Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > Instruments > Guitar Techniques
User Name  
Password
Search:

Closed Thread
Old 08-22-2013, 06:34 PM   #61
sweetdude3000
Registered User
 
sweetdude3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Cool

Look at all the master composers. Sure they may have some innate abilities but they all worked damn hard and were stimulated in the right environment. Its probably both but correct fun work matters the most. You can't change your innate being so accept it and be the best you can through hard work
sweetdude3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:41 PM   #62
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
There are also scientific studies that do the exact opposite mate.....in reality there is no definate proof of innate talent.Savants are autistic individuals that their condition forces the brain to zero in,focus and basically remember things more efficiently.Still do you know any savant or any musician famous or not to create a whole new genre with each impro he does? of course not cause in the end he resuffles what he aquired,what he LEARNED, you cant take someone isolated who hasnt heard a genre of music and then hear him play something remotely similar(or make something totally different) simply because he hasnt....aquired it yet.....hasnt learned it....hasnt been exposed to it.


that sounds suspiciously like a natural talent to me. "he's not naturally talented, he just has a brain condition that lets him be better than everyone else more efficiently"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant...Notable_savants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...idered_autistic

yeah none of those people there ever created anything

again... i'm not saying hard work isn't important. Of course it is. But you're arguing like there's no such thing at all as natural talent, or that you shouldn't worry at all if you don't have it. Yes, if you're slightly worse (or even a bit worse) than someone else at something you can overtake them if you work harder. But (IMO, anyway) life's too short to toil away at something you're not much good at (unless you like it, of course) when it might be better to find something else you are good at. Especially, as I said earlier, if the lack of talent is profound i.e. you're banging your head against a brick wall wondering why you're not getting any better.

It normally doesn't get any easier, either, if you're struggling with a subject at school it won't get any easier at university, for example.

Plus I mean it's kinda mean to tell those people that it's their own fault when it might not be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velcro Man
That's the thing about savant, as stated, their minds are developed to block everything but their particular skill, which allows them to absorb the knowledge like crazy, but at the same time, the moment you try to tell them to play something sad or happy, they don't know what it means, they lack any creative ability.


is that relevant? i mean being a good creative musician (i.e. composer) is a different skill than being a good player (musician).

"you're not naturally talented because your natural talent means you're no good at this other discipline!"

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-23-2013 at 12:56 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 03:18 PM   #63
Velcro Man
A person
 
Velcro Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
that sounds suspiciously like a natural talent to me. "he's not naturally talented, he just has a brain condition that lets him be better than everyone else more efficiently"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant...Notable_savants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...idered_autistic

yeah none of those people there ever created anything

again... i'm not saying hard work isn't important. Of course it is. But you're arguing like there's no such thing at all as natural talent, or that you shouldn't worry at all if you don't have it. Yes, if you're slightly worse (or even a bit worse) than someone else at something you can overtake them if you work harder. But (IMO, anyway) life's too short to toil away at something you're not much good at (unless you like it, of course) when it might be better to find something else you are good at. Especially, as I said earlier, if the lack of talent is profound i.e. you're banging your head against a brick wall wondering why you're not getting any better.

It normally doesn't get any easier, either, if you're struggling with a subject at school it won't get any easier at university, for example.

Plus I mean it's kinda mean to tell those people that it's their own fault when it might not be.



is that relevant? i mean being a good creative musician (i.e. composer) is a different skill than being a good player (musician).

"you're not naturally talented because your natural talent means you're no good at this other discipline!"



Yes, because ANYONE can play sheet music and such with practice, that particular art is PURELY muscle memory, and anyone without ****ed up fingers can do it.

Also, as stated before, it's not a natural talent, it's a disability with one up side (depending on perspective. Besides, it's not like savants are the best in the world or even considered noteworthy in the world of music.
Velcro Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:20 PM   #64
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
news to me, i'm awful at sight reading

"anyone without ****ed up fingers can do it."

hmm, yet another qualification. For having the confidence to claim that there's "NO SUCH THING!" as talent and "ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS!", you guys sure like your qualifications, caveats and exceptions...

"Also, as stated before, it's not a natural talent, it's a disability with one up side (depending on perspective."

You could say that about a lot of talents, I wager...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-23-2013 at 04:23 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 05:47 PM   #65
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc

again... i'm not saying hard work isn't important. Of course it is. But you're arguing like there's no such thing at all as natural talent, or that you shouldn't worry at all if you don't have it. Yes, if you're slightly worse (or even a bit worse) than someone else at something you can overtake them if you work harder. But (IMO, anyway) life's too short to toil away at something you're not much good at (unless you like it, of course) when it might be better to find something else you are good at. Especially, as I said earlier, if the lack of talent is profound i.e. you're banging your head against a brick wall wondering why you're not getting any better.



Dude sorry but you have the confidence of talking about things you cant even define.......natural talent i guess you mean innate talent cause i dont know any unatural talent...

For example someone born to a music oriented family who from a little child is introduced to ear training, sight singing,hearing his brothers do it,music around the house all the time blah blah blah.... ll develop a great sense of pitch.Someone ll see that kid and say...wow thats kid is "naturally gifted" "if i had that talent i would be far better at play the...guitar or something" "I know its a gift cause i tried many times to ear train the shit out of these puppies and nothing worked." etc etc etc.He can say it to 100 people and they ll also agree cause they just looking it epidermically.

Now if this was just like a criminal case in court and you had to dig deep you ll immediatelly realize some things:The first case was trained from a kid even at subconsious level,the second case is a thirty something that suddenly decided to train his ear and realized that it doesnt take double the effort but 10 times or more the effort to have similar results.....now that difference for him is the"natural talent" the kid has.

All the other parameters like ,the young age(that offers in this case the best learning platform),the right exercises(music family), the constant exposure to them that were treated as games(kid) instead of exercises(adult)....all that are condensed to one word for him...talent.But its not.....its all those parameters and gazillion more put together to make the end result.

So the term talent is mostly lazy talk.The adult of the example ll may never reach that kids level.Most things he strives for became automatic for the kid from early on...like a game.He ll need amazing drive and effort to come close to the kids results and the more he struggles the more he ll be amazed by the little kid(and also envy him alot) and that ll build up and build up and in the end it creates a huge bubble of exaggeration and false assumptions that gets bigger and bigger to everyone else the story is told.

So basically someone lacks(or has) good timing(introduced at something at an early or the "right" age) ,good teaching enviroment,good teacher,drive and passion,is emotionally sound,stress etc etc etc.Those and many more variables make everyone unique but all those cant be condensed in one word...Talent...people just call talent the end result of all those influences....its not.Its something you learned-influenced by all those parameters that ll never be the same in two individuals- and not something ingraned in your dna .
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:05 PM   #66
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Dude sorry but you have the confidence of talking about things you cant even define


So you define it then. If you're so damned clever then you bloody well do it.






This thread is god damned ridiculous.
__________________
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.
Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:44 PM   #67
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
So you define it then. If you're so damned clever then you bloody well do it.






This thread is god damned ridiculous.


If this thread is god damned ridiculous why you take part in it??
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-23-2013 at 08:55 PM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 05:48 AM   #68
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
If this thread is god damned ridiculous why you take part in it??


Was quite drunk when I got home last night, that post took me about five minutes to write out

My point stands though: if you're so great and knowledgeable about all this then you come up with a satisfactory definition.
__________________
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.
Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 06:02 AM   #69
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Was quite drunk when I got home last night, that post took me about five minutes to write out

My point stands though: if you're so great and knowledgeable about all this then you come up with a satisfactory definition.


Read my previous post carefully mate....i almost written half a damn page....i think you are still drunk.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 02:14 PM   #70
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Dude sorry but you have the confidence of talking about things you cant even define.......natural talent i guess you mean innate talent cause i dont know any unatural talent...

For example someone born to a music oriented family who from a little child is introduced to ear training, sight singing,hearing his brothers do it,music around the house all the time blah blah blah.... ll develop a great sense of pitch.Someone ll see that kid and say...wow thats kid is "naturally gifted" "if i had that talent i would be far better at play the...guitar or something" "I know its a gift cause i tried many times to ear train the shit out of these puppies and nothing worked." etc etc etc.He can say it to 100 people and they ll also agree cause they just looking it epidermically.

Now if this was just like a criminal case in court and you had to dig deep you ll immediatelly realize some things:The first case was trained from a kid even at subconsious level,the second case is a thirty something that suddenly decided to train his ear and realized that it doesnt take double the effort but 10 times or more the effort to have similar results.....now that difference for him is the"natural talent" the kid has.

All the other parameters like ,the young age(that offers in this case the best learning platform),the right exercises(music family), the constant exposure to them that were treated as games(kid) instead of exercises(adult)....all that are condensed to one word for him...talent.But its not.....its all those parameters and gazillion more put together to make the end result.

So the term talent is mostly lazy talk.The adult of the example ll may never reach that kids level.Most things he strives for became automatic for the kid from early on...like a game.He ll need amazing drive and effort to come close to the kids results and the more he struggles the more he ll be amazed by the little kid(and also envy him alot) and that ll build up and build up and in the end it creates a huge bubble of exaggeration and false assumptions that gets bigger and bigger to everyone else the story is told.

So basically someone lacks(or has) good timing(introduced at something at an early or the "right" age) ,good teaching enviroment,good teacher,drive and passion,is emotionally sound,stress etc etc etc.Those and many more variables make everyone unique but all those cant be condensed in one word...Talent...people just call talent the end result of all those influences....its not.Its something you learned-influenced by all those parameters that ll never be the same in two individuals- and not something ingraned in your dna .


I don't disagree with any of that.

But at the same time, just because *in a lot of cases* that's true, does not mean it's true *for all cases, for all time*.

You're over-extrapolating, in my opinion.

I would also say you're somewhat moving the goalposts, because originally in this thread you were claiming (this is paraphrased) that natural talent was "nothing to worry about", "only 1%", etc. etc., yet now you're saying, "The first case was trained from a kid even at subconsious level,the second case is a thirty something that suddenly decided to train his ear and realized that it doesnt take double the effort but 10 times or more the effort to have similar results". (my bolding)

Which is it? That sounds like you're almost agreeing with me that if you're that far behind before you start that you might never catch up.

The other big problem is that you're assuming that those with "innate talent" (for sake of argument I'll assume that it's either innate or achieved the way you said in your above post; the end result is the same) won't work *at all*. Now, in some cases people who are "talented" will slack because they can, but there are enough people who are "talented" who also work hard that it's very hard to work hard enough if you're not. Is it possible to overtake someone who's reasonably talented who doesn't work if you're not quite so talented but do work? Yup, of course. Is it possible to overtake someone who's "super-talented" who works super hard if you're profoundly "untalented"? That's a lot harder. You can't work 10 times as hard as someone else if they're already working as hard as is possible (or nearly as hard).

I've posted at least one cast-iron example of someone who kicked ass at world champion level, despite having only taken the sport up in her 30s (and it's a pretty specific sport, I don't think kayaking is an everyday activity) and despite not having trained at all for it (at least comparatively). And you just blithely ignored it and wrote it off. You claimed that sport didn't count for some arcane reason, and then claimed a sprinter couldn't do it. When I posted proof that usain bolt didn't work that hard (or at least, not as hard as his coach thought he should), you ignored that, too.

You also never asked me to define it. And fwiw, neither can you. You seem to be jumping round in circles attempting to redefine things with semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
This thread is god damned ridiculous.


+1
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-24-2013 at 02:19 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 03:01 PM   #71
Facecut
Vorsitzender
 
Facecut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr

This thread is god damned ridiculous.


+1

@Dave MC: Admiring your stamina but these guys will stick to their religion no matter what.
__________________
My band
Facecut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 04:04 PM   #72
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
yeah

i'll just leave this here (should've thought of this sooner )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

"The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized[3][4] for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters"

"This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge."

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-24-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 04:20 PM   #73
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
I don't disagree with any of that.

But at the same time, just because *in a lot of cases* that's true, does not mean it's true *for all cases, for all time*.

You're over-extrapolating, in my opinion.

I would also say you're somewhat moving the goalposts, because originally in this thread you were claiming (this is paraphrased) that natural talent was "nothing to worry about", "only 1%", etc. etc., yet now you're saying, "The first case was trained from a kid even at subconsious level,the second case is a thirty something that suddenly decided to train his ear and realized that it doesnt take double the effort but 10 times or more the effort to have similar results". (my bolding)

Which is it? That sounds like you're almost agreeing with me that if you're that far behind before you start that you might never catch up.

The other big problem is that you're assuming that those with "innate talent" (for sake of argument I'll assume that it's either innate or achieved the way you said in your above post; the end result is the same) won't work *at all*. Now, in some cases people who are "talented" will slack because they can, but there are enough people who are "talented" who also work hard that it's very hard to work hard enough if you're not. Is it possible to overtake someone who's reasonably talented who doesn't work if you're not quite so talented but do work? Yup, of course. Is it possible to overtake someone who's "super-talented" who works super hard if you're profoundly "untalented"? That's a lot harder. You can't work 10 times as hard as someone else if they're already working as hard as is possible (or nearly as hard).

I've posted at least one cast-iron example of someone who kicked ass at world champion level, despite having only taken the sport up in her 30s (and it's a pretty specific sport, I don't think kayaking is an everyday activity) and despite not having trained at all for it (at least comparatively). And you just blithely ignored it and wrote it off. You claimed that sport didn't count for some arcane reason, and then claimed a sprinter couldn't do it. When I posted proof that usain bolt didn't work that hard (or at least, not as hard as his coach thought he should), you ignored that, too.

You also never asked me to define it. And fwiw, neither can you. You seem to be jumping round in circles attempting to redefine things with semantics.



+1



Like i said you are all over the place.Your example? as i pointed out ridiculous....its the freaking nature of that particular sport that you dont take into consideration....its very possible to sports like that or marathons to have older people coming and make something once in a blue moon but i asked you is it even REMOTELY POSSIBLE to have a 30 something without prior athetic history to the finals(scratch that...to even BE at a major gathering like the Olympics in events like 100 meter dash 200 400 etc etc etc?Usain Bolt u said?He was a kid in HIGHSCHOOL doing many sports already not a pencil pusher 30 something with no prior athletic backround so another fail there too.

Second...being far behind and may never quite catch up in certain aspects doesnt have anything to do with innate talent but with timing and choices.Starting at the right age is just one of those factors that make a big difference in almost anything.Doenst mean the person who starts at the right time is more talented just like it doenst mean that the woman who is 15 is innately more talented in bringing babies to this world from someone who decided to start at 40 .

Being a kid is a real advantage for learning certain things just like a more far fetched example...your...savants..their condition locks their brain into overdrive over certain aspects-usually mnemonic ones- nothing innate about it....you missed the window of training as a small child?Thats your teachers and parents fault not your...innate talent.Cause bring the kid to another family let him reach 30 and start ear training and then we have another ballgame dont you think?


And Last but not least.....iam not assuming that those with "innate talent" wont practise or practise less simply because i repeatedly stated that i dont EVEN put in the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
I see you have hard time reading....cause i never said its either work hard or be talented...... i basically say
1scenario people must work hard...
2 scenario people must work hard
3 scenario people must work hard
n scenario people must work hard etc etc etc......get it? i have never put "talent" in the equation.

REMEMBER NOW?

Seriously dude start reading carefully....havent i already listed many parameters that your "innate talent" is supposed to be hiding? Starting at the right time? its not a talent its a choice.Getting the good teacher?The right and well organized curriculum? the drive and passion to study? the right phychology? the zero stress mentality? etc etc etc? NO TALENT IS HIDING THERE.Choices and timing.

The reason why someone will always be more or less succesful than someone else? its simply because the parameters are so many and you cannot replicate them exactly even for two people.Isnt that blantantly obvious? No even two people can have the same head start,stress levels,phych problems,family issues,teachers,program the same drive and passion etc etc etc. Choices and timing....timing and choices.For best results of course you need everything but whether you ll have everything or not is not a matter of innate talent.
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-24-2013 at 04:22 PM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 05:07 PM   #74
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
you should probably inform wikipedia and the entire scientific disciplines of psychology and anthropology, not to mention genetics, that they've got it all wrong
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.


Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 05:21 PM   #75
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
you should probably inform wikipedia and the entire scientific disciplines of psychology and anthropology, not to mention genetics, that they've got it all wrong


I like the way you think...wikipedia first....explains a lot ....as for all the others there isnt any proof of innate talent but you already knew that didnt you.Its just that you have no arguments to contradict mine and i get it...when logic is in fairytales and wishful thinking goes out of the window .
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:12 AM   #76
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
I think it's worth noting that anyone who could read and write a thousand years ago was generaly considered as 'gifted'. Mainly because not a lot of people could read and write a thousand years ago.
Now that we generaly teach pretty much all children to read and write from an early age, when learning tends to come easier, resulting in almost everyone being able to read and write, people who can read and write are no longer generaly considered as gifted.

Y'see, this is something that I often get told about my paintings, people look at them and say "Oh, you must be gifted!" but I disagree. There was a point when I couldn't paint, followed by many points of gradual improvement. I maintane that anyone can paint to a high degree, if they are shown the techniques of how to use the tools of painting to get the required results and if they spend lots of time practicing those techniques and I suspect that any 'talent' is equaly as achievable to anyone willing to put the time and effort into learning.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:42 AM   #77
triface
Drenched in Syrup
 
triface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Riding
I have always loved the sound of guitars and aspired to play. I have gone through a few phases in my life where I have bought guitars (cheap shitty ones) and intended to learn. Right away I realised it was not as easy as I thought and lost interest. Now I have got the urge again and want to start learning, but progress is so slow that I don't seem to get anywhere. I don't expect to just click my fingers and be able to play riff after riff but I don't want to spend three months learning a Nirvana riff or something else considered easy. One problem I find is manouvering my fingers to form the more difficult chords almost impossible, I know practise makes perfect but it seems to be taking to long. Anyway I am just debating whether or not you need to be born with a certain something to be able to play guitar, or is it something that you can learn no matter how inept you are at it?

I'd say it's a little bit of nature, a lot a lot of nurture.

I can say with almost certainty that nobody on this forum thought the guitar felt natural when just starting out. I still remember I could do absolutely nothing on a guitar and it was just a piece of wood to me.

A common concept in playing instruments is that of muscle memory. Something can be very hard at first, but go at it enough times and it'll be second nature. That's what your problem is. Some chords are hard to finger because you haven't practiced enough. Eventually when you move on to more advanced things, you'll also face the same thing. Personally, I found every new song on the piano to be very difficult, but after about a week of 1/2 to 1 hour practice sessions a day, I find my fingers move on their own.

Final question: Do you have a guitar teacher? Not everyone can just pick up an instrument, decide they want to learn it themselves and then be able to do it well. I noodled around for about half a year on an acoustic guitar trying to learn chords, but it was only until I got a guitar teacher for real that I started seeing rapid progress. My technique progressed faster in a few lessons than it did in half a year.
__________________
OBSCENELY COLORFUL AND BIG SIGNATURE!

Member of the 7-String/ERG Legion
triface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 02:13 PM   #78
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
^ muscle memory is important, of course it is, but at the same time muscle memory isn't necessarily the same thing as making the thing sound musical- you can play all the right notes and still sound like a robot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
I like the way you think...wikipedia first....explains a lot ....as for all the others there isnt any proof of innate talent but you already knew that didnt you.Its just that you have no arguments to contradict mine and i get it...when logic is in fairytales and wishful thinking goes out of the window .


you're aware that wikipedia lists shitloads of citations, right?

and that they've (the scientists, I mean, not wikipedia) done twin and adoption studies, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
I think it's worth noting that anyone who could read and write a thousand years ago was generaly considered as 'gifted'. Mainly because not a lot of people could read and write a thousand years ago.
Now that we generaly teach pretty much all children to read and write from an early age, when learning tends to come easier, resulting in almost everyone being able to read and write, people who can read and write are no longer generaly considered as gifted.

Y'see, this is something that I often get told about my paintings, people look at them and say "Oh, you must be gifted!" but I disagree. There was a point when I couldn't paint, followed by many points of gradual improvement. I maintane that anyone can paint to a high degree, if they are shown the techniques of how to use the tools of painting to get the required results and if they spend lots of time practicing those techniques and I suspect that any 'talent' is equaly as achievable to anyone willing to put the time and effort into learning.


some people can still read and write better than others, though.

i mean i agree, education goes a long way, of course it does.

but just because it does doesn't negate the fact that (for whatever reason, as i said, it's complicated) some people like and are better at some things more than others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-25-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 04:15 PM   #79
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc

some people can still read and write better than others, though.

i mean i agree, education goes a long way, of course it does.

but just because it does doesn't negate the fact that (for whatever reason, as i said, it's complicated) some people like and are better at some things more than others.



Well i explained to you why some people will always be better than others without fairydusts and unicorns.The parameters are all very logical but as with everything in life you cant always control them in the same way even for two people...thus the different results.

Another example:
English isnt my native language. I learned it in my late teens.It would be very difficult for me to compete in english with someone who learned it from a toddler and grew up in an enviroment where it is spoken all the freaking time.

Now is he more "naturally" talented in english than me?Anyone who ll talk to us both ll say yes...but they dont know their backround do they...they only see the end result.So they cant possibly answer the question...of course thats easy cause all the variables are different but even if we were from the same country,same schooling enviroment same everything we would still have different results cause the details would NEVER be the same.Maybe he had the hots for the english teacher and studied more to impress her maybe i didnt cause i had family problems that time or started sports or said i was studying and was listening to music..etc etc etc.The variables(completely explainable) are ENDLESS.

So Everything is explanable but not always controllable:Lets say you started younger cause your parents were proactive and your friends parents werent. well thats not innate talent.
Lets say you started at the same freaking day but you had more passion for it and your friend just followed alone.
Lets say that you had the same passion(even that is impossible but lets just assume you did) with your friend but he had a family issue or a crash that hindered him from concentrate properly.
Lets say you had everything identical but you would question the teachers methods and deviate while the other guy ll follow them to the letter...etc etc etc....as you can see i can do it all day and i ll still find something different that ll perfectly explain the difference in the end result.

As slackerSabbath said not many could read and write thousands of years ago...cause not many had access to the knowledge and training required....only few did... i bet the people of the time would call them very talented too admire and respect them cause they possesed something most people didnt have.Just like you they wouldnt care about the reason but only about the end result .
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-25-2013 at 04:16 PM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:00 PM   #80
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
It's not "fairydusts and unicorns". It's peer-reviewed scientifically accepted fact that to argue entirely in favour of "no such thing as talent", as you're doing, is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of the whole thing. Realising things are complex is not "fairydusts and unicorns". Realising you haven't got the answer yet is not "fairydusts and unicorns". Just because you think you know you're right and that it's actually really, really simple doesn't make it so.

Everything you're saying there can be accounted for (as much as is possible; they're not perfect, but they're all we have) in twin and adoption studies. Which are in the peer-reviewed literature.

"This question [nature versus nurture] was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge.[5][6][7][8]"

Just to post this again. I guess you'll just denigrate wikipedia again despite that link having 4 citations (2 of them from peer-reviewed journals).



But you're right, my links to peer-reviewed literature and wikipedia are worth less than your massive posts. I'm just believing in "fairy dusts and unicorns", right?

I'm out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
We had a guy in the band admit that he liked Nickelback. We immediately started looking for his replacement.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-25-2013 at 05:03 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.