Talent Is Overrated

In Talent Is Overrated, business journalist Geoff Colvin challenges one of the most deeply held beliefs about success: the idea that extraordinary performance is the result of rare, inborn talent. Society loves this explanation because it feels neat and comforting. It tells us why greatness is uncommon, why it appears early in some people, and why it sometimes seems to run in families. If excellence is something you’re born with, then most of us can stop worrying about why we aren’t exceptional—because we never had a chance to be.

Colvin dismantles this story. Drawing on decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and performance science, he argues that what separates world-class performers from everyone else is not talent, but training—specifically, a highly structured and mentally demanding form of training known as deliberate practice. According to Colvin, believing in talent doesn’t just misrepresent reality; it actively holds people back. When individuals assume their limits are fixed, they stop pushing themselves. When they believe improvement is possible, they’re far more likely to do the difficult, uncomfortable work required to achieve excellence.

This book reframes success as something fundamentally controllable. Excellence becomes less about luck and more about long-term commitment, focus, and the willingness to repeatedly confront one’s weaknesses. While Colvin acknowledges that biology and circumstance matter, he insists they matter far less than most people think—and far less than the hours of purposeful effort that elite performers consistently invest.

The Myth of Talent and Why It Persists

The belief in natural talent is powerful because it explains both rarity and inequality in performance. If only a few people are born with the right abilities, then it makes sense that only a few reach the top. This belief is reinforced whenever a child prodigy appears or when an elite athlete’s offspring shows promise early in life. Talent appears hereditary, visible, and decisive.

Colvin argues that this interpretation is misleading. When researchers examine the developmental histories of high achievers—musicians, athletes, chess grandmasters, surgeons, or executives—they find remarkably consistent patterns. These individuals almost always undergo years of intense, structured training before reaching exceptional levels. Early signs of brilliance, when they appear at all, are usually the result of early exposure, parental involvement, or structured coaching—not mysterious innate gifts.

The talent narrative also survives because it protects egos. If excellence depends on something you don’t have, then failure isn’t your fault. But Colvin insists this belief comes at a cost. It discourages effort, undermines persistence, and creates a psychological ceiling. People stop striving not because they lack ability, but because they believe striving won’t matter.

By contrast, when people adopt a training-based explanation for excellence, their behavior changes. They become more willing to practice, more resilient in the face of failure, and more committed over the long term. In Colvin’s view, mindset doesn’t just influence motivation—it directly affects outcomes.

Evidence Against Innate Excellence

Colvin devotes significant attention to the research record, noting that clear scientific evidence for innate, domain-specific talent is surprisingly weak. Studies across fields consistently show that performance differences are best explained by differences ...