4 ms·

Yes: http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05... Success/fame/fortun

Yes: http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05... Success/fame/fortune/happiness/etc are another matter, but skill acquisition has been shown to be generally straightforward. Some things may have higher learning curves for some people (e.g. math for a person with dyscalculia[1]), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

cliveowen 13y ago
Now I don't wanna be that guy and I hate it to break it to you, but the author isn't a behavioral psychologist or a social scientist. He graduated from journalism school, he's in the business of writing books and his credentials for tackling such an argument are squat. Hoping that practice alone in any given subject will get you wherever you want, is just wishful thinking. Think of all the kids that play piano, or write poems or generally do something great at a very young age. You can ascribe their skills to practice or experience, given their age, you just have to acknowledge that it's talent, an innate ability. They don't learn how to play piano, they just get it. The same is true with math people, their brains are wired to comprehend a complex subject, arguably impenetrable for most of the population.
- oblique63 13y ago
  This argument would be great if you actually had any substance to back up your claims, without it you're not really arguing against anything. Perhaps I linked to a book written by a journalist because it's more accessible, and thus more helpful/actionable than published scientific papers? If math is difficult to grasp for some people, why would journal articles be any better? Not to mention that maybe the book itself has professional/scientific citations in case you were really interested in learning more? Neuroscience supports the ability to acquire skills. The combination of epigenetics, GMOs, neuroplasticity, and many other advances make it even more apparent that adjusting ourselves is possible; even without a 'free will'[1]. If people don't feel like trying to learn/improve, that's fine; but they shouldn't try going around loosely justifying their actions with 'science' just because it makes themselves feel better. [1] I only bring this up because determinism seems to be the biggest argument against this for some reason, but it really doesn't counter anything. Hell, I actually agree with it, and have written on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628

cliveowen 13y ago

Now I don't wanna be that guy and I hate it to break it to you, but the author isn't a behavioral psychologist or a social scientist. He graduated from journalism school, he's in the business of writing books and his credentials for tackling such an argument are squat. Hoping that practice alone in any given subject will get you wherever you want, is just wishful thinking. Think of all the kids that play piano, or write poems or generally do something great at a very young age. You can ascribe their skills to practice or experience, given their age, you just have to acknowledge that it's talent, an innate ability. They don't learn how to play piano, they just get it. The same is true with math people, their brains are wired to comprehend a complex subject, arguably impenetrable for most of the population.

oblique63 13y ago
This argument would be great if you actually had any substance to back up your claims, without it you're not really arguing against anything. Perhaps I linked to a book written by a journalist because it's more accessible, and thus more helpful/actionable than published scientific papers? If math is difficult to grasp for some people, why would journal articles be any better? Not to mention that maybe the book itself has professional/scientific citations in case you were really interested in learning more? Neuroscience supports the ability to acquire skills. The combination of epigenetics, GMOs, neuroplasticity, and many other advances make it even more apparent that adjusting ourselves is possible; even without a 'free will'[1]. If people don't feel like trying to learn/improve, that's fine; but they shouldn't try going around loosely justifying their actions with 'science' just because it makes themselves feel better. [1] I only bring this up because determinism seems to be the biggest argument against this for some reason, but it really doesn't counter anything. Hell, I actually agree with it, and have written on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628