question of talent

VictorK wrote: roundrobin wrote: 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. @roundrobin - The answer to your question is simple - I focus on the definition of talent as natural, inborn, aptitude because that was the definition implied by OP and the poster to whom I responded. Btw, I'm puzzled by you statement "Just let it go man".  Can you explain what you mean?

I thought it's crystal clear that the word talent encompasses all attributes that are superior to your peers in the context when it's used, exactly as Speedplay and the Merriam-Webster dictionary had indicated.  The origin of a particular talent (innate or otherwise) is completely irrelevant.  If you can't understand it by now you never will, alas. 

It's fine to argue passionately that talent may come from nurture rather than nature, but it's completely STUPID BEYOND BELIEF to say that innate talent is not talent or nurtured talent is not talent.

Seriously, Victor K, you are not Miss Etiquette.  This is the internet, so even though you are dead wrong you will never admit it, so cut out the b.s. already.  It IS asinine to try to tell people that talent is not innate when the dictionary says you could use it to mean just that.  Just let it go man. 





Edited by roundrobin - 05/13/2015 at 5:21pm

@roundrobin - I'm actually quite relaxed and don't seek confrontation with, or force my opinion on, you or anyone else.  Hence there's nothing I feel need to let go - unlike you.   So please calm down, and if you do so, I'd be happy to further discuss this topic ... otherwise good bye!

VictorK wrote: @roundrobin - I'm actually quite relaxed and don't seek confrontation with, or force my opinion on, you or anyone else.  Hence there's nothing I feel need to let go - unlike you.   So please calm down, and if you do so, I'd be happy to further discuss this topic ... otherwise good bye!

I don't think there's a need to discuss when you refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that talent simply means above-average ability within a context.

the trouble with threads like this is it goes on too long 

Speedplay wrote: That poster would be me, and Ive never suggested that talent always is something you are born with. I was simply using my example to show Tassie why I disagree with him. Still, find it a bit interesting to read that you are able to catch up, and surpase the quick learners, who plateus according to you. Wonder why you are able to develop further when they arent? Could it possibly be... Talent? Quick learning is one talent, a talent that often allows you to move on and develop faster then others, but its by no mean the only talent. Some people develop at talent for Reading the game and progress that way. As for Your comments towards RR, I can relate to those, but if you try to look beyond the attitude, you will often find good insight in his posts, so perhaps you should try to focus on that instead of pretending to be moraly superior?

My comments toward roundrobin weren't intended to be about moral superiority but rather about common courtesy, as well as my belief that confrontational and offensive attitudes are detrimental to productive discussions.

I do understand and accept that there are many definitions of "talent" in sports, many of which have difficulty to describe talent comprehensively and accurately.   So, for simplicity, I tend to equate talent with "nature" (perhaps should use the term innate instead of of inborn) while associating other factors affecting the level of performance we achieve with "nurture".   I also believe that the OP's intention was to discuss nature vs nurture, hence I focused on that definition in my posts.

As to my ability to sometimes (not always) surpass quicker learners, it might be that my innate learning curve is different - less steep initially but less likely to plateau quickly, which could be explained by "talent/nature" ... or perhaps that some quick learners tend to assume that they learned/mastered particular skills after the initial success and they don't challenge themselves to practice/perfect them, while I continue working on them for much longer periods of time - which can be explained by "nurture" (deliberate practice)






Edited by VictorK - 05/14/2015 at 8:49am

roundrobin wrote: Sorry, I find your repeated refusal to acknowledge a simple point far more annoying than any rude remark.  There's really nothing to discuss with you, due to your pedantic bent against the use of the word talent as permitted by Merriam-Webster.  As I said, it's asinine and a waste of time to argue with an obdurate mind on the internet, no less.

After, or instead of, re-reading my posts to find evidence of my "repeated refusal to acknowledge a simple point", you might want to check Merriam-Webster for the definition of "Good Bye", LOL

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

(excerpted)  Certain skills are considered key signs of higher mental abilities: good memory, a grasp of grammar and symbols, self-awareness, understanding others’ motives, imitating others, and being creative. Bit by bit, in ingenious experiments, researchers have documented these talents in other species, gradually chipping away at what we thought made human beings distinctive while offering a glimpse of where our own abilities came from. Scrub jays know that other jays are thieves and that stashed food can spoil; sheep can recognize faces; chimpanzees use a variety of tools to probe termite mounds and even use weapons to hunt small mammals; dolphins can imitate human postures; the archerfish, which stuns insects with a sudden blast of water, can learn how to aim its squirt simply by watching an experienced fish perform the task. And Alex the parrot turned out to be a surprisingly good talker.
And Blackie the Cat could, standing near the net on top of a TT table, bat a blocked ball with either of his front paws back to his owner.  Not exactly Ma Long, but pretty darn good for a feline.  Bring on Don Iguana!




Edited by berndt_mann - 05/14/2015 at 5:57pm

As I read these posts I cannot help but notice that we are a talented bunch... 

Edited by JacekGM - 05/14/2015 at 9:46pm

I would like to talk in this thread but this is way too long with some unnecessary conversations so I can't read everything or the important thinks so I'm just going to throw something in timo boll is the most talented player In the world