The point I was trying to make is that there is no widespread innate aptitude that makes you magically produce amazing programs when you touch a keyboard for the first time, and anyone who does not have that innate aptitude is bound to write shitty web apps for the rest of his life. You look at people doing something that they're very good at and it seems easy, it looks almost like they have an instinct for it. It seems like they're born with it, but most of them aren't.

It seems that a lot of "talent" can be attributed to somewhat random preferences, especially in childhood.

You described your friend's childhood drawings as "a little less "hurried", as she obviously loved doing it and spent more time on a drawing", and I think this is the key. She liked drawing as a kid, which made her draw more than her peers, she got better at it and because people generally like doing things the more the better they're at them, a positive feedback loop started.

It also suggests a practical approach to get good at something: sit down, practice, and ignore the discomfort you'll be feeling at the beginning. Many people considered talented simply didn't have that initial discomfort, so they drifted into a skill early, whereas for non-talented it is a barrier to entry.

I've seen the opposite end of the spectrum, too, though, which is why I don't think talent is only a lot of practice, I just think that you can be very good at something without being one of those "really talented" people.

I have another acquaintance who's a musician (an actual musician, unlike me -- I'm just a programmer who likes playing the drums). The guy obviously had a lot of practice, especially as he graduated a famous music academy so he had to play the violin a lot.

That being said, he started taking violin lessons when he was 6, but by that time he could play it pretty well. Having realized that he can't remember the songs he was inventing, he even developed his own rudimentary notation system (when he was about four), with horizontal lines whose length indicated direction and a combination of dots and relative heights to indicate pitch relative to the first note of the song, so that he only had to remember where to start from. His violin technique was also remarkably good. When he started giving violin lessons himself, he struggled with understanding the first gripes of beginners a lot more than he'd expected. For instance, he never realized it takes so long to learn how to properly angle the bow when playing the second and third string of the violin (they're at almost equal height with respect to the base of the resonance box, so most beginners will unintentionally stroke both at the same time). Not only did he not remember having that problem, he literally never really imagined that someone could have that problem.

He's one of those people who does have an innate talent; there are a lot of techniques that he never learned, nor really "discovered" through an iterative process, he just figured out it would sound good if he did <something>, and it did. His brain was wired in a manner that's favourable to playing the violin and to music in general.

Needless to say, he still had to practice a lot -- he had to learn "proper" notation, he's constantly refining his rhythm and coordination, he had to learn how to play in an orchestra, and it's not like he could play any piece, no matter how difficult, from the very beginning. But there were things which his mind and his body could do without being taught, or which, at least, they discovered a lot more quickly than others did. They weren't enough to make him an orchestra-level musician from the moment he set his tiny three year-old hand on a violin, but they are certainly enough to set him apart from a lot of musicians of his age and experience.

People that excel in something are far less than the ones we perceive as such. Most of these 'talented' people have only above average skills, a big dosis of charisma, ability of selling and a bit of luck.