question of talent

Andy,
Again, you have completely avoided answering the key question of whether she has "talent" for painting or not if your doubts are unsubstantiated.  You and Tassie simply speculated that she's put in enough hours of secret training to achieve what she did without an iota of evidence.  Rather than focusing on some florid nonsense from the writer of her website, or the integrity of all "media personalities" involved, answer the key question. 



Edited by roundrobin - 04/30/2015 at 6:17pm

Ringer84 wrote: Someone was asking about Liu Guoliang's view on talent, so Ill post this here, which was discussed in another thread: Apologies if this was already posted, as I'm reading super fast before work today. LGL: I think there are 3 persons who have the best feel for backhand. One is Wang Hao, the other is Ovtcharov, and another is Zhang Jike. These 3 persons, with respect to just the backhand, the most well-rounded is Wang Hao. The one with the most threatening backhand is Ovtcharov. [...] If we disregard Wang Hao, then Ovtcharov. Ovtcharov definitely has a better feel for the backhand than our Zhang Jike. YY: It's purer. LGL: Yes. We have the deepest impression of him while watching a video playback of him against Zhang Jike in an Olympic match. Zhang Jike and Ma Long could only shake their heads and say, "This backhand is too strong." YY: Do you think he trained for that or is he just gifted? LGL: He's gifted. It's impossible to train to that.

Ringer84 wrote: YY: Do you think he trained for that or is he just gifted? LGL: He's gifted. It's impossible to train to that.

I'm going to go out on a very flimsy limb here and say LGL is away with the fairies. Ovtchaorv's backhand is trained. The video evidence is there for all to see. The fact that his backhand is stronger than ZJK and ML simply indicates that he has found something they haven't, and it may even be something as simple as desire - perhaps the big O loves his backhand and therefore dedicates more attention to it. One thing is for sure: he wasn't born with that backhand.

JacekGM wrote: Ringer84 wrote: Someone was asking about Liu Guoliang's view on talent, so Ill post this here, which was discussed in another thread: Apologies if this was already posted, as I'm reading super fast before work today. LGL: I think there are 3 persons who have the best feel for backhand. One is Wang Hao, the other is Ovtcharov, and another is Zhang Jike. These 3 persons, with respect to just the backhand, the most well-rounded is Wang Hao. The one with the most threatening backhand is Ovtcharov. [...] If we disregard Wang Hao, then Ovtcharov. Ovtcharov definitely has a better feel for the backhand than our Zhang Jike. YY: It's purer. LGL: Yes. We have the deepest impression of him while watching a video playback of him against Zhang Jike in an Olympic match. Zhang Jike and Ma Long could only shake their heads and say, "This backhand is too strong." YY: Do you think he trained for that or is he just gifted? LGL: He's gifted. It's impossible to train to that. ... and , of course, we should fully trust LGL, word by word.

No, Ringer is simply supporting my point that LGL believes in talent for table tennis, nothing more, nothing less.

roundrobin wrote: Andy, Again, you have completely avoided answering the key question of whether she has "talent" for painting or not if your doubts are unsubstantiated.  You and Tassie simply speculated that she's put in enough hours of secret training to achieve what she did without an iota of evidence.  Rather than focusing on some florid nonsense from the writer of her website, or the integrity of all "media personalities" involved, answer the key question.

RR - these examples all had unusually early starts and unusually intensive training.  That's a fact.  You say they have special brains, but you seem to have no evidence of that.  I'd accept special brains if you could prove it.  Not sure why you don't accept early/intensive as an alternative option when it's the only one of the two which has any factual evidence.  It must be a mystery.

roundrobin wrote: The Williams sisters grew up in Compton, a few miles from my neighborhood without access to any professional training at all.

roundrobin wrote: Where's the proof that Akiane got early start and unusually intensive training Andy?  She started painting with a pencil without being taught.  You choose to believe what you want to believe.  Also you seems to be utterly ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world, particularly in Asia.  There are literally millions of kids in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. who are subject to the earliest "intensive" training possible with no expense spared to become the next Einstein, Mozart, Akaine, or many known sport stars, but how many of them made it?  Millions of Asian parents want fame and fortune through their kids and they are willing to invest as much time and money as possible to make it happen! The Williams sisters grew up in Compton, a few miles from my neighborhood without access to any professional training at all.  His father was their only coach and he was only an amateur.  With just their father coaching they managed to crush all competition at their age brackets.  Please get off your high horse and learn the facts first. Also, I did not say all these artists and athletes are special simply due to their unique brain.  I said they have genetic makeups/manifectations that clearly exceeded those of the average people.

I am sceptical of anything Akiane-related RR. She's a skilled individual wrapped up in spiritualism and commercialised into a sellable product. I can't believe you can read her website and not be suspicious.

As for the Williams - it's well documented that they had a very unusual training program. Sure, Richard wasn't a recognised coach, but he imposed a highly intensive routine for the sisters which concentrated on repetition and technique. Venus herself has said "He's really a great coach. He's very innovative. He always has a new technique, new ideas", so she places some value on his coaching abilities even if you don't. When the sisters were 12 and 11 they relocated and used a pro coach. This is not a "normal" childhood.

But of course, they have some obvious genetic advantages based on their size, which confers an advantage when playing a game like tennis. I'm not denying that. But I don't call their size a talent, I call it size. I don't call their technique and skill a talent - I see it as the end product of tens of thousands of hours of practice. And I don't see their prodigy status as at all interesting because they had the opportunity and motivation to get started early and stick with it. Nothing magical here.

I'll say it again - "talent" is just a word which gets used when you don't know the detail of what has actually happened. It's a shorthand. I only have an issue with it when it takes on a mythical life of its own, and then it becomes an imaginary wall people feel they can't climb over. You say Akiane has some voodoo brain but offer no evidence, so I guess in your world other kids should just give up early if they find the going tough because they don't have the voodoo brain.

I don't deny genetic advantages, so please don't misstate my position. But if you can't demonstrate a causal link with evidence between one thing and another, then you're just howling at the moon. The Williams sisters being tall is an obvious advantage for Tennis, but you're a world away from using that to prove Akiane's miracle brain. Akiane is actually the kind of example which particularly grinds my gears because they are packaging and selling the myth of special prodigal talent. It looks like an enterprise designed to separate people from their cash.

With you bringing up the Williams and Tiger Woods, I suspect we are actually quite close in outlook on the whole thing. The difference is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Williams and Tiger all had early/intensive training with enthusiastic parents who had existing passion in the sport they were pursuing. For both cases height is a factor, which is obvious and fair enough. But to go to the next step and talk about sparks and special brains is just pseudoscience.

I would also like you to bear in mind that I'm not intractable on any subject - I just need compelling evidence. For example, I've got the book suggested by NL, and I'll be sinking some time into it when I can.

As for the pretty wild claims about what's going on in Asia, I'm happy that you've got an excellent case study of millions of Asian families lines up for publication, and I can't wait to read it in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. Or is that just mostly guesswork from you?

I thought you'd given up and gone away?

As for the pretty wild claims about what's going on in Asia, I'm happy that you've got an excellent case study of millions of Asian families lines up for publication, and I can't wait to read it in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. Or is that just mostly guesswork from you?

Why do you think in your mind that anything Asians do must be published somewhere in English so you can "peer-review" it Andy?  The world has changed.  Why don't you learn Mandarin so you can keep up with it?  Too hard?  The world in English is shrinking by the minute.

*BTW I don't make wild claims.  Just because something you don't know exists it means they don't, or that I must prove it to you.  It's utterly ridiculous.  Your ignorance is simply unbelievable.





Edited by roundrobin - 05/01/2015 at 8:39am

roundrobin wrote: *BTW I don't make wild claims.  Just because something you don't know exists it means they don't, or that I must prove it to you.  It's utterly ridiculous.  Your ignorance is simply unbelievable.

roundrobin wrote: As I said before Andy, I am not interested in educating anyone or prove anything, because this is the freakin' internet.  It's a complete waste of time.  If you want to verify what I've said, do it on your own or simply keep dismissing them as pure hot air.  Your choice.

Wooo.  You sound particularly well-adjusted at the moment RR.  Do you need a hug?

Roundrobin,

There is no difference between saying you ate not talented enough to do it and you can't do it. That is Andy's point. People abuse the word talent all the time. It's one thing to say that your heart condition makes you unlikely to be a world class athlete and its another thing to say you lack the talent to be a world class athlete. The factors that go into developing talent are often significant. What is unclear is how you predict that someone has talent. People say all kinds of rubbish about talent that they have no justification for. You sound like someone who might use the word as an excuse not to educate someone. In a case you might be right, but you need to have more evidence than the person cannot do it. Pointing out some achievements that the person has at an age when other people similarly exposed failed is one way of doing this, but just saying that the person is talented is an after the fact claim.

I have a good case study right here in my house, if you'll play along.

AndySmith wrote:   You state that they have abnormal brains, but I struggle to see the actual evidence of the brain abnormality, so the most I can say about this is that it's a guess by you.