real talent for that instrument comes along you'd notice how average the first person is.
They are born with the potential to be great, but the most talented don't become the greatest players usually. The ones who have some talent, but work hard do. Some people are also physically capable, but don't practice. Some are much less so and do, and they will outperform. Some ability is usually needed to begin with, as it provides some encouragement to be interested.
The thing is though, the talented often underperform, because they don't practice enough. They think their talent gets them through.
Ooh, I will add an example of not practicing enough. A few of my friends here in Finland are dual mothertongue, English-Finnish speakers. Most of them struggled with English grades at school, some almost failing, because they didn't learn the grammar of English because they didn't need to study it to get the right answer. The Finnish speakers nearly always outperformed them, because they were forced to actually learn the language. It is something I am trying to help my daughter with, as she has started learning English at school this year, and it is obviously not a challenge for her in anyway.
I have been through a handful of the so called "effective commucication" classes at some point in time. Not to say I did not take away something from them. My challenge is that until I warm up to someone, and get to know them, I usually have a hard time communicating effectively with them. Especially now that I do not think and process as quickly during conversations. Picking up on the unspoken body movements, the twitch of the eye, the impatient ttapping in the fingers. I just don't catch those things as quickly anymore. It is something that requires practice, and I am well out of it. Which really sucks for someone getting into the coaching arena.
I completely feel this. My attention doesn't allow for it, as it is too busy trying to hold a thought together!
Yes. Yes it is. However, at the same time it can be used as an example for learning. Everyone can overcome some of their challenges, or better prepare for them.
This, so this.
As far as learning, that is what I am continously trying to do. Always trying to get better. Learning from watching others, reading, whatever.
I like how this challenges the obsession with natural talent. Most skills only look effortless because we don’t see the practice and discomfort behind them. Talent without use really does just sit there and fade, keyword here is fade, and that is why i believe sometimes as adults we reflect back on how we used to be real good at something when we were younger but as we get older and do less of that thing, the talent sort of just fades.
I think this is part of the problem with the modern view of skills - we only see the end result.
That fade can be a slow process, but when we realise it is gone, it feels very sudden. I lose several of my core skills in an instant, and it is not pleasant experience to know they are gone.
It also depends upon the area of interest...i have seen a kid with natural art talent. She is good at drawing and painting without any formal training...she developed of her own....later she developed interest in photography, and really did well than an average person...then she turns into videogrsphy...all of her own. What I noticed is that as she develop a new interest. She leave the other behind. She still needs to find her real Passion I guess.
The performances of children on different stages are really eye-catching and captivating. When our students perform different performances, they really impress me and also remind me of my childhood. Humans are naturally dependent on natural things as you said. Especially I believe that in the case of voice, we are naturally dependent. Although we can master it to some extent through repeated practice. We also have to accept that practice makes us perfect people.
Mamy people think that being a good communicator is something you have had since born, but I think it is actually more about practicing and being flexible.