Often, the words “skilled,” “talented,” and “gifted” are used as interchangeable compliments, and while they can be compliments, they can never be interchangeable.
For clarity’s sake, here’s a reductionist definition of each word in question. Skill is being capable at something after spending a lot of effort. Talent is being capable at something after spending a small amount of effort. Gifted is being capable at something without spending any effort.
With these definitions provided we can easily see that skill, talent, and giftedness all equally attribute capability—but unequally attribute effort. And the difference in effort-attribution is precisely where things become contentious. Flippantly attributing to talent or giftedness what should rightly be attributed to skill is an assumptious insult. Assuming that someone is capable at something thanks to means outside of their control or by divine ordination completely removes the person being “complimented” from the equation. On the other hand, obliviously attributing someone’s giftedness or talent or skill, minimizes the rarity of being gifted or talented and the grit required to become skilled. In essence, ignorance in regard to effort-attribution either bestows a grossly undeserved title or revokes one that has been earned with blood, sweat, tears, or simply luck of the draw.
Understating the differences between being skilled, talented, or gifted helps us realize that skill is a status that anyone can strive for. Which means, talented or gifted people can become skilled, but not every skilled people was ever talented or gifted. This new sense of awareness helps us simultaneously develop our sense of empathy, and more accurately say what we mean, and mean what we say.