You initially stated that there's a distinction between aptitude/talent and expertise



>You are scrambling to assign differences in approach to our
>theoretical students.

Becaue there are differences because no two ppl's approach to learning are going to be exactly the same.
>
>Logically unpeeling them, your main point seems to be that
>under equal conditions, everyone acquires skills at an equal
>pace.

How did you derive that from me saying that just because a person learns new concepts faster than someone doesn't make them smarter? I never said or hinted at anything abt everyone acquiring skills at an equal pace under the same conditions. Of course ppl don't acquire and apply new things at the same rate...which supports my point that that doesn't mean they're not as smart as someone who learns at a faster pace.
>
>I dont think you really believe that. I think you understand
>fully that talented individuals will acquire
>skills/understanding/whatever faster than less talented
>individuals.

See, you're changing from what you initially said - you said that if you became an expert FASTER (in 5000 hrs.) than someone learning the same thing (in 10,000) that that means the quicker learner is more talented...and my point was that if they both become experts then what does it matter if one grasped the concepts quicker...
>
>It should also be stated that i am talking about very specific
>things. Lets look at golf. Tiger Woods won his first Masters
>at 22 years old. If what you were saying is true, that
>shouldn't be a rare occurance. Because under your
>assumptions, Tiger Woods has no more or less talent than
>anyone else. Its just remarkable coincidence that he was able
>to attain expertise at such a young age.

Ok, but if another golfer achieves the same level of success as Tiger at 30, that doesn't mean Tiger is more talented because his success came at 22...