Talent is everywhere: presuming competence and finding hidden ability

Schools and employers miss ability because the filter they use measures something other than ability. Four people in very different fields describe the same pattern: a proxy such as a label, a degree, speech or a passing grade stood in for the person, and changing the conditions revealed capacity the screen had hidden. The evidence is uneven, and one of the four cases is contested.

Neil Gershenfeld, who directs a center at MIT, built a network of about 2,500 fab labs in 125 countries. In rural villages, shantytowns and Arctic hamlets he finds the same inventive profile he sees at MIT. He says MIT's few thousand are not uniquely the brightest, and of their output, "It's just a productive environment for them". He does not know how large the hidden pool is, only that it is far bigger than we see today.

Ginni Rometty, who ran IBM, found the pattern by accident. She could not find cybersecurity talent, then came across a small school in a low-income area that IBM supported. At the time 99 percent of IBM's hires had college degrees. Her conclusion was "aptitude does not equal access". She now hires first for willingness to learn, and argues for building skills instead of buying them. She is not against degrees, only against using one as the only door.

Ky Dickens, a filmmaker, says non-speaking autistic people are assumed unable to think because they cannot talk, and that this is false. She describes many as having a mind-body disconnect and communicating by spelling on a letterboard. She also says a professional body calls spelling to communicate pseudoscience, after earlier cases in which false allegations were attributed to facilitators guiding hands. Larger claims she reports from families, such as telepathy, are not demonstrated and are not part of this point.

Joe Liemandt, the principal of Alpha School, says a century of classrooms delivered access without learning, because children need individualized instruction. A passing grade of 80 percent moves a child on with gaps that compound. He says schools should be judged on the rate of learning, and that adults should remove blocks like a child believing they are not a math person. His figures are his school's own, with independent trials still to come.

They agree that the screen measures a proxy and that the remedy is to change the conditions and look again. They disagree on whether credentials are the problem, whether to presume or measure, what motivates people, whether existing institutions can do it, and how big the hidden pool is. None offers a controlled comparison.

What to do with it: if you hire, check what share of hires hold a given credential and who that excludes. Interview for curiosity. Look in places you have not looked. Before deciding someone lacks talent, look for a missing fundamental. Judge by growth rate, not starting level. Give people tools and the chance to fail before ranking them. Do not conclude that someone who cannot speak cannot think, but families deciding on a communication method should involve a qualified speech and communication professional and check current guidance. Notice when you screen yourself out.