A friend of mine and I were arguing that a person is likely to be successful in what he knows how to do best than what he was taught to do. What do you all think about it?

Whichever is more marketable or is in higher demand, at a given time or place i.e. no fixed rule.

Yes I agree. But usually, d 1 dat is more lucrative is 1 u lent. Ur talent usually paves way 4 u but might not bring in much money. I think it is wat u lyk dat u shld do.

1. Medicine might be more lucrative, but not everyone might get the chance to study it.

2. Should the supply of doctors surpass the demand, then some doctors might find themselves making more money as wedding planners or artistes.

3. If we assume that everyone gets to study an indemand marketable course, their success therein will be a function of supply with time and place.

4. Depending on the market and economic forces above, versatile people are wont to migrate or adapt by supplementing profession with talent, should both be (marketable) skills.

The talent is far better because you do some thing with love and ease whereas something thing you are trained to do at time you may have no interest but trained in it and this will affect performance.

Neither of the two is enough. It's a combination of these three:

1. What you want to do, or what you are advised or told to do,

2. Knowing how to do that thing,

3 The 'why to do', or your attitude.

Essentially it's a combination of knowing what to do, how to do, and 'why' to do. Knowledge, skill, and attitude.

^ very true that, but where does talent fit?

Unless you are of the opinion that skill (what you were told to do, and know how to do) supercedes talent (what you were born able to do).

I feel that an alignment of your 1 and 2, which the op also supports, will pave way for 3, and lead to job satisfaction, as seen in the likes of Fela, Soyinka, Loco et al, but not necessarily economic or financial success and job fulfilment, unless the skill in question is a viable one.

The ultimate mix seems to be knowing what, how and why to do something that is viable, marketable and indemand. Abi?

yamakuza:

^ very true that, but where does talent fit?

Unless you are of the opinion that skill (what you were told to do, and know how to do) supercedes talent (what you were born able to do).

I feel that an alignment of your 1 and 2, which the op also supports, will pave way for 3, and lead to job satisfaction, as seen in the likes of Fela, Soyinka, Loco et al, but not necessarily economic or financial success and job fulfilment, unless the skill in question is a viable one.

The ultimate mix seems to be knowing what, how and why to do something that is viable, marketable and indemand. Abi?

Talent is overrated.
Skill is more likely to bring in the rewards. Would you say Jobs had any particular 'talents'?

AjanleKoko:

Talent is overrated.

Maybe.

The talent might not be a marketable skill

Skill is more likely to bring in the rewards.

True, when one acquires a marketable skill.

Would you say Jobs had any particular 'talents'?

Yes.

According to Google, Jobs was a skilled talented designer, engineer, entrepreneur and innovator.

[s]I also assume he was A Talented Mathematician or computer programmer[/s]

Interestingly, talent is defined as skill one is born with, so i guess all talented people have skills but not all skilled people have talent in that skill.

I think i see where talent fits in now. Its synonymous with skill.