I've been puzzling over this one for many years. It just doesn't make sense that some people would be born with certain qualities which other's don't have.

By saying that you do believe in talent, you offer a pretty profound explanation of life. Does biology/evolution take painting/singing/dance/acting into account when crafting an organism?


I think what many describe as talent is simply work ethic + passion + character disposition + environment. I've read a fair amount of material on people such as Jordan, Beethoven, Newton, Mozart, and Einstein. These were very hard working, committed, and passionate people, whom had the good fortune of being born into an environment which nurtured their passions. For example, Mozart's father was an accomplished musician and during Mozart's day, classical composers were the rock stars. He had all the tools under his thumb, and was nurtured to fulfill a destiny. Mozart just happened to love music and that's why his progress was so fast.

If human beings have shown each other anything is that we don't know our own limits, and therefore, have none. Why do Olympic records fall year after year? Why are there always new movements of art, music, and architecture? Consciousness is unlimited, try to find the walls within your mind and you will find none. Your mind is as infinite as space.

Lose the idea that others have talent and that you don't as it is just an excuse to stop working hard, or, prove to me that some people are born with a talent others do not have.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

nm

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

It sounds interesting.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

i dont have colors
my mmsic:
www.soundclick.com/sylana
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brb8g8f18xE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NgNuVHrEKI

You are ignoring fundamental truths about natural selection and sexual reproduction

Differences among a human population are guaranteed due to genetic recombination in sexual reproduction.

Everybody doesn't have the same body morphology, why would everyone have the same neural layout?

I am not speaking about survival of the fittest, or natural selection seeking to give an organism the best possible chance for survival or reproduction, etc. I am discussing art.

Does natural selection take how well you can move a paint brush into account? Does survival have anything to do with how fast you can rap, of if you can sing a B# in the 5th octave? How about writing poetry?

All these are human abstractions, so how can anyone be born with a quality which aids in the arts if it is not needed for survival?

>You are ignoring fundamental truths about natural selection
>and sexual reproduction
>

>Differences among a human population are guaranteed due to
>genetic recombination in sexual reproduction.
>
>Everybody doesn't have the same body morphology, why would
>everyone have the same neural layout?
>

I think this applies specifically to physiology, which can be used in sports. Even so, all sports are arbitrary. Shooting a ball into a hoop has nothing to do with survival.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>I am not speaking about survival of the fittest, or natural
>selection seeking to give an organism the best possible chance
>for survival or reproduction, etc. I am discussing art.

And you dont think that visual acuity, visual memory, and the ability to turn abatract ideas into visual representation had any value for human survival?

>Does natural selection take how well you can move a paint
>brush into account? Does survival have anything to do with how
>fast you can rap, of if you can sing a B# in the 5th octave?
>How about writing poetry?

Music began as human communication. Not everyone's capacity for verbal/auditory communication is the same. Not everyone hears the exact same range of frequencies, nor has the same acuity.

>All these are human abstractions, so how can anyone be born
>with a quality which aids in the arts if it is not needed for
>survival?

The underlying neural structures associated with art are coopted from earlier adaptations that were absolutely important for human survival. Those adaptations present a spectrum of phenotypes. Some will be more pronounced in some ppl vs others.

And you are still ignoring the genetic recombination that results from sexual reproduction. Genes come into combination with others to yield phenotypes that are more than the sum of their genotypic components. Even within families. My sister started reading 2-3 years older than i was when i did despite having the same upbringing. My sister read approx 1 year above grade level her whole childhood while i consistently increased the difference between my grade level and reading level. Different gene combinations can have unpredictable effects.

>>You are ignoring fundamental truths about natural selection
>>and sexual reproduction
>>
>
>>Differences among a human population are guaranteed due to
>>genetic recombination in sexual reproduction.
>>
>>Everybody doesn't have the same body morphology, why would
>>everyone have the same neural layout?
>>

>I think this applies specifically to physiology, which can be
>used in sports. Even so, all sports are arbitrary. Shooting a
>ball into a hoop has nothing to do with survival.

Physiology includes the way your brain works. Yoy were not issued a standard brain with variable everything else. You brain is different from others' just like your face is.

>And you dont think that visual acuity, visual memory, and the
>ability to turn abatract ideas into visual representation had
>any value for human survival?
>

To answer your question, all the ideas you just presented may or may not create a good artist. Often, a soft touch is needed in order to execute an artistic abstraction. Early human survival depended on brute strength and domination. The arts are subtle. What does composing a symphony have to do with survival? How about a sculpture? I think we would need to flesh out real examples and how they connect directly, but I have personally not come across any data that does so, can you make any recommendations?


>Music began as human communication. Not everyone's capacity
>for verbal/auditory communication is the same. Not everyone
>hears the exact same range of frequencies, nor has the same
>acuity.

Human speech was extracted from nature and by mimicking animal sounds. We copied the sounds we heard and applied meaning to them. I am not sure I would be so confident in saying where music came from and would need some data on that. Perhaps music began as communication with or mimicking nature. If you follow this through, than you arrive with the idea that nature is an artist, capable of poetry, art, abstract thought, etc. and not simply the mechanical chaos materialists believe it to be.


>The underlying neural structures associated with art are
>coopted from earlier adaptations that were absolutely
>important for human survival. Those adaptations present a
>spectrum of phenotypes. Some will be more pronounced in some
>ppl vs others.
>

>And you are still ignoring the genetic recombination that
>results from sexual reproduction. Genes come into combination
>with others to yield phenotypes that are more than the sum of
>their genotypic components. Even within families. My sister
>started reading 2-3 years older than i was when i did despite
>having the same upbringing. My sister read approx 1 year
>above grade level her whole childhood while i consistently
>increased the difference between my grade level and reading
>level. Different gene combinations can have unpredictable
>effects.

I think this is purely anecdotal although I do see what you are saying. I need data.


>
>Physiology includes the way your brain works. Yoy were not
>issued a standard brain with variable everything else. You
>brain is different from others' just like your face is.

Nature also includes human beings but we often see ourselves as alien to it. If anything, I would say that nature is talented.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

You are being thoroughly dense and making claims that run the gamut from dubious to flatly incorrect.

I have explained how and why people's brains are different. I even gave you an example of it at work.

Believe what you would like, since you are dead set on that anyways.

In my last reply to you, I was musing and asked for data. I could sense right away that you were seeking to put me down, or attack me, or something along those lines.

Why do you think everything has to turn into a thinly veiled insult or put down? Why does communication suddenly have to come to a halt with judgement? Why are you so tense, unsettled and on guard? Why seek conflict when there is no need for any?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>In my last reply to you, I was musing and asked for data. I
>could sense right away that you were seeking to put me down,
>or attack me, or something along those lines.

Oh jesus. I havent put you down or attacked you. I gave a rather accurate description of your current behavior and expressed that i no longer wished to indulge it.

>Why do you think everything has to turn into a thinly veiled
>insult or put down? Why does communication suddenly have to
>come to a halt with judgement? Why are you so tense, unsettled
>and on guard? Why seek conflict when there is no need for any?

I have no patience for anyone without expertise to be arguing with me over something of which they lack a full understanding. Your understanding of human evolution, neuroscience, and the underlying principles of natural selection is severely lacking. Mine is not. I attempted to share some concepts that would have helped you understand where your assumptions were mistaken. I even gave an example, not meant to prove myself right, but to illuminate the concepta for you. None of this was for my own benefit, but to increase understanding of a subject that i am passionate about. However you just wanted people to tell you you were right. I hate that even when someone IS right, so when someone is dead ass wrong it becomes intolerable.

And fuck your request for data lmao. Your faulty ideas arent even based on correct concepts much less any data to support them. But when you are presented with concepts that ARE correct, now all of the audden you need objective verification. How interesting that your own wrong ideas were not held to such scrutiny!

>Oh jesus. I havent put you down or attacked you. I gave a
>rather accurate description of your current behavior and
>expressed that i no longer wished to indulge it.

Come on. Let's at least be honest with each other. You don't have to be a rocket scientists to identify your tone and how you chose to communicate. They have a word for that, it starts with an A and ends with an E.


>I have no patience for anyone without expertise to be arguing
>with me over something of which they lack a full
>understanding. Your understanding of human evolution,
>neuroscience, and the underlying principles of natural
>selection is severely lacking. Mine is not. I attempted to
>share some concepts that would have helped you understand
>where your assumptions were mistaken. I even gave an example,
>not meant to prove myself right, but to illuminate the
>concepta for you. None of this was for my own benefit, but to
>increase understanding of a subject that i am passionate
>about. However you just wanted people to tell you you were
>right. I hate that even when someone IS right, so when
>someone is dead ass wrong it becomes intolerable.
>
>And fuck your request for data lmao. Your faulty ideas arent
>even based on correct concepts much less any data to support
>them. But when you are presented with concepts that ARE
>correct, now all of the audden you need objective
>verification. How interesting that your own wrong ideas were
>not held to such scrutiny!

Yes, how outrageous of me to ask for data you used to fortify your assumptions with. What on earth was I thinking.

You say you have no patience but you sat there and wrote a love essay to yourself courtesy of your own ego, all while managing to put me down some more. I find your demeanor completely hilarious and juvenile. I am sure you are a joy to be around. Your way of communication can be likened to opening and slamming doors in someone's face.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

and i've known that there was something different about me in that regard since i was about 5 years old. then i started to notice that i was a better artist than the teacher and that while my classmates were drawing silhouettes with mohawks, i was drawing silhouettes with hair on the sides, because that is how people look.

and i wouldnt say art or drawing is the talent, but perhaps moreso it's hand-eye coordination...the ability of my hand to translate what my eyes see.

i think that because there was such a big difference btwn my artwork and the artwork of my peers, i was pushed in that direction. i was ALWAYS drawing or doing some type of creative project as a kid, in my own time, and people were constantly telling me how talented i was. and my parents made me take art lessons.

so i didnt really have a choice in the matter. over the years, i became more skilled and passionate. i also noticed that many of my peers who were better at art than i was started dropping off because they had other interests they cared more about. so they didnt use or nurture their talent, but i'm sure they'll always have it.

i also don't believe talent is the end all and be all. it's a very small part of the puzzle. i consider it something of a head start. i think most people can master any artistic skill if they work hard enough.

I took studio in university, and as a result had to take drawing classes. On my first day, our prof had us draw the person's face who was sitting next to us. My drawing came out looking like a children's doodle. It was horrible. I was embarrassed to think of myself as an artist.

We then studied drawing, how to take perspective into account, to close one eye in order to make a 3 dimensional object appear more 2 dimensional. We even looked at the definition of drawing which is to take something out of the object you are drawing, to literally draw it forth.

On our last day of class, our prof had us perform the same exercise, and everyone in the class was able to draw a perfect human face in the exact likeness of the person sitting next to them. We were all pretty amazed with ourselves.

At this point, my drawing excelled as I became more confident. This is precisely the moment I started to question talent.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

but after being taught how to draw, I could draw a perfect human face, which caused me to question the idea of talent.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

is really not a mark of talent but more of learning
everyone has the capacity to learn especially if they work at it
thats not talent....that a specific type of aptitude

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

that all things we consider as done with talent can be learned.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

or why you would call it "loser talk" but, I think that has more to do with you than me.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

sure you can WORK REALLY HARD to learn how to do something, but a person with natural aptitude can work really hard and always be ahead of you.

most people who are successful in a particular craft or skill are talented AND hardworking. one without the other won't cut it. there just arent enough hours in the day for person to work hard enough to compete with someone who has a natural aptitude for something and also works hard.

To begin with, "Natural" vs "Unnatural" is insanely difficult to define and I don't think it ever has been.

Many people view nature as a perfect sanctuary for human beings and some often advocate the "natural" way to life, but most people don't take into consideration that nature is riddled with life threatening features that are in fact trying to kill you. Neil Tyson Degrasse speaks about this frequently, check out some of his talks on YouTube if you have a chance, he's amazing.

To say that someone has natural aptitude just doesn't make sense to me personally, especially when we have defined "natural" culturally. I am trying to strip away the socialization and focus only on the objective possibilities but I don't even think that is possible, and I don't see a scenario where having natural aptitude for painting or drawing has anything to do with nature at all.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

first off, i dont agree with the way you look at natural vs unnatural.

everything is natural--even things that are unnatural or "synthetic" are derived from nature and can be just as good as something considered natural after processes. the fewer processes one must undergo to achieve a desired result, the more natural something is.

some people have naturally blue eyes; others wear contacts. a person with grey eyes who wears blue contacts will need a lighter tint to get the look of blue eyes. a person with dark brown eyes will need a heavier tint. in the end, they can all have the same blue eyes, but that does not mean there's no difference.

no need to over intellectualize the simple fact that some things just come easier to some people than others.

as i said in my first reply, i naturally understood things about rendering a subject than my peers. no one taught me. there was no difference btwn my socialization and that of my peers. i just knew what i knew. if anything socialization had the potential to work against me, because i was actually afraid people were going to make fun of my drawings because they were so different. but what you learned in college i knew without being taught. by the time i was in college, i was focusing on concepts because i had most of the technical stuff out of the way.

I find that it disrupts communication, when in most cases, its just fun to share your opinion, whether or not we agree with each-other is irrelevant, but as soon as we attempt to police each other's opinions, conflict will arise and there is on need for that.

>first off, i dont agree with the way you look at natural vs
>unnatural.
>
>everything is natural--even things that are unnatural or
>"synthetic" are derived from nature and can be just as good as
>something considered natural after processes. the fewer
>processes one must undergo to achieve a desired result, the
>more natural something is.

I think that is a contradictory statement. At first you said that everything *is* natural, and then you made a a condition of processes. It either is or isn't.

Coincidentally, I like your idea that "Everything is natural." but with with no conditions. That is a zen way of looking at it, because, and we often forget, human beings are from the Earth just as much as grass is. One could argue that everything we do is 100% natural and they would be right.

>
>some people have naturally blue eyes; others wear contacts. a
>person with grey eyes who wears blue contacts will need a
>lighter tint to get the look of blue eyes. a person with dark
>brown eyes will need a heavier tint. in the end, they can all
>have the same blue eyes, but that does not mean there's no
>difference.

I fail to see the point.

>
>no need to over intellectualize the simple fact that some
>things just come easier to some people than others.
>

There is a need for *me* because there is no data to justify/prove one way or the other conclusively. I think its important to scrutinize and consider in great depth, and if you acknowledge that talent may not be innate, it may give you the confidence to do something you once gave up on because you convinced yourself you had no talent for it.

On the other hand, if you walk around believing that you have a special "natural" talent other people do not, it may reinforce your ego and blind you from your true self. I am using "you" in general terms here.

>as i said in my first reply, i naturally understood things
>about rendering a subject than my peers. no one taught me.
>there was no difference btwn my socialization and that of my
>peers. i just knew what i knew. if anything socialization had
>the potential to work against me, because i was actually
>afraid people were going to make fun of my drawings because
>they were so different. but what you learned in college i knew
>without being taught. by the time i was in college, i was
>focusing on concepts because i had most of the technical stuff
>out of the way.

I am not saying you are not a good artist. I looked at your post and I like your work.

I am simply saying that I do not personally believe you were born with it. There are other factors to consider, perhaps you grew up in an environment which nurtured your artistic passion, and sure enough, you claimed that you did. Perhaps you loved it more than your peers, and it is commonly understood that if you love something, you take care of it in a way that is a bit more special than normal. Perhaps you were better able to focus on the task because it gave you a sense of freedom and comfort. When I was a kid I could not focus on anything as my head was always in the clouds. Also, I became an excellent artist after believing all my life I had no talent for it, and all it took was belief in myself and a professor that knew how to draw it out of me, pun intended.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

you may or may not choose to acknowledge it, but it is what it is.

which side you fall on is what should be irrelevant. if you feel the conversation is disrupted because someone says youre wrong, perhaps you need to check your ego and focus on finding the truth as opposed to trying to be or sound right. we're adults. i'm not here to hold your hand in this. i'm telling you my experience and my opinion and if you think that creates conflict...well...you'd never survive in art school, lol.

>I think that is a contradictory statement. At first you said
>that everything *is* natural, and then you made a a condition
>of processes. It either is or isn't.

NO. i said some things are more natural than others. but still, everything is ultimately natural. it's no one or the other.

>
>Coincidentally, I like your idea that "Everything is natural."
>but with with no conditions. That is a zen way of looking at
>it, because, and we often forget, human beings are from the
>Earth just as much as grass is. One could argue that
>everything we do is 100% natural and they would be right.
>
>>
>>some people have naturally blue eyes; others wear contacts.
>a
>>person with grey eyes who wears blue contacts will need a
>>lighter tint to get the look of blue eyes. a person with
>dark
>>brown eyes will need a heavier tint. in the end, they can
>all
>>have the same blue eyes, but that does not mean there's no
>>difference.
>
>I fail to see the point.

my point is that some things are more natural than others. that does not take away from the end result. if you put in 500 hours to accomplish what i can accomplish in 5 hours, you have still accomplished the same thing as i have.

>There is a need for *me* because there is no data to
>justify/prove one way or the other conclusively. I think its
>important to scrutinize and consider in great depth, and if
>you acknowledge that talent may not be innate, it may give you
>the confidence to do something you once gave up on because you
>convinced yourself you had no talent for it.

ok....so is this post just a way for you to validate continuing a path you don't have a talent for? if you want to pursue a certain path, then you should work hard at it regardless of what talent you have or dont have. EVERY talented person knows that there are people who are more talented than they are; whether or not they continue on that path is another set of character traits. it's silly to be in denial about where you compare with others; if you are discouraged by people who are more talented then you are, then it's probably not for you anyway.


>On the other hand, if you walk around believing that you have
>a special "natural" talent other people do not, it may
>reinforce your ego and blind you from your true self. I am
>using "you" in general terms here.

this is true, but it does not take away from the value of talent in and of itself. your initial query was whether or not the concept of talent is a valid one--not the impact it has on the ego of the person who has it.
>
>>as i said in my first reply, i naturally understood things
>>about rendering a subject than my peers. no one taught me.
>>there was no difference btwn my socialization and that of my
>>peers. i just knew what i knew. if anything socialization
>had
>>the potential to work against me, because i was actually
>>afraid people were going to make fun of my drawings because
>>they were so different. but what you learned in college i
>knew
>>without being taught. by the time i was in college, i was
>>focusing on concepts because i had most of the technical
>stuff
>>out of the way.
>
>I am not saying you are not a good artist. I looked at your
>post and I like your work.

thank you. would it surprise you to know that i'm not anywhere near where i want to be in terms of skill? after over 30 years of intense focus?
>
>I am simply saying that I do not personally believe you were
>born with it. There are other factors to consider, perhaps you
>grew up in an environment which nurtured your artistic
>passion, and sure enough, you claimed that you did. Perhaps
>you loved it more than your peers, and it is commonly
>understood that if you love something, you take care of it in
>a way that is a bit more special than normal. Perhaps you were
>better able to focus on the task because it gave you a sense
>of freedom and comfort. When I was a kid I could not focus on
>anything as my head was always in the clouds. Also, I became
>an excellent artist after believing all my life I had no
>talent for it, and all it took was belief in myself and a
>professor that knew how to draw it out of me, pun intended.
>

i feel like you are trying to invalidate my experience. my talents were not nurtured by my parents until they saw i had it. one of my first memories is of drawing a circle with a red crayon on the underside of the kitchen table when i was 3 or 4. i distinctly remember the weight of the line and how perfect one side of the circle was. what do you think could have nurtured the ability to draw a near perfect circle at 3 or 4 years old? i have 2 brothers who grew up in the same environment as i did, and they couldn't do what i did nor did they have the awareness that i did.

everything you speak of--passion, love, focus due to freedom or comfort--came AFTER my talent was revealed.

regarding your last point, no one is saying that you cannot become an excellent artist without talent. i suck at math, but im certain i could have become a mathematician had i loved math and worked my ass off to become one.

>you may or may not choose to acknowledge it, but it is what
>it is.
>

it really isn't. you cannot provide definite proof for or against. its like the question of god, which view is right and which is wrong?

>which side you fall on is what should be irrelevant. if you
>feel the conversation is disrupted because someone says youre
>wrong, perhaps you need to check your ego and focus on finding
>the truth as opposed to trying to be or sound right. we're
>adults. i'm not here to hold your hand in this. i'm telling
>you my experience and my opinion and if you think that creates
>conflict...well...you'd never survive in art school, lol.

I went to art school and am very successful in my field. I am not trying to be "right", I am simply saying I don't think what you are saying is universally true based on "my" perception and experience.

>
>>I think that is a contradictory statement. At first you said
>>that everything *is* natural, and then you made a a
>condition
>>of processes. It either is or isn't.
>
>NO. i said some things are more natural than others. but
>still, everything is ultimately natural. it's no one or the
>other.
>

I agree that everything is natural. If everything is natural why the need to say "natural aptitude" ? wouldn't "aptitude" be just as true?

>
>my point is that some things are more natural than others.
>that does not take away from the end result. if you put in 500
>hours to accomplish what i can accomplish in 5 hours, you have
>still accomplished the same thing as i have.

So you define natural by speed? but time is infinite and only a measure of the rate of change based on our perspective of it. Art is an abstract practice, we literally take concepts which cannot have a basis in reality and give life to them.

I am not sure how you can use something like art, which is abstract, and make it a law in the universe that some people have more of it than others??

>ok....so is this post just a way for you to validate
>continuing a path you don't have a talent for? if you want to
>pursue a certain path, then you should work hard at it
>regardless of what talent you have or dont have. EVERY
>talented person knows that there are people who are more
>talented than they are; whether or not they continue on that
>path is another set of character traits. it's silly to be in
>denial about where you compare with others; if you are
>discouraged by people who are more talented then you are, then
>it's probably not for you anyway.

Haha, I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I distinctly said I thought I had no talent for art based on my earliest attempts to draw a human face in proper likeness, and then educated myself, practiced, and discovered that I was very good at it, and now I am very successful with it. That is why I question the idea of "talent". I used to believe in it, until I discovered the only thing anyone needs to be successful in anything they pursue, the love for it and the will to work on it.

>

>this is true, but it does not take away from the value of
>talent in and of itself. your initial query was whether or not
>the concept of talent is a valid one--not the impact it has on
>the ego of the person who has it.
>>

That was a side point, my stance still stands that talent is imagined.


>i feel like you are trying to invalidate my experience. my
>talents were not nurtured by my parents until they saw i had
>it. one of my first memories is of drawing a circle with a red
>crayon on the underside of the kitchen table when i was 3 or
>4. i distinctly remember the weight of the line and how
>perfect one side of the circle was. what do you think could
>have nurtured the ability to draw a near perfect circle at 3
>or 4 years old? i have 2 brothers who grew up in the same
>environment as i did, and they couldn't do what i did nor did
>they have the awareness that i did.
>

I am not trying to do that so I apologize if that's how I came across. More specifically I am not trying to invalidate your work. Whether or not I believe you were born with "talent" does not take away from your efforts. Your work is still just as good. To me personally, and I keep stressing that because a lot of people are a bit to keen to find offense and argue, I do not believe in it. You told me that my belief was "wrong", after I specifically said that I am not arguing or saying you are wrong but have my own beliefs and I shared them. I don't see how you can say I am wrong with such perfect knowledge when you cannot prove it one way or the other. We are just sharing ideas. Neither is wrong or right.

>everything you speak of--passion, love, focus due to freedom
>or comfort--came AFTER my talent was revealed.
>

I have never come across parents who do not say their children are talented. You drew a perfect circle, that's amazing, I remember drawing circles as well. Was it the first circle you ever drew? my personal beliefs is that you came from a home where your interests and passions were nurtured and encouraged. Your point of view is that you were born with it, and we can discuss it till we are blue in the face and it will not make a single difference to the quality of your work.

>regarding your last point, no one is saying that you cannot
>become an excellent artist without talent. i suck at math, but
>im certain i could have become a mathematician had i loved
>math and worked my ass off to become one.

Exactly my point of view. "Had I loved". Exactly! That's the point, love is extremely powerful. Some of us are able to love in ways we think is missing in others, and usually, its because most people have a ton of stuff sitting on their hearts, so they are in their own way. "I cannot love right now because A, B, C...", "I am not ready for this right now because of A, B, C." etc etc.

It does not mean they do not have the capacity to love, it simply means that they have locked themselves in their past, which is insoluble, and impossible to change. If you are able to live in the now, without the past, or the future, and truly focus only on the present moment, your literally lift everything off your heart because it is not happening to you right now, and are able to be your true limitless self.

Children are better at this because they haven't lost their innocence, so to speak, so I do not doubt that you were drawing beautiful circles as a child, and perhaps it is because your heart is open and free, and you did not know of any limitations or boundaries to being able to draw a circle, and so you did it. I think everyone is capable of that.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

to answer the question you posed that is most relevant to your initial post, yes, i do believe talent is a matter of speed in which one masters a skill. to be honest, that's really all i'm saying.

first you were talking about socialization and now youre saying its about love. i wasnt socialized to love art. if at 3 or 4, i had drawn a circle and thought it looked shitty, i probably wouldnt have even started to love art. everything came AFTER the talent i was born with.

i also think there's a difference btwn being good at art and having superior technical artistic skills. if you went to art school you know that there are many people who have little to no technical traditional art skills but are beasts at developing concepts and are therefore good at art. art is a very vast field. so theres that.

>to answer the question you posed that is most relevant to
>your initial post, yes, i do believe talent is a matter of
>speed in which one masters a skill. to be honest, that's
>really all i'm saying.

haha, that's interesting, since a lot of classic and timeless art has taken an incredible amount of time to complete. i could name a gazillion things. i don't think any classic artist would say their skill was complete since many of them gave birth to new movements throughout their careers and continued to develop their styles and "voice" throughout their entire lives.

>
>first you were talking about socialization and now youre
>saying its about love. i wasnt socialized to love art. if at 3
>or 4, i had drawn a circle and thought it looked shitty, i
>probably wouldnt have even started to love art. everything
>came AFTER the talent i was born with.

Love is socialization. It is many things and everything is connected.

>
>i also think there's a difference btwn being good at art and
>having superior technical artistic skills. if you went to art
>school you know that there are many people who have little to
>no technical traditional art skills but are beasts at
>developing concepts and are therefore good at art. art is a
>very vast field. so theres that.

I took a class on the philosophy of art and we studied what constitute art by the traditional definition and what doesn't. A lot of what people claim is art, actually isn't, it isn't just about putting any old picture together with a few brush strokes, there is a discipline and knowledge and application of many fundamentals which is required. Shrug.

There can be many perspective on things and neither of them have to be correct, or "true". I didn't miss any points btw, I understand what you are saying I just don't resonate with it personally.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

and youre all over the place. and youre wrong. sorry.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

there are certain ppl who have the ability to sing without much effort, and there are others who no matter how hard they try at it, they wont have a good singing voice...just as there are those who can look at an object or a scene or even envision an object or scene and use their hands and minds to transfer that scene/object to canvas...i think it goes beyond just hard work. there are some ppl who are just musically inclined. sure if you work hard u might be able to learn piano, but that doesnt translate into the ability to play with feeling, which may or may not be something that u can learn.

I am one of those people that can't sing, but the funny thing is, I can sing, and very well too, but only when I'm not thinking about it. When I am singing unconsciously for fun, I hit the right notes and do things that I couldn't' to save my own life if asked to.

I study a lot of Zen Buddhism and it teaches you to "Get out of your own way." and I think that is precisely what many people encounter when they try to do something that is associated with talent. The same goes for music. I had a personal breakthrough with music when instead of "making music" I simply "music'd" . When I learned to think of the process as natural, like a flowing stream, my creativity and comprehension of melody/harmony improved and took on completely new levels of accomplishment. When I intellectualized it by using the word "make", it was dull and life less and repetitive.

I really think the only road blocks are the unconscious beliefs we set on ourselves, which we consciously fortify by affirming we can't do A, B, or C.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

lets say that you have identical twin brothers of age...say 7 or 8. Neither has the desire or interest to play piano, but their parents enroll both in piano lessons. brother A doesnt want to take the lessons, but effortlessly sails thru each piano lesson, greatly impressing his instructor, despite being bored out of his fucking mind. brother B, who is as equally disinterested as his twin, struggles with concepts and cannot seem to grasp the basics.

now, neither wants to play piano, but clearly one seems (?) to pick it up much quicker and more naturally than the other, who is really having trouble with just the basics. assuming both had a good childhood experience up to their current ages and are well adjusted, intelligent kids, to what would you attribute one brothers natural (innate?) ability to pick up the activity over the other one?

I can't possibly give you an objective answer based on a hypothetical situation. Your situation clearly points to one correct answer within its framework. We would need real life case studies in a lab setting to correctly answer that question.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

at certain things than the other is absolutely the norm

If you apply yourself to A, and your sibling applies themselves to B, obviously they will be better at their respective passions than the other, no?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

interest out of the equasion...you want to not answer because its a hypothetical but if talent doesnt exist then there should be a hypothetical answer that supports your theory...i cant really see it

>interest out of the equasion...you want to not answer because
>its a hypothetical but if talent doesnt exist then there
>should be a hypothetical answer that supports your theory...i
>cant really see it

You don't need hypothetical scenario's to show where people have risen beyond their expectations and done amazing things out of sheer drive and passion.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

to discredit every possible angle. i know plenty of siblings who participated in shit as kids that they didnt want to do but were good at it. one of my friends was an olympic caliber swimmer and excelled from the moment he hit the water and broke all kinds of state records but quit swimming because he never really wanted to do it in the first place... his parents pushed him. mofos all around this lil dude worked 3 times as hard as he had to and nobody could touch his times. that type of natural dominance went far beyond just plain ole hard work

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

GOD is good, and he grants each of us a discernable gifting, now should we all be prisoner to it, everyday all day on radio and television???

Absolutely not, there used to be a certain crop of singers and rappers that repped the culture to the fullest, now it's a crowd of nameless and forgettable faces that muck up the field, and to the point that you find yourself no longer caring...

*Formerly known as OKP "Nathaniel"

flower, but you can have the flower w/o the fruit'

Translation: 'you can have all the potential that one person can possess, but it takes nurturing that potential into a tangible reality'

Your question abt talent also sorta ties into Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers' where he questions this idea of ppl being born a genius as to the reason why they're successful vs their success being more attributable to hard work and also timing...

grassrootsphilosopher

Between aptitude/talent and expertise

If you can accomplish expertise in 5000 hours vs my 10000, you are clearly more talented than i am.

>If you can accomplish expertise in 5000 hours vs my 10000, you
>are clearly more talented than i am.

grassrootsphilosopher

On one hand, you present yourself as someone that uses the scientific method, and on the other, you produce anecdotal assumptions which you cannot possibly prove. Shrug.

Irony.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

im so confused right now lol

of interest why one person becomes an expert faster than the next person

Also, if we both become experts in the end result then just because one person became an expert faster doesn't necessarily mean he/she is more talented

Learning faster is not automatically synonymous w/being more talented

grassrootsphilosopher

And if you say everyone with equal drive picks up new concepts at the same rate, you are knowingly telling a lie.

I also never used the word smarter, so i dont know where that came from.

with a predefined set of rules/variables only you get to choose to prove a generalizing idea.

lulz indeed my friend.

I don't think you know what you are talking about but you do a good job of faking the funk and that should be congratulated.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>with a predefined set of rules/variables only you get to
>choose to prove a generalizing idea.
>

that's how science works though. except you don't set out to prove things right, you set out to prove them wrong.

he's giving you a lot of solid, detailed answers and you're just dismissing them

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

You are probably right, can you frame what he is saying, at least what you drew from it and tell me what you think he said?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

he explained it a lot better than i could. some people's genes simply predispose them to naturally be better at something than others. nurturing this talent and working on weaknesses obviously helps, but to completely disregard talent as some sort of myth is silly.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

>he explained it a lot better than i could. some people's
>genes simply predispose them to naturally be better at
>something than others. nurturing this talent and working on
>weaknesses obviously helps, but to completely disregard talent
>as some sort of myth is silly.
>
>

I haven't been able to find any specific data on it, and I felt his argument was painted in strokes that are over generalizing. I asked for some data or reading recommendation and he insulted me. Shrug.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>And if you say everyone with equal drive picks up new
>concepts at the same rate, you are knowingly telling a lie.

First off, how do you measure drive? How can we tell two ppl have the same drive?

And because someone picks up new concepts faster than someone else does not mean that person is more talented

I'm not in agreement w/that at all

Maybe the person is a perfectionist and likes to take their time when learning new things

>I also never used the word smarter, so i dont know where that
>came from.

My bad - I corrected it

grassrootsphilosopher

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

Logically unpeeling them, your main point seems to be that under equal conditions, everyone acquires skills at an equal 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.

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.

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...

grassrootsphilosopher

You are arguing in support of something i know that you dont believe

You are way too active in OKS for me to think you dont believe that natural talent is a real thing.

since you brought up sports


Question: is Lebron James more talented than Michael Jordan?

Based on what you're saying he is....because Lebron was a basketball prodigy at the age of 11 yrs old while Michael Jordan was getting cut as a junior from his high school ball team! Lebron grasped the fundamentals of basketball a lot faster than MJ did. Lebron could've been the no.1 draft pick as a junior if the NBA would've allowed high school players to enter the league at 16. MJ has admitted there's no way he could've played in the NBA at 17 or 18 yrs old.

Having said that, there are plenty of ppl who have said that MJ is the more talented player of the two even though he became an *expert* a lot later than Lebron did

So I go back to my original point that learning something quicker than someone else (under the same conditions) doesn't make them more talented necessarily.



>You are arguing in support of something i know that you dont
>believe
>
>You are way too active in OKS for me to think you dont believe
>that natural talent is a real thing.

grassrootsphilosopher

Because one could Jordan reached a level of expertise by 30 that Lebron has not.

He was also still aquiring expertise into his 30's.

Pace of acquisition is only one criterion, but there are others.

because everything you're saying below pertaining to Jordan now could be said to be a result of work ethic than natural talent


>Because one could Jordan reached a level of expertise by 30
>that Lebron has not.
>
>He was also still aquiring expertise into his 30's.
>
>Pace of acquisition is only one criterion, but there are
>others.

grassrootsphilosopher

Thats whats known as upside. A facet of natural talent.

case who both are at expert level in their field of expertise but one achieved his/her success at a faster pace than the other but that doesn't make that person smarter because they learned at a faster rate is all I've been saying

Of course there's a such thing as god-given talent a la Lebron and someone who is not very talented at all could never do the things Lebron does no matter how much time and hard work they put into their efforts....but that's not what I was arguing.


>Thats whats known as upside. A facet of natural talent.

grassrootsphilosopher

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

that's discovered usually early on in childhood

the term is usually referenced for those in music

grassrootsphilosopher

>that's discovered usually early on in childhood
>
>the term is usually referenced for those in music
>

Let's take Einstein for example. Einstein struggled with mathematics most of his young life. One could say he had no natural aptitude for it. His equations have changed the course of human history forever. If you read his biography you will learn that Einstein's perseverance and determination is what set him apart. By all account, he was considered a failure up until his breakthrough's.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

the talent is the flower, the nurturing is what bears the fruit. but if there's no flower, there ain't shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.