Talent and Ability Compared and Contrasted, Essay Example

The initial and primary factor evident in any comparison or contrast between talent and ability lies in that the words are typically viewed as synonymous. The person with the “talent” for sketching will frequently be referred to as the person with a genuine”’ability” to sketch, as an opposite assessment often applies. The words themselves, therefore, must be more properly defined before any meaningful comparison can be made.

Ultimately, “talent” refers more to an inherent ability, a skill or creative gift that is within the person and may or may not be developed further. Interestingly, talent tends to reflect more of this truer meaning when it is used as an adjective; the person referred to as “talented” in music is more automatically perceived as “gifted”. The implication is clear, that the individual possesses an innate inclination and superiority in that specific arena. It is felt that they are born with it, and are obligated to hone the gift.

Yet what ordinarily confuses “talent” and “ability” is also the limit set upon the very definition of “talent”. While esteemed, talent as such is acknowledged as a lesser quality than genius. There is a workmanlike association with talent, as there is with ability. It manifests a certain, often inexpressible, facility, but it is not in any way daunting, as genius is. It is merely regarded as an inborn skill, a natural power which should be fostered and trained. Because of this workmanlike aspect, “talent” is commonly applied to matters ranging from piano playing to social interactions. A person is appreciated for a talent for engaging in debate, or even getting into trouble, as much as for a skill in drawing.

“Ability” is the far more prosaic of the terms, when real analysis is made. Anyone at all can have an ability because it is a thing which can be trained or taught. It requires no foundation of an inherent talent, or even a predisposition to the thing itself, for someone ignorant of the ways of business can evince a true ability for it after experience and education are applied. Moreover, given this less creative and intrinsic aspect, ability is as well more often associated with physical endeavors. This underscores how practicality is associated so extensively in our common usage of “ability”. Basically, it’s what any person can achieve, even to minimal effect, through an intention to achieve it. It is the skill that is adopted, rather than naturally occurring.

This said, it is important to refer back to that interchangeable quality of the terms, for “ability” is still employed in situations where “talent” may be more exact. This is not, however, that ordinary an error, if error it may even be called. To the average mind, the distinction between the words is actually made manifest when the two are to be considered in regard to a situation or person. People automatically take in other, not necessarily tangible, considerations when a case presents itself where a skill is evaluated, and the skill that appears to be more naturally driven and more inextricably tied to the identity of the person in question is the “talent”.

Ordinary issues of synonymous factors aside, ultimately “talent” and “ability” are separated by that gulf of intent and inborn skill. The former almost always commands more respect, as both a capable and innate quality; the latter is acknowledged as getting the job done through an application of will and learned skills. While nowhere as esteemed as genius, talent is typically not a thing everyone possesses. Ability, on the other hand, is the truly democratic force. It is available to all who wish to attain it, in any field, and is restricted only by those factors which fuel talent: desire, creativity, and an intrinsic quality.