Random Thought Thread

[WestRider]

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Completely disagree.

I think these are 10 things that "should" require zero talent, but it's actually rather uncommon to see a single person with all of these. And the ones that single person does have, often require great effort to maintain.

Effort and talent are not the same. Number 8 is actually pretty questionable in this regard, and a couple of others can be affected by disabilities and such, but the majority of them are achievable purely through working at it, regardless of whether or not one has an inherent talent for them or not. It doesn't say anywhere on there that they're easy to do, just that they don't require talent.

[WestRider]

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Old is a figure of speech, at least for me. Been noting how "old" I have become since about age 15...maybe younger.

I generally only talk about getting "older", rather than "old". The latter is very subjective, while the former is just a matter of the passage of time. There are a few songs that really bug me where the singer is going on about getting old, and I'm just like "You were 17 when you wrote that. You ain't old, no way, no how."

[Guest]

3 hours ago, WestRider said:

Effort and talent are not the same. Number 8 is actually pretty questionable in this regard, and a couple of others can be affected by disabilities and such, but the majority of them are achievable purely through working at it, regardless of whether or not one has an inherent talent for them or not. It doesn't say anywhere on there that they're easy to do, just that they don't require talent.

Maybe you and I disagree on the concept of talent. I tend to think of talent as an illusion that others use to justify why putting forth the effort isn't worth it.

Sure, it may appear that others struggle less, but the reality is that your effort will always cost you more than someone else's effort will cost you. It's one of those selfish human things.

Regarding the list, some can't and some just won't do the things on that list. Not sure where the line is between can't and won't, and they might not know themselves. I would definitely consider a person that does all of those listed things as talented - as above, calling them talented is just my way of excusing myself for not doing/being able to do all those things on the list. 

[WestRider]

41 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Maybe you and I disagree on the concept of talent. I tend to think of talent as an illusion that others use to justify why putting forth the effort isn't worth it.

Sure, it may appear that others struggle less, but the reality is that your effort will always cost you more than someone else's effort will cost you. It's one of those selfish human things.

Regarding the list, some can't and some just won't do the things on that list. Not sure where the line is between can't and won't, and they might not know themselves. I would definitely consider a person that does all of those listed things as talented - as above, calling them talented is just my way of excusing myself for not doing/being able to do all those things on the list. 

Let me know when you're ready to start using the same definitions of words as the rest of the English-speaking world.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Let me know when you're ready to start using the same definitions of words as the rest of the English-speaking world.

It's the same definition.

I'm just applying the context in addition to the definition to further understand the usage.

Yes, technically, talent references some sort of innate ability, but it's not really something that an observer can really distinguish from skill acquired via effort. So when referring to others as being talented, that's more an illusion that observer traps themselves in. They see that the other skilled, and personally lack the knowledge of the effort required to obtain those skills, so they classify it as talent, rather than seeing the effort required.

 

[WestRider]

8 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

It's the same definition.

I'm just applying the context in addition to the definition to further understand the usage.

Yes, technically, talent references some sort of innate ability, but it's not really something that an observer can really distinguish from skill acquired via effort. So when referring to others as being talented, that's more an illusion that observer traps themselves in. They see that the other skilled, and personally lack the knowledge of the effort required to obtain those skills, so they classify it as talent, rather than seeing the effort required.

 

None of which changes my point about that list, which is that most of those things can be accomplished by anyone who works at it enough, and are thus not the product of "talent" by any definition. What you are saying here, as best I can make out, is that because you cannot tell whether any particular other person might or might not have some talent for one of them, you assume that talent is involved when someone is good at one or more of them. That's nothing to do with the definitions, it's about your assumptions.

BTW, talent is a real thing, but it only really matters at two points: 1) When first starting, having a talent for something can make getting into it much easier, and 2) at the very top, the ones who become the best of the best are those who combine talent with effort. Effort alone won't beat someone with talent in addition to equal effort. The gap is small enough that it'll get you close, but that gap is real. In between those two points, talent is more or less interchangeable with effort.

[pretre]

2 hours ago, WestRider said:

Let me know when you're ready to start using the same definitions of words as the rest of the English-speaking world.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WestRider said:

BTW, talent is a real thing, but it only really matters at two points: 1) When first starting, having a talent for something can make getting into it much easier, and 2) at the very top, the ones who become the best of the best are those who combine talent with effort. Effort alone won't beat someone with talent in addition to equal effort. The gap is small enough that it'll get you close, but that gap is real. In between those two points, talent is more or less interchangeable with effort.

Not sure I agree. I mean, I think that what you are describing is compatible skills that accumulate and make it appear as if you have superiority in a new skill. But it's not really effortless, you've just been trying since before you knew you started.

Best of the best is another odd concept to me. I think that one is more accurately the best of those competing. Not everyone competes. And even there, it's the best of those within the narrow field that you've decided is your area of expertise. Broaden it a bit, and you'll cease to be the best. While even the worst person can become the best at something if they just narrow their field so only they excel.

But I'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this. Just not very competitive. A competitive person could probably better explain it in a way that doesn't make it sound pointless - it's pointless in my eyes.

Anyway, I'm pretty tired. Forgive me if I'm not making sense. I'm not fully sure if I'm addressing you, or someone else, as I post.

[Duckman]

Pax, you're not the right person to be talking about this because the actual definition of the words doesn't matter to you and you want to waste time using them incorrectly and expecting us to compensate for you.  You probably also don't have any personal experience with being able to do something as soon as it is shown to you (unless you've seen it and dismissed it as someone who had already been taught the skill before).

Talent is defined, it's fairly clear.  Go watch Good Will Hunting again and look for a specific line, "I could just play".  A prodigy is not a prodigy because they have spent years working at something...  They have a talent for something that you don't, a different way of looking at the problem or a natural aptitude for thinking or moving a certain way, whether that is an ability to do math quickly, perfect pitch, spatial relations or time-sense.

It's very easy to see and understand when you are talking about something physical like hand-eye coordination or reflexes.  The same thing, however, applies to other tasks.  That's why kids on the spectrum or from the G&T program hate the sentence "show your work" on a math test.  They (I) don't *do* work.  The problem was obvious to me and done by inspection.

 

If you are shown how to do something once and can immediately do it better than the person teaching you that's talent, not training, not practice.  And it happens all over the place.

[Guest]

If Athena were born today, she'd be a tumor.

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

If Athena were born today, she'd be a tumor.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I guess you just weren't that good, Will Hunting. How do you like dem apples?

[InfestedKerrigan]

 

[InfestedKerrigan]

You have a natural talent, pax.

You have developed your skill.

You may refine a skill that you are talented in.

 

Watch Amadeus. It is a wonderful documentary told by someone who was very skilled, but had little talent, about someone who was wickedly talented and skilled.

[Guest]

On August 30, 2018 at 3:30 PM, InfestedKerrigan said:

You have a natural talent, pax.

You have developed your skill.

You may refine a skill that you are talented in.

 

Watch Amadeus. It is a wonderful documentary told by someone who was very skilled, but had little talent, about someone who was wickedly talented and skilled.

I think talent exists in film as you describe it. And in books. I just don't think it carries over. For characters that didn't exist prior to their inclusion in the book, talent exists.  

I think in real life, the perception of talent is related to other skills that just happen to have related skill sets, so when you try the new skill, you appear talented, but actually you've been practicing the skill many times in other applications and just not known it was related to the other. 

I also think that certain skills are difficult to learn with certain mindsets. A mindset is certainly changable, but most people won't change their own mindset without great cause. 

 

That said, you could be right. I have a tendancy to assume others are equal to myself. It is a mindset I don't wish to give up, but it does seem to have issues with certain assumptions about others. I have noticed it sometimes results in negatively overestimating people. I suppose, if people are unequal, then your concept of talent would probably have more merit. I dislike this perspective on a fundemental basis.

 

[InfestedKerrigan]

35 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I think talent exists in film as you describe it. And in books. I just don't think it carries over. For characters that didn't exist prior to their inclusion in the book, talent exists.  

It absolutely does carry over, and music is the most widely available source of showcasing the difference between naturally talented gifted prodigies, and skilled individuals that have practiced.

 

Quote

I think in real life, the perception of talent is related to other skills that just happen to have related skill sets, so when you try the new skill, you appear talented, but actually you've been practicing the skill many times in other applications and just not known it was related to the other. 

That would be showboating, or ignorance. Crossclass skills are a common thing. And people do look for such things, say when hiring, as am example.

 

Quote

I also think that certain skills are difficult to learn with certain mindsets. A mindset is certainly changable, but most people won't change their own mindset without great cause. 

😐

 

Quote

That said, you could be right.

It's okay, we know we are right. Just not everyone is still trying to get you on the same page.  You seem to deliberately try to find anything you can in an attempt to keep affirming your interpretation of things.  

 

Quote

I have a tendancy to assume others are equal to myself.

I feel this is why you can't understand what it is like to be a minority in this country, and how you benefit from privilege. 

 

Quote

It is a mindset I don't wish to give up, but it does seem to have issues with certain assumptions about others. I have noticed it sometimes results in negatively overestimating people. I suppose, if people are unequal, then your concept of talent would probably have more merit. I dislike this perspective on a fundemental basis.

Things aren't as simple as "we are all created equally and therefore exist equally and have an equal playing field," because we weren't, and we don't. 

That's why eugenics and morality tend to butt heads.

[WestRider]

13 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I think talent exists in film as you describe it. And in books. I just don't think it carries over. For characters that didn't exist prior to their inclusion in the book, talent exists.  

I think in real life, the perception of talent is related to other skills that just happen to have related skill sets, so when you try the new skill, you appear talented, but actually you've been practicing the skill many times in other applications and just not known it was related to the other. 

I also think that certain skills are difficult to learn with certain mindsets. A mindset is certainly changable, but most people won't change their own mindset without great cause. 

 

That said, you could be right. I have a tendancy to assume others are equal to myself. It is a mindset I don't wish to give up, but it does seem to have issues with certain assumptions about others. I have noticed it sometimes results in negatively overestimating people. I suppose, if people are unequal, then your concept of talent would probably have more merit. I dislike this perspective on a fundemental basis.

 

The thing is, that film is a fairly accurate (as far as we can tell from this distance) portrayal of Salieri and Mozart, at least in this regard. Or do you think Mozart somehow acquired various skills in his first couple of years of life that accumulated and let him start playing klavier perfectly by age 4 and composing music by age 5?

The idea of equality between humans is a complex topic. But the corollary that many draw from it (as you seem to be doing here), that humans must all be the same, is flat out wrong. We all inherently have different strengths and weaknesses. Accepting that made my life significantly better, when I accepted that I'm smarter than most people, and stopped being mad at people all the time for being stupid when they weren't as smart as me. And stopped being frustrated when I wasn't any good at things that clearly came easily to others.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I'm not trying to discourage you from questioning things. I'm trying to encourage you to think beyond your understandings and consider that the way you perceive things could be faulty, and recognize that we do generate preconceived notions of existence that come from incomplete world views.  We just don't like to look in the mirror, as a species.

[WestRider]

There should be a term that's the opposite of a backhanded compliment or damning with faint praise. It came to mind because the only real problem I have with the minis I got from the HeresyGirls KS is that, with detail this fine, it's pretty hard to scrub some of the smaller pieces to remove any remaining mold release agent.

[Raindog]

Is it wrong to long for a week of mist and fog?

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, Raindog said:

Is it wrong to long for a week of mist and fog?

If it is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Maybe Chewbacca will be there.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, WestRider said:

The thing is, that film is a fairly accurate (as far as we can tell from this distance) portrayal of Salieri and Mozart, at least in this regard. Or do you think Mozart somehow acquired various skills in his first couple of years of life that accumulated and let him start playing klavier perfectly by age 4 and composing music by age 5?

The idea of equality between humans is a complex topic. But the corollary that many draw from it (as you seem to be doing here), that humans must all be the same, is flat out wrong. We all inherently have different strengths and weaknesses. Accepting that made my life significantly better, when I accepted that I'm smarter than most people, and stopped being mad at people all the time for being stupid when they weren't as smart as me. And stopped being frustrated when I wasn't any good at things that clearly came easily to others.

Never seen the film. Didn't know it was about piano. Thought it was about prophecy. Didn't see it on that basis. Though not a huge fan of music, probably wouldn't see it anyway. 

Regarding Mozart, it's hard to judge him by modern standards. I do think that he learned the piano by focusing entirely on it. I think by age 4 or 5, most modern kids have learned to be mediocre in hundreds of skills that he had likely never tried. Mozart, at least as historically recorded, was definitely a one-trick pony. In the modern world, most people simply can't be as focused on a single skill (or set of skills) as he was. And I don't mean "can't" as a lack of talent, I meant "can't" because they are truly unable to be so devoted to a single task due to other needs (like the need to learn other skills). 

And it probably helped that his father was already accomplished in the same areas, and was very much availible to teach him from a very young age. And furthermore, his profession is one that didn't get phased out or dramatically altered in his lifetime (like so very many american jobs). Both of these would make most children appear talented: just having availible parents that were successful in a career path that wasn't likely to change or disappear in their lifetime. 

I really don't think it would out the same if he were born in the modern era. I think our general education standards, our child labor laws, and our modern copyright systems would all likely prevent his success to the degree that he succeeded in the mid-late 1700s. On the other hand, Mozart would have probably lived longer. 

[InfestedKerrigan]

Inconceivable.

[Romans832]

14 minutes ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

Inconceivable.

I do not think that means what you think it means...