Many people always confused the relationship between the two. Many believed ability and talent were actually the same thing, but in psychology, their main distinction lay in mental drive and needs.
If you used your ability to accomplish something, that meant you had the ability to do it. If you used your ability to accomplish something perfectly, even far beyond the expected standard, that meant you were highly capable in that area.
If you were passionate about something, able to focus on it for long periods, unwilling to follow the crowd, capable of innovation, and able to achieve results within a given time that were both different from and better than those of others—and were deeply encouraged by it—then you had talent in that area.
If your boss told you to do something, and you did it and finished it, then you had the ability to complete that job. If you did it fairly well, then your ability was relatively strong.
But the driving force was the boss's assignment, and the reward might have been wages or praise from the boss. Whether it was the drive or the reward, both were indirect and external.
But if you did something simply because you wanted to, thought it through and completed it, felt exceptionally satisfied during the process, found spiritual comfort and emotional relaxation, and also achieved quite impressive results, then you had talent in that area.
Whether it was the idea driving you to complete the task or the reward that brought you spiritual pleasure, both were direct and internal.
Ability was more like a tool for interacting with the outside world and society, while talent was more like a system that anchored the value of one's own existence.
Ability was usually a one-off transaction. You might be capable of studying