71–80 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you say being 6.9 feet tall is a talent for a basketball player?
No; height is a physical attribute. When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics, combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - talent can be a result. EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.
What are our brains made of again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you say being 6.9 feet tall is a talent for a basketball player?
No; height is a physical attribute. When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics, combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - talent can be a result. EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No; height is a physical attribute. When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics, combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - talent can be a result. EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.
Under the basketball metaphor: a shorter player may outrebound a taller player. If you play sports, you know that there are some people who seem to react faster to everything, who seem to know where the ball is going, who naturally position themselves where they need to be before they know where the ball is going. You can teach some of this, but a lot of it is just that Money Ball intangible stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe, in the line of thinking in this essay: results = effort x time
Yes, but according to my experience, this essay is incorrect in assuming that talent doesn't matter [1]. So if you really want to be more precise: results = talent x effort x time Which means, talent is multiplier. If you take multiple people with different amounts of talent, let them work for equal amount of time on something with equal intensity and focus, you will get very different results. ---- [1] All people fr…
Put a zero in any of those and it all goes away.
results = 0 x effort x time results = talent x 0 x time ... etc will still be zero
No effort (or very little) even if you have talent or no talent (or very little) even if you make a huge effort will probably not get you very far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No; height is a physical attribute. When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics, combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - talent can be a result. EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.
>No; height is a physical attribute. What are our brains made of again?
I don't understand your point. Sure, our brains are made out of matter - and are physical organs. However, the interesting thing about a brain is the way it functions; I think it very necessary to think in terms of physical prowess and mental or psychological prowess when considering whether someone's naturally talented.
Being tall isn't a talent - it's an attribute that could give an advantage to a person who plays basket-ball. If the sum total of that person's other characteristics are also conducive to being good at basketball - that person would probably be known as a talented player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No actually I read that his so called "compositions" at that age were heavily guided by his father and were merely modified improvisation of Bach/other pieces he was taught. The Mozart we know didn't emerge till a later age. By the way, I don't mind being wrong. So, let's figure out the truth and I'll email you, okay?
Where did you read this? Musicology journal? Popular biography? Oprah Magazine? In academic musicology unsubstantiated theories and hearsay are unfortunately the rule and not the exception, but in general it should be considered bad practice to so plainly contradict conventional wisdom without giving a convincing reason to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are people who play a hell of a lot of guitar and are > nevertheless not very good. They just repeat the same mistakes, i.e. they don't try to identify the areas they are weak in and improve on those. Mindless repetition does not bring much benefits, mindful practice does.
Yes, but in my opinion, an ability to perform mindful practice is part of what we call talent. The person you described here is exactly someone who has passion for something, but is not that much talented. BTW, I wonder, is this some new Internet trend, trying hard to "prove" that talent doesnt exist? I wonder what the motivation is... trying to convince oneself that one can be good at anything? :-) ... just asking
In my opinion, both models are bullshit. To develop talent you need both genes and environment. I believe that's becoming one of those things that you can't say:
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you read this? Musicology journal? Popular biography? Oprah Magazine? In academic musicology unsubstantiated theories and hearsay are unfortunately the rule and not the exception, but in general it should be considered bad practice to so plainly contradict conventional wisdom without giving a convincing reason to do so.
I think I read it in Scientific American.
Also, perhaps this is the SCIAM you are referring:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-ori...
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?...