Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

Believe it or not, having shaky or wobbly hands is perfect for painting twisted gnarly trees. Also, there are practicaly no straight lines in nature, so landscapes don't usualy require them.

Also, I too have shaky hands, ( a result of a lifetime of partying) I also write in an almost illegible manner, I also cannot draw a straight line, I also used to draw out of proportion, until I learned the techniques to help me to draw in proportion.


I'm that convinced that I could get a result from you, I'll up my bet to £5000.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

But how do you know what a person's 'preferred method' is? Until a person finds a way to learn something that places them within the same level as the standard, I wouldn't exactly call it a 'preferred method'.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

There's no reason why a person with a low general IQ can't have a talent for technical mathematics, ever heard of a 'savant'?

Originally Posted by Neo Evil11

If I can't paint a picasso in 1 month, I am cashing in on that 5000.

Originally Posted by Neo Evil11

This is a bit pushing it right? It happens a lot in the pit when you post a simple statement and people are immediately bringing up loopholes and rare occurances. Just because there are some outliers, it doesn't mean that the general population can do a magna cum laude in mathematics. I know I couldn't.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

There's no reason why a person with a low general IQ can't have a talent for technical mathematics, ever heard of a 'savant'?

Originally Posted by Machanix

We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Originally Posted by instagata0

This isn't true at all.

Splinter skills occur almost exclusively in autistic patients, which leaves a huge amount of problems that would inhibit the completion of a degree.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

But I didn't say that a savant could 'complete a degree', I just said that a savant can 'have a talent for technical mathematics'.

The point I'm making is that savants have 'talents' in certain fields because they happen to think about those fields in ways that make it easy for them to understand. More often than not, it's nothing to do with what someone else has taught them but rather something that they have figured out for themselves, meaning that they are likely to have not been taught the subject that they have a talent for in the 'standard' way.

Originally Posted by Machanix

We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Originally Posted by instagata0

That's true, but it's stretching the concept a bit, given the deficits that come along with your example.

I'm actually on your side of the argument (that environmental enabling allows someone to reach their potential, rather than exhibited potential being an innate trait), but the kind of variability that you're talking about when it comes to teaching people to excel in particular areas of intelligence more often than not come with other problems. For the most part, a generally 'good' environment is better for intelligence than figuring out how to flip a switch on individual concepts to make them work for people.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

Oh I agree entirely, I'm just trying to make the point that 'talent' isn't necessarily something that people are born with.

Originally Posted by Machanix

We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Originally Posted by Pagan_Poetry

Sadly this is Ultimate-guitar, not Simple-guitar. We can't help you.

Originally Posted by instagata0

I misunderstood entirely. My apologies. I thought you were arguing the opposite.

Originally Posted by instagata0

The reason why I was under that impression is that there are distinct neurophysiological differences between savants and other people, meaning that in those special cases, they kind of are born with it, along with a host of other problems.

But I do agree that talent is nurtured, not determined.

Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath

Depends what you mean by 'intellectual potential' really. Are there really people who are naturaly intelligent or is it more down to how and what they are taught? It's a nature 'v' nurture thing.

Take art for example, there are so many people who claim that you need natural talent in order to be a competant artist, but personaly I consider that to be complete bullshit, practicaly anyone can paint pictures to quite a high standard, all they need is to be taught the techniques in a way that they understand. To me, it's exactly the same thing as reading and writing, we don't consider that people need to be naturaly talented in order to be able to read and write, practicaly everyone can read and write in today's world, they just need to be taught how to do it.

I think intelligence can be similar, I think that it's not particularly what you start off with, although that is important to a certain extent, it's more about what you do with it that defines how intelligent you become. To me, intelligence is mainly about the nurture.

I also think that the point where nature comes into it is to do with the way that a person needs to be taught in order to reach their true intelligence potential. In that respect, everyone varies. One teaching technique will work great for one pupil but not for another. But that doesn't make one pupil more intelligent than the other, they could probably both reach the same potential if their personaly ideal way of being taught can be found.

Originally Posted by GbAdimDb5m7

You don't know every cyborg penis or eye type in the world.

Originally Posted by Diemon Dave

Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'

Originally Posted by PC Toshan

Quality polis, MacGregor.

Originally Posted by slapsymcdougal

Well, I did read a thing in a paper last week which claimed parental attitudes were more important than the quality of the school to a child's educational attainment(at school level) - effectively, a pupil at a shite school whose parent(s) do stuff like help them with homework, attend school events like parent's evenings and the like, will be likely to outperform a child at a good school whose parent(s) take little interest.

Originally Posted by Neo Evil11

no matter whar you do, you can't teach me to make a decent painting man. Whereas I think that someone of a lower intelligence will not so easily do better than me in school. Certainly nurture is very important, but nature defines how easy you learn and your maximum potential. But this debate hasnt been settled and we can't do that here either lol.

Originally Posted by element4433

I respect crunk.