4 ms·
I would define my standard as something achievable by mere mortals rather than 'great' if we want to say that most people are capable of learning skills/field o
by kiba 3y ago
I would define my standard as something achievable by mere mortals rather than 'great' if we want to say that most people are capable of learning skills/field of knowledge, say a PhD.
paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.
I wouldn't say they're blank canvases, but I would say that brains, however different they are, probably has the potential to reach a certain level of competency in any given field.
It's not like I am not acknowledging talent. On the contrary, I have experienced what 'high' talent look like in at least one field of endeavor due to how my brain is configured.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThis is a long winded way of saying if you lower the bar for what you consider success, more people can qualify for it. While technically true, the observation is not useful for one very obvious reason. If you lower the bar too much, the skill itself is no longer useful. The question is, can everyone learn anything to a useful degree, and the answer is no.
- kiba 3y agoI believe they can. Competency/highly skilled is useful enough.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agopeople believe lots of things that are untrue. In this case it's borne out of hubris in believing you yourself can do whatever you apply yourself to.