|
|
|
question of talent |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 678910 12> |
| Author | ||||
AndySmith 
Premier Member 
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 05/04/2015 at 9:52am |
|||
I did NOT say that they wouldn't struggle. In fact, some people will struggle more than others. Please stop with the idea that I don't believe in genetic advantage. What I am saying is that the concept of talent becomes binary in people's minds - I either have it, or I don't. And the nebulous nature of talent means that people WANT to believe it exists, and it has a profound influence, without anyone actually bothering to check what's really going on. So a teacher who believes in immutable, indecipherable talent is more likely to write pupils off without merit. I believe that everyone (without a serious health issue) can pass high school math (quick note - I mean high school here in the UK, GCSE level, a pass being a C grade or above. Not sure how that relates to the US, maybe something is being lost in translation). I do NOT believe that everyone will find it equally easy.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
 |
||||
| Sponsored Links | ||||
|
||||
|
NextLevel
Forum Moderator 
Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 10:00am |
|||
|
Andy,
You may believe in genetic advantage but a claim that anyone without a serious medical problem should be able to so this or that flies in the face of the empirical demands you have placed on those speculating about the role of talent. So what kind of math are we talking about? Basic algebra? Trigonometry? Iaxed GCSE math over 20 years ago and I don't remember it being so easy that everyone should be able to pass it. Some people just had problems drawing the inferences that I found natural. I often tried to teach people then and I found that if framed as multiple choice problems and people were given choices, you could help them.guess the answers. But doing it with a logical procedure stressed many of them.out, especially under timed conditions. |
||||
|
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 10:03am |
|||
Yes, it is obvious. He developed it himself, through doing, as stated by his desire to experiment and work on it. That is how I read the above. I do think that both statements COULD be correct, but when weighing them both up we have a clear winner. We have (1), Waldner actually stating that he developed feel via experimentation, and the knowledge that more practice = better skill. That's not 100% confirmed, but pretty compelling. Then we have (2), which states as FACT (fact!) that some people have a natural gift for what we call soft and flexible wrist. (2) could be correct, but before I'd accept it as a de-facto reason for Waldner's skill I'd want some test results showing that he had this "gift" (softer and flexier than average wrists, Isuppose), then hard proof that this "gift" didn't just develop naturally over time due to the way he played and trained (a result of doing, rather than genetics, perhaps compare left and right hands for differences), and then some biomechanical analysis to show that soft/flexible wrists actually help, rather than hinder or doing nothing, Waldner's play style. And I have no real preference for an outcome - it could be a mix of 1 and 2. But without proper analysis, (2) is a supposition, involving several leaps of faith. And if the cultural norm is that we just believe (2), and don't need to check the real world for facts and evidence, then heaven help you if you're born with stiff wrists, because you'll never be as good as Waldner, and to the back of the class you go. Also, not analysing 1, 2, and how they interrelate (just assuming that we KNOW stuff), means we are now going to miss out on some potentially useful information.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 10:16am |
|||
No, you totally misrepresent what I'm saying. Tassie is right, you build a straw man and think that it disproves what I'm saying in some way. First up, I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist. If you claim that talent exists, the burden of proof is on you to provide compelling evidence. You can't say "I believe in fairies, you can't prove that they don't exist!" and expect respect for that. My obvious trap - I feared that you would say that Fan was talented because he is near the top of the sport, thus going down the circular reasoning route. I was really, honestly glad that you didn't, because that's unsound reasoning. Nothing more. And I am NOT determined to prove that genetic advantage is not a factor. Absolutely not. I am repeating myself for the last time here. What I am saying is that people seem to have an in-built gut feeling that it is absolutely involved, and that it is a fundamental requirement of top-level TT. But that level of certainty is built on....nothing concrete. People are SURE it exists, and SURE that it has profound effect, and yet can't offer anything even approaching proof. It might be involved, and it might be profound, but prove it first before asserting it as fact. Because asserting unproven conjecture as fact is not helpful.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 10:18am |
|||
Totally right, and is entirely what I'm trying to say here. Any further "you're trying to disprove the existence of genetic advantage" type replies can be sent to this post, because I'm bored of typing the same reply in over and over again now.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
bbkon
Premier Member
Joined: 04/19/2005 Location: Afghanistan Status: Offline Points: 7260 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 10:56am |
|||
LGL,ZJK,KLH had parents who were famous coaches
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lestat
Super Member 
Joined: 01/16/2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 421 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 11:00am |
|||
Oh ok, I would stop at gift/ability in order for the statement to be foolproof. Mentioning flexible wrists is going out on a limb. Let's assume we all have flexible wrists, the question still remains: why is it that some of us find it much easier to pick up and develop certain techniques, or have an aptitude/a calling/talent for certain things in general? We don't actually have to come up with empirical evidence, in order to know it is a fact. We don't necessarily have to quantify something to know it exists. That is of course beyond the comprehension of the likes of Tassie and Pnachtwey who gave us plenty of indication they don't believe in any of this non-sense. Both classic cases of severe Engineer's Syndrome. I would go as far as saying there is a third component, besides talent and work. You have to reign over your hard work and talent with a light hand, give it a chance to develop. If you're obsessing over the smallest details you will bog down your progress - despite all your hard work and talent.
Edited by Lestat - 05/04/2015 at 11:09am |
||||
|
||||
|
jrscatman
Premier Member
Joined: 10/19/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 11:04am |
|||
Did they have any brothers or sisters who were equally successful in elite level TT competition?
|
||||
|
Butterfly MPS
FH: Donic Acuda S1 BH: Palio CK531A OX |
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 11:18am |
|||
NL, I totally understand what you're getting at here, and the contradiction with my earlier posts about no speculation when stating fact. Explaining this will require a lot of additional info, and will likely prove unsatisfying to you. Apologies in advance. First up, the statement - every pupil without undue impediment should be able to pass GCSE math. Impediments here are: 1. Serious medical conditions with obvious impact on learning capability. 2. "Significantly" less than 100% attendance, or notable family difficulty. 3. A less than capable teacher or school structure. 4. Erroneous belief that talent is everything, and lacking it cannot be overcome. I believe that the ability to pass math is probably the same as most abilities - some combination of basic genetics and training. I have a gut feel that it's mostly training in this case, but that's not based on any evidence at all. The numbers aren't important really, as we shall we later. Different pupils struggle to different degrees with math, absolutely. It's hard to say (without looking into every pupil's background) where the disparity comes from (more maths-style tasks as a toddler? Magical brain? Who knows?), but what do we do when a pupil struggles? We intervene. We offer more teaching time. Suggest to parents that extra tuition is helpful at the weekends. More extreme - move them down from a "top" set class, where the course is focused on maximum possible grade (A), to a more remedial one where the ambition is grade (C), a pass. Ultimately, my belief in this is based in the real world - this isn't a thought experiment like the other cases we have discussed. Even a pupil with low "talent" (and let's imagine that we know what that is and can identify when it applies) can be aggressively targeted for additional training, not to excel, but to be adequate. And if they absolutely cannot, and the 4 provisos above do not apply, then there is something wrong with how the GCSE grade boundaries are set and should be adjusted. If this was a thought experiment, you could now rightly claim that I am wriggling out of it here. But this is the real world, and the grade boundaries are set according to rules, not handed down from god. You may now come up with any number of potential examples where pupils for some reason STILL won't pass. Perhaps you might think that it becomes inefficient or too expensive to provide all of these options. But let me tell you - in the real world, I've never seen an example where a pupil has failed without being able to find some issue which, in hindsight, could have been handled better by someone. The most common is a total lack of interest from the parents, who don't support the idea of additional teaching out-of-hours, and the excuse I hear most often is...well, I'm sure you can guess, because this is a thread about talent and the belief in its profound effect without evidence or reason. The real problem is one of attitude. If you don't bother to check and understand what is going on, what is the alternative? You see pupils who struggle with math and then just assume that what you are seeing is going to stop them from passing. You don't bother to investigate, provide options. Fair enough if the pupil turns you down, but that's a sign of something else. If you don't have the resources to provide the options, get them! Campaign for more funding, more options, better stuff. Bottom line with my thoughts on this - every pupil without obvious impediment can pass math. Even those without the genetic advantage can pass. They may struggle more, but offer alternative options to help with this. If resources aren't available, get them (math is important, natch). Build them up to pass grade with additional training. If all else fails, the grading structure should be looked at. Yes, this is idealistic. But the alternative is to write them off. And sometimes in the real world they have to be written off! Hostile parents, not enough funding, etc. But never put that down to "talent", because that's just an excuse to not change anything IMO. Something more can ALWAYS be done. Because if we say that more CANNOT be done, the talent myth wins. The write-off may be unavoidable, but improvement to the school process is always possible. Now, bringing this around to the earlier stuff about people who insist that talent is there and profound. If you take an example of a pupil who fails math (and there will be some), look into their case. Were there any impediments? Could the school/teacher have done more (not to single out teachers with this one, I'm well aware that sometimes they can't due to workload)? Was something wrong with the process? Did the parents get on board and help with supporting additional lessons? In every case, there will be something there if you look hard enough, and citing a lack of talent just means you're not going to bother to look. Sometimes the changes required may be impractical, but at least you've identified an actual reason rather than risk demonising the pupil by declaring that they have a genetic impediment which cannot be overcome. And if you do all of that analysis, and it looks like the lack of talent is the ONLY reason why they failed (I mean, I can't see how you would arrive at this position - that would mean that you declare the school system to be maxed out and perfect in some way), then the grade boundaries should be adjusted because pass/fail shouldn't be an indicator of talent (my own opinion here), but achievement (regardless of the means). But even then, by actually doing the analysis you have achieved something worthwhile, which is the determination that the grade boundaries are not correct at the present time and should be looked at. So...(deep breath)...everyone should be able to pass high school math, and lack of "talent" should never be used as the reason for a fail because it's a dead end of no practical use, and mostly can't be proven to exist or not in individual cases, and is hence a regressive approach.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 11:38am |
|||
I think personality has a big input into how certain skills develop and manifest. And personality is something which is probably heavily influenced by genetics. I'd put that in the general gist of what you posted about "callings". I think the process is the other way around really, and this is a component of the problem in fact. People think that tall people were "born" to play basketball, and that height is a basketball "talent". I say these people are just tall, and there happens to be a man-made sport called basketball which has rules which give a big advantage to tall people. A little bit chicken-and-egg of course, and it depends on how you define "talent" (it's often abused to mean all sorts of things), but in real terms no one is "born" to do anything in particular at all, and insisting that they are, as fact, must then mean that people are born to be incapable of things too. Which is probably right in practical terms (we can't all do everything, or achieve the same things, and I still don't like the wording because it implies some sort of plan operating in the background which decides what stuff you will be able to do), but combine that with the idea that talent is that thing over there and we don't need to really understand it, and we have a lot of wishy-washy assumptions which write people off. I think you do Tassie a slight disservice here, but I understand where you are coming from. It can be exasperating to have to prove everything. But here it is - "We don't actually have to come up with empirical evidence, in order to know it is a fact." Well, we do, or we risk making mistakes (or over-generalisations). For example, we look at Waldner. We can see that something is there - something. Yes. I don't need evidence or study to agree with that - something is there, it exists, I can see it. Do we know what that is, and how it came to be? For sure? Because if we don't know for sure, beyond reasonable doubt, then we are a long way from fact. And if we accept that Waldner was born with something, and that's all it is, then well. I think we'll never know what went on there with Waldner, and that's a shame because it looks unique, interesting and potentially helpful once discovered (whatever it is - super wrists or a unique life history, or both!).
Edited by AndySmith - 05/04/2015 at 11:39am |
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
pgpg
Gold Member 
Joined: 11/18/2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1306 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 11:40am |
|||
That's all good - but passing a high school math is a darn low hurdle. This thread obviously evolved a bit, but I thought we were discussing whether 'talent' is required/helpful to get to a reasonably high level, like winning a major TT tournament etc. Can you win a Fields Medal in math (heck, just get a PhD) or get into New York Philharmonic orchestra without one? P.S. I think no amount of effort will make me a good singer - have neither the voice nor sense of pitch. My sister has perfect pitch, however (but is average in math at best). Anekdata, but pretty much everyone has these examples in front of them. P.P.S. Would we have this discussion if we replaced 'talent' with 'genius', which can be viewed as extreme value of 'talent'?
Edited by pgpg - 05/04/2015 at 2:10pm |
||||
|
USATT: ~1810
Butterfly Defense Alpha ST - H3 Neo - Cloud&Fog OX |
||||
|
||||
|
pgpg
Gold Member
Joined: 11/18/2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1306 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 12:20pm |
|||
|
Similar debate is going on right now at Hacker News:
 "The Programming Talent Myth" article: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/641779/474137b50693725a/ HN discussion thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486391
|
||||
|
USATT: ~1810
Butterfly Defense Alpha ST - H3 Neo - Cloud&Fog OX |
||||
|
||||
|
jrscatman
Premier Member
Joined: 10/19/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 12:54pm |
|||
|
Waldner example is an interesting one. If he did develop with the skill with long hours of practice - I think the interesting question is why did this player decide to develop this skill while his teams and the rest of the world didn't spend any time on this? I think most people in TT believe in developing strong loops with power and control.
|
||||
|
Butterfly MPS
FH: Donic Acuda S1 BH: Palio CK531A OX |
||||
|
||||
|
NextLevel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 1:14pm |
|||
|
Andy,
Your heart may be in the right place but your post goes past logic into the realmof being fairly misguided. Changing the standards won't enable a person to add or subtract better. That's the harsh reality. In any case, thanks for being honest and elaborate about the kinds of things that motivate you. Weay never agree, but at least its clearer to me why. I have always felt that making high school graduation a prereq for certain jobs was in part based on the misguided notion that anyone can do anything. But in a world where the resources aren't enough to be as thorough as you would like at the current time, we have to do the best we can. And the best we can currently says that not everyone can pass algebra. The world is cruel like that. It's not like everyone needs algebra to survive either. It is just one of many things that separates some haves from some have nots. We don't live in a land where everyone is above average. Edited by NextLevel - 05/04/2015 at 1:17pm |
||||
|
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
||||
|
||||
|
Lestat
Super Member
Joined: 01/16/2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 421 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/04/2015 at 2:03pm |
|||
Andy, I'm talking in general terms on purpose, so I can retain the luxury of calling certain things a fact. That said, here is where I draw the line: talent/ability/calling is something that exists and can be observed from day one. This can be proven, statistically speaking. You just have to do the leg work and collect the evidence, but who the heck is going to do that - only to prove Tassie wrong? As for what makes this people special, that's another matter. We can speculate though. When I said empirical evidence, I was referring to numbers. But of course, empirical can mean first hand observation as well. In a court of law, I could be instrumental into bringing a criminal to justice based on my observations. So I think I'm safe calling it a fact. Edited by Lestat - 05/04/2015 at 2:06pm |
||||
|
||||
|
Tassie52
Gold Member
Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 2:25am |
|||
Summary: a high school teacher moves from Bolivia to the USA where he eventually gets a job teaching Hispanic students at Garfield High in East Los Angeles. He then proceeds to teach calculus to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged kids around, so successfully that his students finished up being investigated for cheating: the authorities simply could not believe that his students could achieve such high scores, almost all of them 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale. (If nothing else, read http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante#Awards ) How was Escalante able to achieve such extraordinary success? Either all of his classes were filled year after year with "talented" kids, or else he taught them how to do calculus. The truth is that "talent" was never a prerequisite for entry into his classes. Kids were not blank slates -"In no case was a student who didn't know multiplication tables or fractions taught calculus in a single year" - but there was nothing exceptional about them. People can argue for sparkly woo or they can get on with the serious business of learning. In Escalante's classes there was no excuse for failure; saying "I don't have the talent" was simply not acceptable. |
||||
|
||||
|
Tassie52
Gold Member
Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 2:44am |
|||
 I laughed so much that it's taken me a couple of hours for the tears to dry and for my ribs to stop aching.I love the assumptions people make. For a start, I'm not an engineer, never going to be an engineer. I suspect that, if I applied for an engineering course, one of two things would happen: either every existing engineer in the world would immediately quit, or they would hire a hitman to make absolutely sure I was never counted among their ranks. I am as close to an anti-engineer as you can get: humanities graduate, ex-primary school teacher, ex-librarian and currently working for the Uniting Church in Australia. Which brings me nicely to my next point: whenever I find myself in a knock-down, drag-out argument with an atheist, they will demand, "Prove that God exists!" And I can't. There is no way that I can "engineer" (deliberate play on words) a proof for the existence of God. Having religious belief is a matter of faith. I understand and fully appreciate that having faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, measured, interviewed, DNA tested, weighed, bumped into, etc. is something that many, many people cannot embrace. And why should they? However, for many people, faith is real. But faith cannot prove the existence of God. (And don't let the evangelists among us tell you otherwise.) So, on the one hand I am a person who believes in a form of "sparkly woo" and on the other I am a "talent atheist". How is this possible? For a start, "talent" is used to describe something which is supposed to exist in this world. "There goes Jimmy; he has a ton of table tennis talent." If that is true, then we should be able to identify it and measure it. If we say, "There goes Jimmy; he is really good at table tennis", then that is something we should be able to measure. Same for "good reflexes", "good hand-eye co-ordination", "flexibility" or any number of factors which help to make him "really good at table tennis". But "talent"? Oh, we have to take that on faith! "He has a ton of talent"? You may as well say, "God has given him the ability to play table tennis." Really? Prove it. And, because yesterday was May the 4th, if we said, "There goes Jimmy; he is a Jedi" wouldn't you demand some proof?  Edited by Tassie52 - 05/05/2015 at 3:00am |
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 5:27am |
|||
These are man-made, imperfect systems. For me, it's all about the approach and attitude one takes towards them. Is it work on the system, or write people off? Or accept that the system is what it is, and some people won't achieve based on genetic limitations. Personally, I would call the second of those options misguided and needlessly bleak, while the first is misguided and unduly optimistic. But I'd rather be in the first group and work hard to improve the system, because I believe the system is the best route we have. But we are totally off into political and emotional territory here, for sure. I gave my personal example because if you're a teacher operating in education and you write people off without bothering to explore other options, or to try and improve the system, then you are a symptom of the talent myth IMO. So this is an example of how the baseless assertion of talent and its effect trickles down into the lower levels of society. I ventured into the real world (as opposed to hypothetical scenarios where you can take two identical people, or give them two identical training experiences, which is impossible in reality (accepting that twins are as close as you are likely to get)) in an attempt to show this, and to give a bit of background as to why I feel it's important.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 6:28am |
|||
You are talking in general terms to avoid having to do the leg work yourself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you here - it's a common thing that we all do, and sometimes it's harmless. I don't think it's harmless in this case, but that's my opinion. Regardless, no one gets to call something a fact without being able to back up the assertion with hard evidence. What you have is an opinion. It may be an informed opinion, but it remains an opinion. We don't get to pick and choose what's a fact and what isn't.
Well, go on then! You seem very confident, so I guess you have a body of work to point to here. Link away! Again, the point is that you can take a group of people and perhaps observe something from day one, but what are you observing? A difference in training/opportunity, or a genetic difference? Both (and if so, how important is each)? None (maybe it's aliens)? The insidious problem with "talent" is that people seem to just assume - wow, look at that guy, he's better than the others in this group, we must have a gift/calling/whatever. I'm not discounting the possibility, but people just outright assume it to be true. You're doing it right now in the quote above - it exists and it can be observed from day one. Well, I say that this is poor logic, and an excellent example of how "talent" has become a fuzzy, overbearing weight pressing down on people's ability to reason and investigate. And then people in a position to make decisions make bad ones, because this truism isn't challenged enough.
Well, again not really. "Talent" is such a fundamental aspect of people's thinking processes, so all the work should already be there for you to use, right? Just point me towards the evidence. Or are we saying that no one has bothered to collect the evidence yet, and that's why it's effort to prove tassie wrong? If no one has bothered, that might make you think about the grounds upon which you are basing your opinion. Because that's all I'm asking for - the hard evidence which has contributed towards your hard opinion. It either exists, in which case excellent, I'm all ears. Or it doesn't, in which case a rational person should be careful about asserting an opinion as fact. I wonder if you even know if it exists or not? Again, I'll say at this point that I'm not against the existence of "talent", I'm against the assertion that it's definitely over there, I can see it, and accurately predict how important a factor it is. Because to say all of that with supreme confidence would need a LOT of information about the thing that you are pointing at, and when I ask for it people never seem to have it. Also - you don't need to prove tassie wrong, you just need to show why you are right, which you would think would be easy since we are dealing with established fact, yes?
Yes, first hand observation. That's OK when you know what you are observing. Someone robbing a bank is hard to misinterpret (not impossible, but hard). But this isn't like that, because you haven't established what you're observing. So I'm throwing it out and getting a new jury in. Here is how it works. You see a group of people doing a task, and some do it easier/better than others. You leap to the conclusion that this is "talent". You go to court and and say you have first hand evidence of talent. I ask you - is what you are seeing innate, genetic advantage? Or is the group comprised of different people, with different experiences and backgrounds? Could the variance you observe be caused by different life experience? How would you know the difference between the two scenarios? How can you prove, via first hand observation, that you have seen "talent"? You cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt from mere observation. You would have to compile case studies of everyone in the group to show that their experience has been virtually identical to rule out the possibility of training being a factor, or even THE overriding factor at work. You might be an expert witness for the defense, and say "talent"! And your evidence would be "because I've seen it!". I might be an expert witness for the prosecution, and I would say "training!", and I would present the case files on each individual, showing how their different life experiences would be playing into their skill levels. And then it is up to the jury to decide. And they might decide you are right! However, even then the opinion of a jury does not lead to the generation of a "fact". The opinion of 12 people on a jury, based on the evidence they see, is still an opinion. It's an informed opinion, legally binding for now in the case at hand (pending appeal), but many factors are in play. Existing preconceptions. Social norms. The ability of each lawyer to make their case. But also, the specifics of the case are important - proving the major influence of height in basketball does not mean that you have proven the major influence of genetic advantage in all possible activities known to man. This is a big stretch. Decisions in court based on observation do not lead to the establishment of FACT. Any court which just assumes stuff to be true without the backing of supporting evidence is a poor court indeed. I'm defining fact here as "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case". Being skeptical of claims is the route to a better understanding of the real world, and how we avoid being taken advantage of. The earth isn't flat, despite the evidence of your personal experience perhaps telling you otherwise. The moon is not made of cheese, despite the fact that both the moon and cheese exist and maybe look the same to your eyes. Genetic advantage exists, but is that what you are seeing when you simply observe, or are you assuming? Of course, too much skepticism can be tedious and impractical, but there you go. The route to a better understanding of the world is paved with the broken minds of a thousand scientists who challenged preconceptions and things which were just "obviously true".
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
APW46
Assistant Moderator 
Joined: 02/02/2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3331 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 7:17am |
|||
|
Just a point to ponder on, how many times do we see a player who starts playing the game from scratch aged over 20yrs, described as being 'talented' ? I have never come across it. If you get a group of kids, invariably the 'talented' ones either play more than their compatriots, or have a head start because they have played for longer. Once a player moves on from technique construction and becomes a tidy player they start to develop greater perception and touch which buys they time, time gives the opportunity to play more flamboyantly and the 'talent' shines brightly.
|
||||
|
The Older I get, The better I was.
|
||||
|
||||
|
NextLevel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 7:20am |
|||
Like I said, it's easy to criticize people when you aren't the one trying to solve the problems in the system. Few teachers who like what they do (and I think it is obvious that I qualify) want to give up on anyone. After all, there was also a whole "No Child Left Behind Act" with all sorts of mandates that required all kinds of results which either resulted in all kinds of coaching to the test (which can be a form of good teaching IMO) or all kinds of cheating. And by the way, you didn't give your personal example. You simply spoke about interesting things that ultimately would approach nothing close to the standards and the solutions you demand from other people on the talent side. If you are truly a scientist, you will realize that many people do not always understand what motivates them or why they are behaving the way they do. They can only report or rationalize how they feel. By all means, please get a teaching gig sometime. Do what you think you need to do to change the system. When you are in it and doing it, you just might learn a lot after being forced to see things that run counter to what you predicted. Many people never seriously concern themselves with how the other half lives. They deal with the privileged few or the average joes and surround themselves with people mostly like them, and never think about what life is like where people are NOT like them. They then come up with all kinds of rationalizations and then when those rationalizations don't work, they blame people for being evil in all kinds of ways. And yes, people can be evil. But if you believe that learning is a material process (and I do), you will see that you can't determine in advance what the matter that underlies it is. And this is what you are doing. The closest proxy to it actually teaching people and trying to motivate them in different ways, using tools to get them to pay attention, and empathizing with them. But anyone who does that in the face of a test they cannot change knows that even that has its limits. And sometimes, paradoxically, it creates a bigger gap between the haves and the have nots if such resources are provided to everyone. But like I said, this isn't Lake Wobegone, where all the children are above average.
Edited by NextLevel - 05/05/2015 at 7:27am |
||||
|
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
||||
|
||||
|
Lestat
Super Member
Joined: 01/16/2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 421 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 7:23am |
|||
I like how you bring religious faith into this, as if it would give more weight to your original argument. You are a man to take a leap of faith when required, but not for any mundane rubbish, right? You’re just digging yourself deeper here. We’re not able to measure a black hole, but we can observe its presence, and even speculate about the size of it. There’s no denying it exists. How is this talent business different? On the other hand, you believe in God because you feel this spiritual connection in your heart (I’m not gonna be mean and say because somebody told you to). It can be observed particularly well if you are primed for it, but never measured - not even a ball park. That’s all very well for you, but what strikes me is you want to come across as the no-nonsense guy. Not to worry though, you’re in good company. There are a lot of of otherwise dull sceptical minds in the world of science who take this unquestioned leap of faith. Nothing unusual about that. The only difference is, they might be slightly embarrassed about it, rather than bringing it in to bolster an argument. |
||||
|
||||
|
NextLevel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 7:32am |
|||
It all depends on what you are comparing to what. I've heard many coaches describe adults as having a talent for the sport based on initial lessons vs. other students. On the other hand, ping pong is popular enough that you hardly have anyone coming in as an adult that had zero exposure to the sport as a child.
|
||||
|
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
||||
|
||||
|
NextLevel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 7:38am |
|||
Usually, when people talk about such things, the key is to look for a selection process that shows that the teacher wasn't working with a purely random population and had the cream of the crop. Poverty has a correlation with low talent for reasons that I won't go into, but poverty is NOT low talent. If this is true (from the link you sent me): He had already earned the criticism of an administrator who disapproved of his requiring the students to answer a homework question before being allowed into the classroom. Then it likely explains the success. Any teacher who can select his students using criteria that he supports tends to do well. It's when you are forced to deal with EVERY student, from the noise makers to those who not give two to those those who have problems at home and take them out on you at school and prevent you from actually teaching those who are interested and come to school to learn that you have a problem.
|
||||
|
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 8:20am |
|||
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying - I'm not criticising "people when you aren't the one trying to solve the problems in the system". I'm criticising people who believe wholeheartedly in "talent", say that they can spot the lack of it, say that that lack is terminal and cannot be overcome. A teacher who does these things is a bad one IMO. I offer the other alternatives as a tool for comparison. If a teacher hasn't tried to do these things, or the system doesn't allow them to try them, then the failing is in the teacher or the system. Just for clarity (since you seem to see this as some kind of personal attack) - the distinction is this. A student fails. Are you bothered at all by this? Can you, or the system, do better next time? Even if it's impractical to make the necessary changes, would you want to when given the resources? If so, that's great, and I'm 99% sure you, NL, personally would. But if someone else, as a teacher, just puts the whole experience down to a singular cause - lack of "talent" - then they have failed IMO. If you wholeheartedly believe in talent existing, and the lack of it being an impossible hurdle, without even bothering to investigate to see if your assumption is right, you are causing a problem.
I'm not a scientist, but I am trying to show how the perception of the power of innate talent can cascade down from the elite level into the general public realm. There will always be functional leaps here because we are into the territory of human behavior and how it can be influenced. Of course, this is just from my own personal experience of seeing (IMO) good teachers and bad teachers at work, and should not at all be considered as some sort of gospel. Perhaps I should have gone with some of the more formal studies of the effect of presupposition of the overwhelming value of innate ability. Some of Carol Dweck's work on fixed mindsets and how it can change reaction to failure may get you off my back. Regardless, please take my comments on teachers/education as simply my own observation based on experience (my wife is a high school science teacher, 20 years service) and not fact.
Well, this is a long way from how I actually feel, so you've probably missed something somewhere, or I haven't explained it to your satisfaction. So I'll try to be clear. I absolutely agree that you can't determine in advance the underlying "matter", or whatever. My concern is the how the entire system can lead to stigmatisation, and how there is a danger that teachers themselves can fall into the trap of lazy thinking and the use of the lack of "talent" as justification for decision making. I don't claim to have some magical understanding of the processes at work, but others do and then things happen based on that. Back to my opinion - if at ANY point, a teacher is forced to give up on a student, I believe the default opinion should be something material has probably (not definitely) gone wrong somewhere. That might not be a failing of the teacher, but thought and investigation should take place into real things which are well understood. What I'm trying to put across here is that the myth of the overriding power of talent will prevent this from happening, because it sure is a lot easier to just write the student off as untalented. An "untalented student" is just what's left after all other possibilities have been exhausted, should never be the first option, and should never prevent further investigation into other factors. It is an unsatisfactory and often misleading conclusion. NL - I want people to think, rather than just assume they know.
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 8:37am |
|||
Black holes have an absolute mountain of supporting evidence. They were predicted to exist well before they were discovered, can be "measured" (I'm not sure what you mean by measured in this context to be honest) in many ways via indirect observation, are quite predictable and respond consistently to experimental testing, and are modeled in detail with incredible accuracy. It is a physical entity, albeit a strange one in comparison with the smaller-scale world we interact with. There are still many open questions about black holes, and I don't know anyone who states with 100% certainty that they know everything about them, and all the effects they have. Anyone who does is being dishonest, IMO. I suppose I can use black holes as an analogy though. Pointing to a group of people and declaring "talent" is like pointing at a black hole and declaring that you 100% know what's inside. I'd rather not get into the religious aspects of things here. It's already bad enough with the politics!
|
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tassie52
Gold Member
Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 9:09am |
|||
As a further illustration from personal experience: Once upon a time, I too was a teacher - primary school and very bad at it. Not from lack of teaching talent but because I was lazy and poorly organised. However, I did have some successes during my very brief stint in teaching. The one that springs most readily to mind was a nine year old farmer's son, J. J. was a failure in almost everything in class, with the exception of sport. Each week, all students were expected to learn 20 spelling words. The class average in the weekly test was 16 correct out of 20. J's average was 2. Week after week, J. failed to learn the set words. Consequently his reading age was in the low 6's, approximately three years behind the majority of his classmates. His maths level was also significantly behind the class. One week about seven-eighths of the way through the year, J. scored 5 correct. I was so amazed that I made a big deal of it, telling him how impressed I was and congratulating him on his hard work. The following week he scored 7 out of 10. And after that it just got better and better. In the last week of term J. scored 18 out of 20. Talent? Or a willingness to work hard because of a sudden perception of value in what he was doing. When I first took J's class every single teacher who had spent time with him dismissed him as being "not very bright" and his results seemed to confirm that opinion. No talent whatsoever. What will you now achieve by suggesting that he had the talent all along but didn't use it? What is gained by dismissing the kid's hard work? He didn't find spelling at all easy, even when he was performing at or above the class average. He wasn't talented. He was hard working.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Baal
Forum Moderator
Joined: 01/21/2010 Location: unknown Status: Offline Points: 14336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 9:09am |
|||
|
There is a mountain of evidence for genetic variation in individuals of outbred species that makes it easier for some than others to acquire the ability to do certain things within a given length of time. I can't say that it is has been formally studied in table tennis what those traits are, but then again Andy is arguing from other activities too, when it suits him.
In any case, as APW46 says, since none of us here are striving to be one of the top handful of players in the world, hard work and determination trump those initial advantages. Andy, you write, "I'm criticising people who believe wholeheartedly in "talent", say that they can spot the lack of it, say that that lack is terminal and cannot be overcome.". That's good. Nobody who has commented on this thread would make all the arguments you are criticizing. It's a caricature of what people here actually are saying. APW46 asked a question about whether there are players who take up the sport as adults who would be described as talented (since these players almost always look a bit more awkward than people who started as kids). It's a really good point. I actually know one player like that, though. Took up the sport in his late 20s and from the start looked like he had been carefully coached. The guy got to 2200 in just a few years. But then he hit a wall. At that point further improvement was going to require a lot of work, even for him. His improvement stalled. He didn't want to do the things he was going to have to do to get beyond that (and in part he didn't know). He got frustrated about the fact that he had plateaued and his rating was not changing anymore. He has almost quit playing. We'll see if he comes back. He is almost a poster child for some of the things APW46 has been saying. |
||||
|
||||
|
Tassie52
Gold Member
Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 9:17am |
|||
Now how about attempting to answer the substance of my post? Is talent something which you observe in the real world and therefore should be able to identify? Black holes, just like Higgs bosons, are scientifically verifiable even if you have never seen nor measured one. Can you scientifically verify the existence of talent? What are its essential properties? Whereabouts in the human body does it exist? How can you determine its presence or absence apart from all of the other factors that come into play in the performance of a complex sport? Try answering some simple questions so that your response might convert me.
|
||||
|
||||
|
AndySmith
Premier Member
Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/05/2015 at 9:19am |
|||
Only to point out the over-generalisations that people are prone to make, I hope. There is lots of evidence, as you rightly say. But then people jump from that to the sure belief that it is in action everywhere, and it is profound. It's happened in this thread about TT. "It's probably the same in TT" isn't a sentiment which carries weight for me.
That was aimed at people who operate in education, not at anyone here, so it's not a caricature of anyone here at all. This is cherry-picking, even if it is accidental. I'll re-write to be more focused on people on this thread - "I'm criticising people who believe wholeheartedly in "talent", say that they can spot the definite existence of it, say that it is the definite reason why some elite TT players are better than others, or better than we ourselves can hope to become". And my point is that the thinking involved in the re-write LEADS to the thinking in the original statement. |
||||
|
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 678910 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |
Topic Options
NextLevel wrote: