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 234

Results 31 to 35 of 35

  1. #31
    F CK all I need is U ilikeitlikethat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    xNTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    I think with anything, practise makes perfect.

    You can be naturally gifted but... Practise will always, I mean always, make perfect, to be the best however; I think that's just opion based so, no, no one can ever be 'the best' - with music... Unless you get accolades like trophys and awards for best this or best that or number one on the charts but... I still think that that's opion based too.

  2. #32

    Default Integral of interest and pedagogy over time

    I have a tendency to use mathematical analogies in my thinking, so I apologize if this confuses people.

    I think of talent as the integral of interest and pedagogy over time.

    To clarify, I believe that what most people call talent is actually the historical result of the amount and type of "training" done so far.

    At birth, there is certainly a difference in abilities of all babies born (even here, I wonder how much influence the mothers diet and environment affects things). But after that, the baby, the child, the teenager, etc. have experiences that shape both their motivations and the strategies they use to pursue what they are motivated to do.

    So, I believe, at any given moment, the quality of the training depends on two factors:
    1) The nature of motivation. A strong intrinsic motivation seems best. This, to me, means a self-chosen desire to master a skill, fulfill a grand purpose, or achieve some autonomy. External motivation can also work to some extent if it is strong enough, but I think there are other psychological costs to this sort of motivation.
    2) The quality of instruction, coaching, or mentoring. Although there are many self-taught talented people, I think you will find that even these people have studied role-models that they wanted to become more like. Being talented in the more competitive endeavors relies heavily on being well coached.

    I believe that the result of all your past training (and skills can transfer from one domain to another), is what people refer to when they talk about "talent."

    With that, it is almost a tautology that the answer to poll question is no. If you are good at something it means you are talented at something, and vice versa.

    I suppose notable exceptions are when there are distinct physical advantages. For instance a 7' person is more likely to become good at basketball than a 3' tall person. You may call this "talent", but most people would not...it is just a physical advantage. With this, someone may be the best at something not competitive(imagine if basketball were a brand new game with no analogous games around, then a 7' tall person could be the best without talent).

    I didn't answer the poll, because, I believe my use of the word "talent", although based off of the common usage, is not based on a common understanding of what talent is.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #33

    Default

    Well, one could argue that the ability to focus and persevere in the face of significant obstacles (i.e. work hard) is, in itself, a talent...not everyone is naturally adept at that.

  4. #34
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I have a tendency to use mathematical analogies in my thinking, so I apologize if this confuses people.

    I think of talent as the integral of interest and pedagogy over time.

    To clarify, I believe that what most people call talent is actually the historical result of the amount and type of "training" done so far.

    At birth, there is certainly a difference in abilities of all babies born (even here, I wonder how much influence the mothers diet and environment affects things). But after that, the baby, the child, the teenager, etc. have experiences that shape both their motivations and the strategies they use to pursue what they are motivated to do.

    So, I believe, at any given moment, the quality of the training depends on two factors:
    1) The nature of motivation. A strong intrinsic motivation seems best. This, to me, means a self-chosen desire to master a skill, fulfill a grand purpose, or achieve some autonomy. External motivation can also work to some extent if it is strong enough, but I think there are other psychological costs to this sort of motivation.
    2) The quality of instruction, coaching, or mentoring. Although there are many self-taught talented people, I think you will find that even these people have studied role-models that they wanted to become more like. Being talented in the more competitive endeavors relies heavily on being well coached.

    I believe that the result of all your past training (and skills can transfer from one domain to another), is what people refer to when they talk about "talent."

    With that, it is almost a tautology that the answer to poll question is no. If you are good at something it means you are talented at something, and vice versa.

    I suppose notable exceptions are when there are distinct physical advantages. For instance a 7' person is more likely to become good at basketball than a 3' tall person. You may call this "talent", but most people would not...it is just a physical advantage. With this, someone may be the best at something not competitive(imagine if basketball were a brand new game with no analogous games around, then a 7' tall person could be the best without talent).

    I didn't answer the poll, because, I believe my use of the word "talent", although based off of the common usage, is not based on a common understanding of what talent is.
    Yeah, that's a really good post, I endorse ygolo's views almost completely. There might perhaps be a slightly stronger influence of genetic factors on aptitude, but their development is nonetheless strongly tied to environmental ones.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #35
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Yes, I think drive and perseverance is equally (if not more) important than talent. If the driven person is hanging around with a bunch of talented but lazy people they are still going to be the best.
    Uhm, well, in my experience they really need to be lazy. Lack of talent and lack of discipline both act as strong bottlenecks (you might say there is a kind of "multiplicative effect" where if either terms equals zero, the whole result will be zero aswell), so both very untalented but driven people and very "talented" but indisciplined people have a tendency to hover around the lower levels of ability.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

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