Why I Don't Use The Word 'Talented'
- lizipatch
- Mar 3
- 4 min read
Updated: Mar 4
Many years ago, my son was put in a Gifted and Talented group at school, I was meant to be happy about it. I wasn’t.
To me, the words gifted and talented need to go. 'You have a gift.' 'I could never be that talented. 'You either have talent or you don't' 'I wish I had their gift.'
But what if we simply swapped those words for the word 'skilled'?
'You have a skill', 'I could never be that skilled', 'I wish I had their skill'.
A gift or a talent suggests something outside your control. You’re given it, born with it, lucky, somehow one of the chosen ones - (chosen by who, exactly?) And it implies it came easily, as if the people we admire simply woke up able to do the thing. It skips past the hours, the failures, the boredom, the deciding to keep going anyway.
I’ve trained many young actors over the years, most arriving under-confident and worrying they just don't have enough 'talent'. And then, slowly - as we do the work - they surprise themselves. I’m rarely surprised to be honest. Learning to act isn’t magic. It’s interest and passion and paying attention. Being willing to look a bit daft is vital, (if you think playing is only for kids then you're never going to fulfil your potential as an actor, trust me!)... and really listening. Yes, the vocal and physical skills matter hugely, but a lot of the early work is just helping people get out of their own way. Basic improv skills are basic human skills (offer, accept and build!). That’s a bit of a mantra for me!
In fact, in my own teaching, I just don't use the word talented and I always explain why - I want my students to be free to focus on curiosity, effort and skill-building - because those are the things that actually make them capable and happy performers. And time and again, I see it work. If someone arrives assuming they have a great talent I know they are going to crash and burn. Like the actor who said they didn't need to come to the impro class as they had 'already mastered it'.... I suggested they came to show us all how it was done. I think you can guess how that went.
Time and again, I’ve watched young people who didn’t think they were 'naturally talented' grow into fantastic performers because they were curious and willing to work. That’s not a gift descending from the heavens. That’s just being in the room and practicing! That’s pretty much the only way to build skills.
And yet we still default to 'they’re so talented,' especially in sport and the performing arts. We don’t say that about a plumber fitting your heating. You might admire their precision, their calm competence, but you wouldn’t call them gifted. You’d say they’re good at what they do because they trained and learnt the skills. Somewhere along the way, we’ve decided that creative and sporting ability is mystical, while everything else is just work.
The 10,000 Hour Rule gets thrown around a lot - the idea that mastery takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice, popularised by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. It’s not perfect. We’re all built differently and circumstances matter. Opportunity and the quality of the hours you spend matter hugely. Also I’m not suggesting that if I trained for 10,000 hours I’d run like Usain Bolt, but I suspect I’d run as fast as I’m ever likely to, and maybe that’s the point - not that we all end up at the same place, but that we’re allowed to see how far we can go. Clichéd but true I think.
Which brings me back to school. When my son was given that label, I think whilst he was obviously chuffed to a degree, he also felt a pressure to live up to it. That’s when I first started to think about how the word is thrown about in actor training. It can suggest you have to be a certain way to succeed, rather than encouraging you to explore, practice and find what excites you.
Labels are tricky. Being picked out as clever isn’t always straightforward. As we all know children want to fit in - which is completely understandable! Being identified as 'gifted' by the teachers can mean being noticed in all the wrong ways by your peers. So they might stop putting their hand up so often or get an answer wrong on purpose etc. You know how it goes when fitting in matters more than standing out.
And all that energy spent managing perception instead of building what you’re actually interested in - it's such a waste.
I think what's at the heart of this for me is this: Instead of deciding early on who is gifted, who is talented, who was 'born to it', what if we just gave people space to discover what draws them in? What if the focus was less on identifying the exceptional and more on supporting the engaged, and - equally important - noticing those who aren't engaging and finding out why. (A big ask, I know, but it doesn't take much in my experience).
Most of us will spend a huge part of our lives working. Surely the aim is to find something we care enough about to want to get good at it. Something where we can grow, feel challenged and lets us contribute. Not because we’re trying to prove we deserved a label given at eleven, but because we’ve chosen it. And when you take away the pressure to excel, people often do anyway.
Also - what does 'excel' even mean? Better than who? Ahead of what? The only person you’re really in competition with is yourself. The version of you who tried last year/week/yesterday. The version who didn’t quite manage it the first time...
So yes, notice children. Notice adults. Notice sparks. Just be careful with the language.
Comments