6 ms·
sure, they're talented. but, please, don't discount the effort euan has put into his current state of mastery.
by lemper 3y ago
sure, they're talented. but, please, don't discount the effort euan has put into his current state of mastery.
- hk__2 3y agoTalent doesn’t exist, it’s only the result of the effort you put into mastering a thing.
- cjdell 3y agoDon't confuse talent with skill. Incredible work like this definitely requires both.
- joenot443 3y agoTalent certainly exists. To pretend it doesn’t is to reject reality.
- solardev 3y agoOne can be quite talented at rejecting reality
- ryandrake 3y agoI'm not really convinced. What is the mechanism by which "talent" functions? Can we observe and/or test for "talent" without observing the task the subject is claimed to be talented at? Or do you have to observe the subject performing the task exceptionally well, and then conclude "it must be talent". Sounds like mysticism like Chakras and Chi Energy to me. Genetics is different: You're 6'7" tall, giving you a physical advantage at basketball. When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages?
- solardev 3y agoWhy do you find it easy to believe in genetic advantages for basketball, but not other activities? It would be strange if other talent did NOT have a genetic (and maybe hormonal, etc.) component, wouldn't it, when most everything from intelligence to obesity can be inherited? Exceptional aptitude only makes sense measured against the median performance. So yes, of course you'd observe or otherwise measure the subject somehow. But from there, if you come up with some concrete measure of ability (easier in some fields than others), you can work backwards to try to identify and isolate biological and environmental components. Some random examples from a quick google: chess correlations with different intelligences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...), genetic factors helping chess and science ability (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204), music and genes plus practice (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9). There is a much bigger discussion on this exact topic here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 Or a Wikipedia summary of an opposing viewpoint, that talent is NOT involved at all, only practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del... TLDR aptitude at something is usually a combination of many things, from genes to hormones to upbringing to deliberate practice. Yes, we have vague concepts like "talent" and "intelligence" that are often hard to nail down, and used lazily in day-to-day life to mean whatever the speakers wants it to mean. But you can still reframe it in a more precise way, like "Is ability at X activity partially heritable/genetic?" or "Given a group of people practicing Y similarly for Z duration, do they arrive at roughly similar outcomes?" There's nothing mystical about any of this. It's the same sort of work as trying to trace the genetic components of anything we experience, whether that's aptitude or disease or personality or behavior. At the extreme ends, it's easy to see this across species; why are some so much faster, or able to solve certain kinds of problems, or can navigate by starlight, or can sleep half-awake, whatever. I think the counter view -- that humans alone, of all the animals, are created absolutely equal and environment alone shapes our outcomes -- is far more mystical. That requires the belief that the brain and mind is some sort of super-natural device not subject to normal biological evolution, replication mistakes, natural selection, etc. If talent didn't have a biological component, we should be able to train everything from apes to whales to do exactly what we do, given enough practice.
- antisthenes 3y ago> When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages? "Talent" is the genetic component of the advantage. What's so hard to understand?
- em-bee 3y agowhat's hard to understand is why there is no evidence that such a genetic component exists. so far all claims are unproven speculation
- antisthenes 3y agoIf you honestly believe there's no genetic difference in cognitive ability (or physical ability), then you might be deliberately being obtuse or not arguing in good faith.
- em-bee 3y agoi believe in evidence. it may well be that there are genetic differences. but until we have proof and the ability to measure the difference, i also think that believing in talent being genetic is dangerous as it holds back people who are perceived to be untalented. if i believe that the talent of my kids is genetic then i will be less likely to try to foster them to do better. this is especially dangerous for teachers. our society suffers a lot from believing that people are poor because they have no talent to do better. and worse some apply this based on race. we can talk about talent being genetic when we no longer have poor people and have abolished all racism, but until we have done everything we can to allow everyone to develop their talent, we risk misusing this belief as an excuse not to support people to do better because we lack the believe that they even could do better.
- strken 3y agoDo you believe in the evidence of partial heritability of cognitive function that we see in twin studies like TEDS? https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds I think it can be simultaneously true that we suffer from believing ability is partly inherited, and also that we live in a world where that's actually the case. Though I also think it's cruel to tell a man with an IQ of 87 who's working as a chicken processor that the only reason he's not a Harvard professor is a bad education, bad parents, and his own failings.
- maximus-decimus 3y agoIf that were true, any dog that tries hard enough could win the physics Nobel prize.
- hk__2 3y agoThat’s the case, but to this day no dog has tried hard enough.
- the_af 3y agoI think it's a combination of both. Talent does exist, even though effort is certainly a major contributor to the result. If you task two people, with and without talent, with accomplishing the same project, one will complete it better than the other, given both place reasonable effort into it.
- TrackerFF 3y agoTalent Motivation and drive Time and resources You can pick one of those, and that alone can yield decent results. But when you combine them all, that's when you get truly exceptional results.
- vGPU 3y agoThink of talent as genetics. The 6’6 guy naturally will have a much easier time playing basketball than the 5’6 guy. The guy with long, flexible fingers will likely be a better piano or guitar player than the guy with short stubby fingers. Etc. Can the difference be overcome? Somewhat, but the person with the advantage + effort will always beat the person without the advantage but with the same amount of effort.
- hk__2 3y agoNobody calls "talent" these things. Talent always has to be some sort of magical ability that’s not visible from the outside.
- breakfastduck 3y agoTalent absolutely does exist. It's just not always fulfilled. But to pretend some people don't have natural talent in certain things is nonsense.
- flykespice 3y agoCan you explain that "talent" exists scientifically in a way that doesn't sounds like nonsense to me?
- breakfastduck 3y agoSome people are naturally more capable of certain things than others. It could be someone being good with numbers immediately from a good age. I cannot fathom that you genueinely believe every single human being is as good as each other at everything and it's just down to the amount of work you put in. Absolutely ridiculous position.
- hk__2 3y ago> Some people are naturally more capable of certain things than others That’s an opinion, not a scientifically-asserted fact. > I cannot fathom that you genueinely believe every single human being is as good as each other at everything and it's just down to the amount of work you put in. Absolutely ridiculous position. It’s good to admit you aren’t capable of understanding something, but then you have to work on yourself to understand it. Once you do, then you can juge it.
- breakfastduck 3y agoIt is not an opinion. People are better at some things than others are. Hard work is not the only factor in that.
- dghughes 3y agoImagination I feel is something that is not learned. Like soft skills some people seem to be wired one way and can't change. Some people can effortlessly imagine. I think imagination is like language you see stories of children abandoned and who never learn to speak when they are adults they lose the ability. With imagination I think you can develop it as a child but it has to grow as you do. If you don't do that whatever it is that generates imagination doesn't develop in you.