Talent

Nature of talent and quality

• Commenters broadly agree that natural talent exists, citing obvious physical examples (e.g., height in basketball) and rare cognitive abilities.
• Debate on quality vs quantity: some argue you can directly control quality by effort and attention; others say you mostly control quantity (iterations), which gradually raises an underlying “quality ceiling.”
• Several note that comparisons between prodigies and ordinary people can be misleading because circumstances and internal drives differ in non-obvious ways.

Interest, obsession, and exposure

• Many emphasize that deep interest or obsession often matters as much as, or more than, innate aptitude. People describe struggling for years in difficult fields and eventually being perceived as “talented.”
• Best case is when natural talent and obsessive interest align; that creates an “unfair advantage.”
• It’s hard to distinguish talent from early exposure and good resources. Access to libraries, parental guidance, or a rich “smörgåsbord” of activities can look like innate aptitude.
• Others push back that true talent can still shine even with poor resources, but concede exposure makes discovery easier.

Motivation, dopamine, and suffering

• Several tie “talent” to how one’s brain gets dopamine: if your reward system lights up for math, code, or writing, you’ll practice more and get better.
• Obsession is repeatedly framed as the decisive multiplier; interest increases focus, persistence, and willingness to learn adjacent skills.
• One view: people who are “pulled” toward an activity to escape suffering or find meaning will often outrun those merely “pushing” themselves.

Amphetamines, productivity, and mental health

• Strong disagreement over the article’s positive framing of amphetamine use.
• Some see low-dose stimulants as legitimate treatment that unlocks existing talent (e.g., ADHD), not mere “drug-fueled genius.”
• Others object that glamorizing stimulants is dangerous and that a single anecdote is weak evidence against broader harms.

Luck, free will, and power-law outcomes

• Multiple comments stress luck and path-dependence: who you meet, what you’re exposed to, and chaotic social dynamics (especially in entertainment and academia) heavily shape outcomes.
• Advice: avoid winner-take-all fields unless you’re exceptional and lucky; remember that internet-scale competition distorts expectations compared to being “best in your town.”
• One deterministic stance sees everything as luck, which for that commenter reduces anxiety and comparison while not eliminating the felt sense of agency.

Evaluating the essay and broader takeaways

• Some praise the piece’s core message: sweat over strengths, not weaknesses; choose work where aptitude and interest overlap.
• Others criticize it as self-indulgent, insufficiently nuanced about poverty, mental illness, and structural factors, or colored by the author’s employer.
• Practical hiring lens: if forced to choose, several would optimize for drive and genuine interest, since those traits frequently masquerade as “talent” over time.