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

Closed Thread
Old 08-25-2013, 08:06 PM   #81
raredesign
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
I know you have enough feedback, but from what I saw, most here have just focused on the hard work aspect, which is only partly true.

First, based on your unique life exposure, you have certain tastes/likes. Feed that, because that is your strength and will become your talent. You will find that if you already enjoy it and just find it easy to become one with, you will have an easier time both learning it and dedicating your time to it. In the same light, should you try to learn something you cannot connect with simply because you don't like it, I wouldn't expect to make much progress. While you still can and with extreme effort even master it, it is not the same experience. Focus on your strengths.

Secondly, practice does not make perfect. "Perfect" practice makes perfect. How many guitarists have you seen that have spent years playing and are oozing confidence, only to bust out 50 cover songs that they can replicate, but still don't know guitar. If you practice the wrong thing, you will be very good at playing the wrong thing or wrong way. Similarly, if you regurgitate the same stuff or rehash what has already been...like most garage-band or bedroom guitarists, you will be able to do exactly what you practiced.
So, take it the next step. Learn from the legends, but find yourself. Discover the instrument in what it offers inherently in theory, what others have shown it can do, and then what your imagination dreams it can do.

Then, simply play your dream.
raredesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 02:40 AM   #82
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
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.


This is from K. Anders Ericsson, a psychologist and scientific researcher out of Florida State University in the paper titled The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance:

"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain."

"Experts then, aren’t people with freakish natural abilities in a particular domain. Experts are experts at maintaining high-levels of practice and improving performance."

He is in wikipedia too....so it must be true...lol.

Iam out too.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:37 AM   #83
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
This is from K. Anders Ericsson, a psychologist and scientific researcher out of Florida State University in the paper titled The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance:

"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain."

"Experts then, aren’t people with freakish natural abilities in a particular domain. Experts are experts at maintaining high-levels of practice and improving performance."

He is in wikipedia too....so it must be true...lol.

Iam out too.


You are continually and I'm convinced on purpose missing the point of this whole thing...

No one is arguing that 'talent' is the determining factor in how good a person is going to be but denying that it exists is ridiculous.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Ittei
Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Foo
A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.

Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 11:09 AM   #84
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
You are continually and I'm convinced on purpose missing the point of this whole thing...

No one is arguing that 'talent' is the determining factor in how good a person is going to be but denying that it exists is ridiculous.


I on the other hand think that you(and everyone who believes what you do) continually play with the word talent and innate talent.By saying the phrase "talent exists" no one ll disagree but what you really mean is "innate talent exists" dont you? Cause talent is the end result of nurture doent pop out of thin air.It can be developed by million ways but developed nonetheless.So its not that there is even a choice between Nature and Nurture.

The real reason anyone talks about innate talent in the first place if we want to get bluntantly honest is just two simple questions.
How fast?
How early?

Anyone who thinks that someone developed a skill faster than what he may thinks is fast or earlier than what he may thinks its early, simply credits it to god given talent.Its that simple.No one bothers to look any further to examine all the parameters and more i mentioned earlier.So of course talent exists...its the result of practice....innate talent as in etched in your dna to be great NO.

Its just like the expression selftaught...you cant possibly teach something you know nothing about yourself....what people usually mean though is basically "i didnt have a formal teacher","but i had various other guitarists,gig buddies,neighbors showing me things for example,books,dvds,records etc etc etc" so basically he had many teachers at many forms(2D,3D ) but in his mind he is self taught cause he didnt have a formal teacher paying him money regularly for lessons.

Same with talent....we choose to ignore many things and call them innate talent when they simply are parameters we ignored or knew nothing about .
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 11:31 AM   #85
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
I on the other hand think that you(and everyone who believes what you do) continually play with the word talent and innate talent.By saying the phrase "talent exists" no one ll disagree but what you really mean is "innate talent exists" dont you? Cause talent is the end result of nurture doent pop out of thin air.It can be developed by million ways but developed nonetheless.So its not that there is even a choice between Nature and Nurture.

The real reason anyone talks about innate talent in the first place if we want to get bluntantly honest is just two simple questions.
How fast?
How early?

Anyone who thinks that someone developed a skill faster than what he may thinks is fast or earlier than what he may thinks its early, simply credits it to god given talent.Its that simple.No one bothers to look any further to examine all the parameters and more i mentioned earlier.So of course talent exists...its the result of practice....innate talent as in etched in your dna to be great NO.


Jebus, why is it so important to you to deny that some people start off better at things than others or that some people learn quicker? The existence of talent doesn't remove the importance of hard work, nor does it mean that someone starts out with all the skill they will ever need, it is simply that: someone starts off being better at something or learns quicker.

Is it really so damaging to your world view that such a thing is possible? This doesn't mean that other people can't learn do something just as well, some people just need more work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Its just like the expression selftaught...you cant possibly teach something you know nothing about yourself....what people usually mean though is basically "i didnt have a formal teacher","but i had various other guitarists,gig buddies,neighbors showing me things for example,books,dvds,records etc etc etc" so basically he had many teachers at many forms(2D,3D ) but in his mind he is self taught cause he didnt have a formal teacher paying him money regularly for lessons.

Same with talent....we choose to ignore many things and call them innate talent when they simply are parameters we ignored or knew nothing about .


That is kind of how self-taught is defined: in terms of the lack of teaching. If you are not taught by another person then you are, by definition, teaching yourself.

That's not the same as talent at all though since "to teach" has a very clear definition: to show or explain to someone else how to do something. The absence of being shown or taught by another party, that is another human being, defines autodidactism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Ittei
Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Foo
A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.

Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 11:43 AM   #86
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Jebus, why is it so important to you to deny that some people start off better at things than others or that some people learn quicker? The existence of talent doesn't remove the importance of hard work, nor does it mean that someone starts out with all the skill they will ever need, it is simply that: someone starts off being better at something or learns quicker.

Is it really so damaging to your world view that such a thing is possible? This doesn't mean that other people can't learn do something just as well, some people just need more work.



That is kind of how self-taught is defined: in terms of the lack of teaching. If you are not taught by another person then you are, by definition, teaching yourself.

That's not the same as talent at all though since "to teach" has a very clear definition: to show or explain to someone else how to do something. The absence of being shown or taught by another party, that is another human being, defines autodidactism.


Its not important for me to deny it or not.Its just the case of not looking very carefully thats it.Most of the things called "innate" were taught either consciously or subconsciously.

As for the selftaught:You have a book first page:Here are the open chords,use these fingers etc etc etc.You have a teacher "Here are the open chords,use these fingers" same info coming from two different sources....both cases someone is showing you what to do either the book or the live teacher....you are not selftaught in actual terms.So the term selftaught is used loosely just like the word "natural or innate talent".
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 11:56 AM   #87
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Its not important for me to deny it or not.Its just the case of not looking very carefully thats it.Most of the things called "innate" were taught either consciously or subconsciously.


Most. Not all. Even if there is a slight advantage someone is given over someone else for a certain task (slightly faster muscle flex time for example) is that not pretty much the definition of talent? No matter how inconsequential an advantage may be or how impermanent, that is something that another human being might not have that would make someone predisposed to proficiency in certain tasks. That's talent.

Real world example: I have larger hands than most people. Anyone who's practiced long enough will tell you that it doesn't actually matter as long as your technique is good but it's impossible to deny that this makes my body more suited to large stretches on the guitar than someone with small hands. Again, I stress: it doesn't actually make any difference in the long term but it is a natural advantage I have over some people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
As for the selftaught:You have a book first page:Here are the open chords,use these fingers etc etc etc.You have a teacher "Here are the open chords,use these fingers" same info coming from two different sources....both cases someone is showing you what to do either the book or the live teacher....you are not selftaught in actual terms.So the term selftaught is used loosely just like the word "natural or innate talent".


The information itself is really not the important part of being self-taught. The source is the operative part of the definition; if it is not another human being who is capable of interacting with you and therefore directing your learning (which is the really important part) then you are self-teaching.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Ittei
Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Foo
A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.

Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 12:30 PM   #88
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Most. Not all. Even if there is a slight advantage someone is given over someone else for a certain task (slightly faster muscle flex time for example) is that not pretty much the definition of talent? No matter how inconsequential an advantage may be or how impermanent, that is something that another human being might not have that would make someone predisposed to proficiency in certain tasks. That's talent.

Real world example: I have larger hands than most people. Anyone who's practiced long enough will tell you that it doesn't actually matter as long as your technique is good but it's impossible to deny that this makes my body more suited to large stretches on the guitar than someone with small hands. Again, I stress: it doesn't actually make any difference in the long term but it is a natural advantage I have over some people.



The information itself is really not the important part of being self-taught. The source is the operative part of the definition; if it is not another human being who is capable of interacting with you and therefore directing your learning (which is the really important part) then you are self-teaching.



This first part i wouldnt even comment cause its too damn childish...i guess i have a better innate talent in basketball for example cause i was born with two hands instead of one ,some guy ended up with .

"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain."

Posting again what K. Anders Ericsson said that you chose to ignore.


As for the second part NO....the information is the most important.Do you have the teacher mute besides you and you are paying him for staring you?He gives you the info you need just like the book.The fact that its better to have a teacher for the added feedback doent change anything.Someone taugh you something that you didnt know before so in both cases there was....no...self involved you were fed the knowledge.The only thing you can debate here is what is better.The info though wasnt given to you by thy...self but by the book.

As i said....all these(this and the talent talk) is basically bullshit terminology and lazy attitude towards learning.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 01:13 PM   #89
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
This first part i wouldnt even comment cause its too damn childish...i guess i have a better innate talent in basketball for example cause i was born with two hands instead of one, some guy ended up with


Frankly, yes, you have a natural advantage over someone with that disability for things that require two hands. By the same token, however, that doesn't mean you will continue to be better if you don't practice and the disabled person does.

Nice calling it childish though, guess it's easier to do that than it is to actually say why something is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain."

Posting again what K. Anders Ericsson said that you chose to ignore.


I chose to ignore it because it describes the end result rather than the beginning. I will restate because you didn't read properly:

Talent does not dictate the end point. An advantage doesn't dictate that someone will end up being the better at any given skill, it is simply a more advanced starting point that can be overcome with time and effort. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
As for the second part NO....the information is the most important.Do you have the teacher mute besides you and you are paying him for staring you?He gives you the info you need just like the book.


You pay the teacher for guidance, if you're paying a good teacher anyway. The truly great teachers don't just impart knowledge but provide structure and direction so that even if they were to go away then you could continue to learn effectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
The fact that its better to have a teacher for the added feedback doent change anything. Someone taugh you something that you didnt know before so in both cases there was....no...self involved you were fed the knowledge.The only thing you can debate here is what is better.The info though wasnt given to you by thy...self but by the book.


That's pretty much the essence of the difference actually. Your weird definition of "self-teaching" actually seems to mean "invention" since, by your logic, if the information comes from any source other than your own mind then it's being taught by something: you transcribe a song you didn't teach yourself it since the information was there in the recording; you find a scale that you didn't know before it's not self-teaching since the sound was there to give you the information.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Ittei
Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Foo
A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.

Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 02:26 PM   #90
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
You are continually and I'm convinced on purpose missing the point of this whole thing...

No one is arguing that 'talent' is the determining factor in how good a person is going to be but denying that it exists is ridiculous.


+1

I guess I'm not out

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Its not important for me to deny it or not.Its just the case of not looking very carefully thats it.


Are you kidding?

They've done shitloads of twin and adoption studies. They cover everything you continually claim that we're "not looking very carefully" at.

Jeez.

What studies have you done on this subject?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed.


personally I'd rather not learn genetics from a psychologist, but that's just me.

And even if what he says is true, it doesn't back up what you're saying or go against what we're saying. You're consistently making this whole thing a false dichotomy.

Would I be putting the cat among the pigeons to claim that willingness to work really hard might be based on natural innate personality type etc. too?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
Blackstar can blow me; dodgey ****ers.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-26-2013 at 02:28 PM.
Dave_Mc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 02:41 PM   #91
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr

Talent does not dictate the end point. An advantage doesn't dictate that someone will end up being the better at any given skill, it is simply a more advanced starting point that can be overcome with time and effort. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.



You pay the teacher for guidance, if you're paying a good teacher anyway. The truly great teachers don't just impart knowledge but provide structure and direction so that even if they were to go away then you could continue to learn effectively.



That's pretty much the essence of the difference actually. Your weird definition of "self-teaching" actually seems to mean "invention" since, by your logic, if the information comes from any source other than your own mind then it's being taught by something: you transcribe a song you didn't teach yourself it since the information was there in the recording; you find a scale that you didn't know before it's not self-teaching since the sound was there to give you the information.



I know its really hard for you to grasp but if your "self" knew the material there wouldnt be any need to teach it to ...."himself" anyway...he would already know it ...so the the term is ...self refuting(pan intented).
Yes if the the information comes from another source that source is feeding you the information.Its not weird definition its a realistic one....thus the difference between us...i search the heart of the issue you are simply going through the motions.You call it the talent innate cause you....want to believe it is....not that you can prove shit or you genuinely want to search for answer you just take it like its a fact(like religion)....on the other hand nurture is well documented and proven every step of the way(maybe cause its...the only way .

Lets me leave you with one final example....get you witchdoctor or scientists or whoever and select a few babies that seem to be having exceptional "natural abilities" "gifted" "the genes to excel" or whatever along with genetically "poor" ones...and leave them on a deserted island with guitars......do you think the end result(even if they dont break them on each others heads) would be something even remotely musical? do you think the gifted ones ll make better music(or even make music) than the ungifted?lets not kid ourselves here....there would be no selfteaching or music breakthroughs for them only after accumulated knowledge thousands of years after, is forcefed to their decendants .Case closed.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 02:58 PM   #92
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
I'll alert the nobel comittee
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
Blackstar can blow me; dodgey ****ers.


Dave_Mc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 03:28 PM   #93
Captaincranky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
I know its really hard for you to grasp but if your "self" knew the material there wouldnt be any need to teach it to ...."himself" anyway...he would already know it ...so the the term is ...self refuting(pan intented).
Yes if the the information comes from another source that source is feeding you the information.Its not weird definition its a realistic one....thus the difference between us...i search the heart of the issue you are simply going through the motions.You call it the talent innate cause you....want to believe it is....not that you can prove shit or you genuinely want to search for answer you just take it like its a fact(like religion)....on the other hand nurture is well documented and proven every step of the way(maybe cause its...the only way .

Lets me leave you with one final example....get you witchdoctor or scientists or whoever and select a few babies that seem to be having exceptional "natural abilities" "gifted" "the genes to excel" or whatever along with genetically "poor" ones...and leave them on a deserted island with guitars......do you think the end result(even if they dont break them on each others heads) would be something even remotely musical? do you think the gifted ones ll make better music(or even make music) than the ungifted?lets not kid ourselves here....there would be no selfteaching or music breakthroughs for them only after accumulated knowledge thousands of years after, is forcefed to their decendants .Case closed.

Ooooo, "case closed". You take your own bold text and opinion way too seriously.

To me it seems you're going to win by default, as you, right or wrong, drive everyone else out of the thread.

Trouble there is, there will be nobody left to pat you on the back.

Ah well, no biggie. I'm sure you're pretty good at that as well.
Captaincranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 03:30 PM   #94
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
I'll alert the nobel comittee


Do they give awards for common sense ?
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 04:37 PM   #95
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
No because common sense is often wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathbard
Blackstar can blow me; dodgey ****ers.


Dave_Mc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 04:54 PM   #96
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
No because common sense is often wrong.

But not ......wikipedia.....right?
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:02 PM   #97
JimDawson
Storywriter, Guitar nerd.
 
JimDawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
No because common sense is often wrong.


This is one of the reasons why using terms like "common sense" and "talent" is simply the wrong way to go about the whole nature vs nurture argument. When you try to group things under terms like these all you succeed in doing is just moving the goalposts without actually demonstrating anything useful. You guys already had a better premise to work with at the start of this thread, and it got twisted into this never-ending discussion about "talent". Using a term is far more useful when everyone understands what it means and the term itself isn't questioned.

Nature vs nurture is already a better way to look at this; I'm pretty sure we're all certain about what we're arguing when the subject is nature vs nurture. It's a far more quantifiable way of looking at this. You can compare nature vs nurture in many ways- especially if you have a piece of paper and make a chart. Try to write down the aspects of talent- it just opens up more arguments and BS because people have a huge problem agreeing on what qualifies as talent. You need a measurable, demonstrable quality to get anywhere useful here. Talent is just an obsolete way of looking at a nature vs nurture debate; it's a term with a whole bunch of colloquial baggage attached to it.

So, just list down qualities of nature and nurture. There's a lot of them, good luck finding them all, but we're talking about music/guitar here so that at least narrows it down a bit. Then, once you have a nice chart, you can begin to determine the importance of each quality. Some of this is bound to be heavily debated, but there are some things which are more obvious than others. Like being born with hands (nature). It's pretty safe to say that being born with hands will help you achieve a higher skill level more than just about anything. Sure, there are people who don't actually use hands to play guitar so it isn't absolutely essential, but I am sure you can at least make a whole bunch of statistical models to test the importance of this aspect of nature vs nurture. If you're going to attack a problem at least try and find a qualitative/quantitive way to go about doing so- anything less is quite useless by comparison. Try and be more scientific with it!

Try to take it in the direction of teaching people something useful, so someone can read this topic and say "Wow, I actually learned information here which I can certainly use to help take my playing even further!"

Also, saying things like "case closed" and "[...]i wouldnt even comment cause its too damn childish" is NOT a good way to participate in an active debate... I'm sorry, but just... no. This debate always seems to turn into this crap.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus
Gaza Strip- home. At least it was before I ****ed ereythang up...
JimDawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:18 PM   #98
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
I know its really hard for you to grasp but if your "self" knew the material there wouldnt be any need to teach it to ...."himself" anyway...he would already know it ...so the the term is ...self refuting(pan intented).
Yes if the the information comes from another source that source is feeding you the information.Its not weird definition its a realistic one....thus the difference between us...i search the heart of the issue you are simply going through the motions.


It is a very odd definition because you're not taking the content of the phrase as a whole, you're dissecting it to its constituent parts rather than examining the meaning of the whole thing. As I have said before: the phrase self-taught means to be taught without an external teacher. To impart information to yourself without formal instruction. A book is not formal instruction, nor is learning by ear or anything else of the sort. Teaching, as a word on it's own, implies formal instruction and instructions come from outside of the self, by definition. From another being, not a text. To self-teach is to structure one's own learning, not to come up with information from thin air.

By your definition a teacher who takes exercises from a text book isn't teaching because the book is the holder of the information, which is quite patently absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
You call it the talent innate cause you....want to believe it is....not that you can prove shit or you genuinely want to search for answer you just take it like its a fact(like religion)....on the other hand nurture is well documented and proven every step of the way(maybe cause its...the only way .


Stop using ellipses. They are used to denote pauses in speech or to indicate where words have been missed because they are superfluous, they have no place in standard written English as you use them. I know English isn't your first language so I'm telling this as a courtesy: they make your posts unnecessarily hard to read.

The existence of the one does not exclude the existence of the other. Nor does the importance of the one mean the other is nonexistent.

Everyone here will agree that working at your craft is infinitely more important than any talent you may start out with but to not just ignore but flat out deny that some people have advantages is pure idiocy.

Let us attack this with science:

According to "Cortical activation patterns during complex motor tasks in piano players and control subjects. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study." (Krings T, Töpper R, Foltys H, Erberich S, Sparing R, Willmes K, Thron A., Neuroscience Letters, Jan 2000), professional pianists show less brain activity for fine motor skills such as are used in playing piano. The result of the brain adapting itself to a repeated task (a well known capability of the brain). If a person showed such a difference before learning the piano they would have a quantifiable neurological predisposition to playing piano. No matter how small such a difference would be, that would be a pretty textbook definition of talent.

Coincidentally studies such as "Music and the Brain in Childhood Development" (Kathleen Glascott Burriss & Susan J. Strickland, Childhood Education, 2001) show that such a difference is notable in children as young as fourth months.

It should be noted that while I have explicitly used the piano example here there are other studies ("Music, neuroscience, and the psychology of wellbeing: a précis", "Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians" to name but two) that suggest similar, if not the same, findings.

Quantifiable, scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest that talent, while insignificant compared to practice, is indeed a thing that exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Lets me leave you with one final example....get you witchdoctor or scientists or whoever and select a few babies that seem to be having exceptional "natural abilities" "gifted" "the genes to excel" or whatever along with genetically "poor" ones...and leave them on a deserted island with guitars......do you think the end result(even if they dont break them on each others heads) would be something even remotely musical? do you think the gifted ones ll make better music(or even make music) than the ungifted?lets not kid ourselves here....there would be no selfteaching or music breakthroughs for them only after accumulated knowledge thousands of years after, is forcefed to their decendants .Case closed.


Actually, yes, I would expect music, nothing necessarily complex but something that would be listenable to most people. Studies have shown that while parts of music (typically harmonically unstable notes such as the 2nd and 6th) are taught by culture, harmonies such as the pentatonic are likely to be universal. There is some research that indicates that the interaction between human neurology and the physics of sound has some bearing on how we perceive music.

There's not much doubt that in your example you're not going to get someone who's going to break musical boundaries, you're not going to get the next Coltrane without some tradition to go against, but people throughout time have created music; even remote tribes from the depths of the Amazon create music that anthropologists recognise as being more than just noise.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Ittei
Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Foo
A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.


Last edited by Zaphod_Beeblebr : 08-26-2013 at 07:19 PM.
Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 02:40 AM   #99
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
It is a very odd definition because you're not taking the content of the phrase as a whole, you're dissecting it to its constituent parts rather than examining the meaning of the whole thing. As I have said before: the phrase self-taught means to be taught without an external teacher. To impart information to yourself without formal instruction. A book is not formal instruction, nor is learning by ear or anything else of the sort. Teaching, as a word on it's own, implies formal instruction and instructions come from outside of the self, by definition. From another being, not a text. To self-teach is to structure one's own learning, not to come up with information from thin air.

By your definition a teacher who takes exercises from a text book isn't teaching because the book is the holder of the information, which is quite patently absurd.





Actually, yes, I would expect music, nothing necessarily complex but something that would be listenable to most people. Studies have shown that while parts of music (typically harmonically unstable notes such as the 2nd and 6th) are taught by culture, harmonies such as the pentatonic are likely to be universal. There is some research that indicates that the interaction between human neurology and the physics of sound has some bearing on how we perceive music.

There's not much doubt that in your example you're not going to get someone who's going to break musical boundaries, you're not going to get the next Coltrane without some tradition to go against, but people throughout time have created music; even remote tribes from the depths of the Amazon create music that anthropologists recognise as being more than just noise.



Teaching as word implies instruction not formal instruction.The neighbor taugh you your first chord,he is not much of a player or really a musician or a berkley teacher or anything "formal" for that matter but the fact that you played your first chord was because of him you werent "selftaught" this however you may want to spin it .

If you think about it that is your main problem.You take waaaay too many things for granted that they simple are not.You expect pentatonics and music from the kids in my example? say whaaaaat!!!??!!!? maybe a few centuries down the road when the knowledge has accumulated enough so their decendands CAN LEARN IT ...but those kids? they would be basically cavemen(both "gifted" and "ungifted").Not even a regular voice but earie screams(both "gifted" and "ungifted").Guitars would be most likely used as a weapon or a toilet cause you see they would have nothing to be taught from...to mimic.Even those tribes you say and the noises they created wasnt the result of an overnight process,of someones talent but of accumulated knowledge passed on from generation to generation.

Thats why this is a great example cause it clearly shows that you take too many "innate talents" for granted when its basically only things you were taught(formally or...informally ).Taking you to that situation or anyone for that matter you would be just another caveman.You are what you are from nurture alone.

Take all the knowledge out and you are just another caveman.IF there was innate talent that wouldnt be the case....but it clear that its not.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 03:33 AM   #100
Captaincranky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Well OK, the knowledge that is transmittable between generations is mostly technical in nature. Moral knowledge, on the other hand is mostly relearned by trial and error. If it weren't, there wouldn't be so many teen pregnancies, or wars.

The only point I can make is this, different people have different learning curves, different levels of dexterity, and different ultimate learning thresholds.

If you listen to all the crap that has been spouted in this thread, you come away with this lesson: Jimi Hendrix must have practiced more, and done more "perfect practice" than almost anybody on the planet, to attain the level of expertise that he displayed.

Personally, I think the bullshit about "perfect practice", and "all guitarists are created equal", some just play better than others because they practice better, is raw sewage.

Since we can't use the word, "gifted" or "talent", let's just say that these stories are what "gifted" bull shit artists tell themselves, so they can continue to justifyiworking hard at being the best mediocre they can be.

For me, bothering with this thread is a massive waste of potential practice time. After all, If I just practice perfectly, I could still be the next Hendrix.

Last edited by Captaincranky : 08-27-2013 at 03:58 AM.
Captaincranky 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 11:30 AM.

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.