It is very possible to be talented at something that takes real time to hone and master. The problem is when someone makes the excuse that they are not good at something. However, the fact remains that most of the mistakes people make are a result of  thinking wrong. It's easy to learn something new, but to be an expert on it you have to work hard and sharpen your skills. The lesson is usually more difficult when new knowledge must be learned on the fly. What this means is that it's very tempting to overlook or reject knowledge that's difficult to grasp.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/sites/default/files/guide/guide-image/2014/09/chopping-veg.jpg
[](https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/sites/default/files/guide/guide-image/2014/09/chopping-veg.jpg)

This often leads to people trying to avoid that hard work by being bad at everything. This means saying the wrong things or over-analyzing the situation, an avenue that most people do not consider. While the general example of someone just not being good at something does exist, there are still situations when we all need to be good at something. Most people have "weaknesses." If we are not expert at something, that can hurt our efforts.

let's think of how anyone could be bad at a specific skill. If I could have described the person I'd have thought that they were a good musician, but not bad at it. But by the same token, some people have excellent musical skills but poor manual skills. I'm not talking about saying people are clumsy or that they can't pick up an electric guitar or other complicated music instruments. In fact, people who are poorly educated are frequently very good at those things. And yet, they can't play chess because they have not given time to it. To be good at something you have to give it proper time, you have to learn it more and improve in it.

https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/t_l1/nbcvksrbmgku2eljfun7.jpg
[](https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/t_l1/nbcvksrbmgku2eljfun7.jpg)

Some skills (such as cooking) are particularly well-suited to memorization; other skills are considerably better suited to practicing every day in general. Since we do not control the length of practice, we cannot say that anything is "unnatural" in the eyes of the practice researcher. However, we certainly can demonstrate what the real outcome of various modes of practice is in each case. Athletes  which are gifted with skills but they have to work very hard to compete in their fields, they have to take care of their food, sleep, workout everything to hone their skill.

 I'm pretty sure most people would be much better off simply learning how to play piano instead of wishing they were good at it. The second problem is that it feels like certain skills, even though they are necessary to complete a given action, are not just the result of good training but "better" training. It's like someone who is so much better than their peers in mathematics or at other mathematical abilities is somehow the natural form of mathematics.