question of talent

Speedplay wrote: Tassie, you mentioning learning, but the ability to learn can in itself be a talent.

What? How on earth did you come up with this? What possible evidence do you have to support this theory?

By this measure, everything is a talent. "I often hit my thumb with the hammer." That must be a talent. "I've never had a car accident." That must be a talent. "That girl smiled at me." That must be a talent.

Just because a person can do something doesn't make it a talent. There are reasons why things are the way they are - common sense, practical, rational, scientific reasons. And if we don't know the reason for something at the moment, doesn't mean that we won't at some point in the future. It's called science, not magic.

Talent - Strangely, the more quality training you get, the more talented you get. If you had followed the life and efforts of someone you consider talented then it would be very obvious why they are considered talented. 

Talent can always be explained away.

I know people who others would consider talented.

People who want to blame others for their own failures will always find a way. 

JKC wrote: Not 'God Given', but earned.

The official definition of the word says otherwise.

Why should you, as the meaning of the word "talent" also covers earned skills? 
Many English words carry more than one meaning anyway.  To "succeed" can mean two very different things, for instance. 

JKC wrote: It is not the definition most people understand.

To the contrary. People who want to succeed understand perfectly that they need to work hard to achieve greatness, regardless of their mental and physical attributes, or what other idiots told them otherwise. This realization/self-awareness is also covered under the definition of talent.

JKC wrote: Not 'God Given', but earned.

so tell me, how do you earn a sense of taste so acute you can tell how tea was prepared? Or 20/7 vision?

Edited by NextLevel - 05/12/2015 at 7:53pm

This discussion has become a lot more stimulating than the highly hyped recent Mayweather-Pacquiao fight.  And I don't even have to shell out $40,000 for a ringside seat to watch the action.  

Yes, that's my interpretation of 'talent' as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from reaching a certain level (by putting in enough effort), but the one with talent will simply get there quicker or with less effort.

Speedplay wrote: if me and a buddy both start practicing a new stroke, at the same time, and at the end of the session, he is able to perform it and Im not, then he is more talented then I am at that.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is more "talented".   Here is one possible reasons why:
People might have different "learning/performance curves" - e.g. some people might learn very quickly initially, but plateau or max out at lower levels, while others initially acquire skills at slower pace but might continue to improve beyond the levels of the "quicker learners", and frequently have longer skill retention. 
For example, I acquire new physical skills relatively slowly, initially, but after certain amount of practice, I tend to have a "breakthrough periods" when the new skills improve very rapidly (it finally clicks) which allows me to catch up with quicker learners, or even overcome them.

So, if you observe me early during the learning process you might conclude that I have less "talent" than my peers, but you opinion might change if you wait a little longer.

VictorK wrote: For example, I acquire new physical skills relatively slowly, initially, but after certain amount of practice, I tend to have a "breakthrough periods" when the new skills improve very rapidly (it finally clicks) which allows me to catch up with quicker learners, or even overcome them.

It still fits the definition of talent per Merriam-Webster.

I don't understand why some people keep arguing that the word "talent" must be defined within a very narrow range that fits their personal taste, when it's perfectly clear that it can be used in more than one way, just like tens of thousands of other English words, e.g. to succeed in table tennis or to succeed Obama as the next US president; to sound nice when singing or to sound the depth of your mental aptitude; to table (remove) a proposal for consideration (as used in the U.S.) or to table (introduce) a proposal for consideration (UK).  Just let it go man.




Edited by roundrobin - 05/13/2015 at 11:07am

jrscatman wrote: bbkon wrote: a 7 year old https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=vtogkDmUeBU So I looked at this kid and think that kid has talent.  Others in this thread would look at it say all kids can do that with a lot of training. I don't think so.

jrscatman wrote: berndt_mann wrote: jrscatman wrote: bbkon wrote: a 7 year old https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=vtogkDmUeBU So I looked at this kid and think that kid has talent.  Others in this thread would look at it say all kids can do that with a lot of training. I don't think so.  Great balls of fire!!  That is one vicious little dude.  At age 7 I couldn't even keep my Buster Browns tied.  Wa! The next Ma Long a dozen years from now? See Berndt, instead of fiddling with your Buster Brown's at 7, you should have been training....probably been a world champion! The kid's amazing - especially that net shot at the end - loved his reaction! Can't teach that!

Edited by tom - 05/13/2015 at 1:42pm