User Tag List

View Poll Results: Simple.

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 36.00%
  • No

    16 64.00%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 35

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    By talent, I assume you mean it with a degree of naturalism attached to it. Is it not possible to be talented at something having only worked hard at it?

  2. #12
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I believe Mozart or something stated it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to be incredibly proficient at something.

    Or maybe someone said that about Mozart.

    Idk.

  3. #13
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    The concept of the best, has become a foreign concept to me. Achievement so fleeting, so meaningless once attained. Like a gaping hole of nevermore.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Pinker85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Honestly, once you get to a certain level, everyone is working their asses off and have tons of will power, the extent of a person's natural talent is what ends up setting those that do well from those that are great apart. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the person who is the champion is necessarily the most talented, but anyone competing at that level, that has an honest shot at being champion, is most likely someone that showed natural talent from the start. And I'm probably referring more to sports here. When I say 'champion' I mean in a competition regarded as the pinnacle of achievement for whatever sport.

    I've competed at the national level for a few things, but never could make it past, despite great effort and will power, at least in my mind, being pretty mediocre compared to the other competitors. Maybe I'm just saying all this natural talent stuff from a place of sour grapes? I don't know. It seemed like no matter how much effort I put in, there was someone who just had that extra oomph bestowed on them by nature that could put in half the effort I did, yet excelled way beyond me. By the time I'd master this one technique, they had already mastered 5-7 techniques.

    That isn't to say if you have a dream you shouldn't keep pushing to achieve that dream. Even if the odds are against you, if you really believe in devoting your life to whatever it is, you should pursue it. I just think the chances of your success are a bit slim. But I'm an NF, so I don't much believe we should be governed by hard probabilistic distributions alone, life is about doing the things that give our lives value and we find pleasurable. This is really something I've had to come to peace with as I've realized I won't ever be the best (or close to it) at anything.
    "My comrades and my beloved, upon your way you shall meet men with hoofs; give them your wings. And men with horns; give them wreaths of laurel. And men with claws; give them petals for fingers. And men with forked tongues; give them honey words." --Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Well the talent I have in my mind is reading people.

    Like Patrick Jane. Like Cal Lightman. Making deductions. Reading people off facial expressions and all of that.

  6. #16
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I don't believe in any bullshit about "talent," whatever that means. Being the best at anything is about willpower.
    I disagree with this regarding some things that require physical components. For example, if you have no sense of pitch, you are not going to be a better singer than someone born with it, maybe even if you work much much harder.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #17
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I disagree with this regarding some things that require physical components. For example, if you have no sense of pitch, you are not going to be a better singer than someone born with it, maybe even if you work much much harder.
    Isn't that a matter of ability and not really "talent?" I mean, you wouldn't say that someone with no arms had less talent at throwing than someone who did, would you?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #18
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Isn't that a matter of ability and not really "talent?" I mean, you wouldn't say that someone with no arms had less talent at throwing than someone who did, would you?
    I consider talent to be "innate ability" -- something you're born instinctively knowing how to do. I'm not sure how one would define talent otherwise, since the point of the word seems to be to distinguish that aspect from performance level garnered through effort and willpower.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #19
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    I said yes, but there are different levels of "Best".

    I think someone can score the best in their class, or in their school even, without being talented in school and studying. Hard work trumps things like that. I think hard work can trump talent at work.

    But I don't think hard work will make someone a better artist above someone with artistic talent. Hard work will get you pretty damn close.. but talent shines through in things like music and art in a way that is different.

    I don't think I will ever be the best runner at anything either. Some people were just made for it.. I've put hours of effort into trying to perfect my run, only to see someone laze around for weeks on end and then leave me in the dust during testing times. It's just the way it is.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  10. #20
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I consider talent to be "innate ability" -- something you're born instinctively knowing how to do. I'm not sure how one would define talent otherwise, since the point of the word seems to be to distinguish that aspect from performance level garnered through effort and willpower.
    Yes. I'd say it's someone who naturally stands out. Just as some people have physical limitations where most people are just average, others seem to be the inverse and have some kind of super ability that can't be explained by mere practice alone.

    Starting something at an early age also counts. For example, one is probably not going to be a Garry Kasparov or Bobby Fischer if they didn't start very young and have talent also. These two had an edge somehow it seems - they certainly were not the only ones who trained very hard at Chess from an early age, yet there was something that made them both arguably the best chess players in the entire world - not only when they played but still today.

Similar Threads

  1. At what age can you be typed?
    By themightyfetus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-07-2015, 05:18 PM
  2. Can you be an "ambivert" on all the letters? Hehe
    By wonders in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 04-29-2013, 02:18 AM
  3. [ISTJ] ISTJs, can you be the life of the party?
    By NewEra in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 06:43 AM
  4. I can't be the only one watching Dexter
    By Natrushka in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 02:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO