I ascribe to the view that there are two kinds of extreme talent.

The first that comes to mind is the rarefied form of natural talent that allowed Mozart to compose the Overture from Don Giovanni intoxicated overnight - a casual, effortless sort of brilliance. These lucky few are superhuman improvisors, or extraordinary writers to whom it appears words flow from some higher power, or architects with an acute sense of figure and geometry.

Collectively, they go by the name “gifted.” It’s an interesting choice - gifted - as if they were born with that talent that makes them exceptional.

The other form of extreme talent is simply an exceptionality born of hours of relentless study and practice. But this sort of brilliance is one that we seem to blur with their more superhuman counterpart - one that we excuse as some latent manifestation of an innate gift. We avoid the idea that even those that have gained their skill by hard work may be just like us. No, we say, they must’ve taken some innate talent and fashioned it into what they currently are today. I could not have done what they did, we think.

The media often portrays the gifted as also having some kind of deficiency - some mental condition, or a tragically short life - but far and away these people are just like you and me - they live long, healthy, successful lives (though their success varies by magnitude, and not necessarily kind) - the only discernible difference being the heights to which they scale with the same effort that we do. (I suspect this portrayal is only to assure the mediocre that there comes a price for brilliance, so we don’t begrudge them their talent.)

We shouldn’t forget that natural talent exists in everyone, to varying extents, and there are few realt demarcations between those who appear superhuman and those who don’t. The only distinction is that some find their natural talent, and cultivate it, while others never do.