There’s a difference between being untalented at something and being chronologically behind. If you’re worse than your peers at something, you might not have less of a capability for it — you might have had a late start. No matter what your subject or specialty, there are probably people your age at Stanford who have been doing it longer or more intensely than you.

We have world-class musicians and Olympic athletes, not to mention some of the country’s best technical students. While these others can be an inspiration, they also can cause discouragement — I assert, often unnecessarily.

Say you had only minimal training in Spanish, piano or swimming. It wouldn’t make sense to decide you were bad at those things just because you had less practice than others your age.

Yet many people (including myself) sometimes use this reasoning with math, computer science and other technical subjects. For some reason, success in these areas is often attributed to innate ability rather than good old-fashioned practice.

And while most people who are precocious in these fields probably have natural potential, the inverse isn’t necessarily true. One of my professors played college basketball and only later turned his focus to his field. Another professor was a professional magician. I hope people won’t give up on certain subjects because they haven’t had the opportunities of other students. I’d say this:

1) Precocity isn’t the same as long-term potential. If you aren’t advanced for your age, don’t worry.

2) If you happen to be advanced at something, don’t feel obligated to pursue it instead of things you like more.

3) If you’re behind your peers at something, don’t rule it out as something to study — just catch up.

4) Ask yourself what you’d study if you were smart enough to do anything, and then study that subject.

5) Seek challenge instead of avoiding it.

Andrea Runyan has a tree outside her window. Her e-mail address is arunyan@stanford.edu.