Page 2 of 3
#41
Quote by Dave_Mc
so if you self-select out all the dossers and those without natural talent (as classical training at conservatories has done), they're better than electric guitarists where that same self-selection hasn't happened?

Got it.

Probably don't send off your nobel lecture just yet.


Do i speak Klingon or something dude? Where did i say rule out those without natural talent? all iam saying is take both "talented" and "untalented" in a conservatory...those from BOTH categories that ll do the work without fail,follow the program without shitty attitude like " i dont need that i ll only learn this and that" ll be AT LEAST very good.From BOTH catergories.

Now take electric guitarists with the same amount of effort and hours spend and positive attitude again "talented" and "untalented" and you ll find out that wayyyy more of them from BOTH categories fail to achieve a decent level.Some even downright embarassing.
#42
Nature or Nuture? Nuture.
Agile Interceptor Pro 725 EB EMG
Gibson LP Future Tribute
G12T-75 4x12 Avatar
Krank Nineteen80-watt
Koch Loadbox
Avatar 18w
RMC4


Soundcloud
#43
Quote by Dreamdancer11
(a) Do i speak Klingon or something dude? Where did i say rule out those without natural talent? all iam saying is take both "talented" and "untalented" in a conservatory...those from BOTH categories that ll do the work without fail,follow the program without shitty attitude like " i dont need that i ll only learn this and that" ll be AT LEAST very good.From BOTH catergories.

(b) Now take electric guitarists with the same amount of effort and hours spend and positive attitude again "talented" and "untalented" and you ll find out that wayyyy more of them from BOTH categories fail to achieve a decent level.Some even downright embarassing.


(a) I'm saying that it self-selects them out. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories. In fact, IIRC the original "10,000 hours" study itself made the claim that they figured they could ignore the natural talent factor, because anyone who had got that far was probably pretty talented naturally.

A little bit of a stretch, in my opinion, as I'd still wager that some are slightly better or slightly worse naturally, but at the same time I'd agree that it'd most likely be fairly safe to assume that those with absolutely no natural aptitude hadn't made it that far, when you consider the ridiculous hours of practising those who have a fair amount of natural talent are putting in to get there.

(b) how do you know they're spending the same number of hours?

also I don't disagree that structured practise etc. is better than no (or half-assed practise). I'm certainly not suggesting that practise isn't important, or that those who are talented don't practise as well (apart from in very isolated, extreme instances), so i dunno what point you're making there. You're arguing with a point I'm not making, in fact a point I agree with.

Where I disagree is that you're then using that (erroneously, IMO) to back up your assertion that, therefore, there's no such thing as natural talent.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#44
Quote by Dave_Mc
I'm saying that it self-selects them out. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories. In fact, IIRC the original "10,000 hours" study itself made the claim that they figured they could ignore the natural talent factor, because anyone who had got that far was probably pretty talented naturally.


"I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories"

So you basically say most already gifted poeple go there in the first place.DEAD WRONG.Everyone that WANTS to learn goes there.Your problem and other folks problem who think alike is that you always see the end result of a good player and go "sure he should have been pretty talented in the first place".That the actual erroreous assertion right there.

You logic is like that of the lazy " god in the cracks" mentality of religious folks.Whatever they cant explain TODAY is god.Same with you and talent...whatever surpasses me or feel that its too good or required serious practise and dedication to get it i name it TALENT to get it over with and feel that i have all the answers.Cause the alternative is too....much....freaking....work...and we cant have that.Lets go with fairydust: its vague,illusive,requires zero effort and helps me sleep better at nights thinking that the reason someone is better than me is talent .
#45
I'm guessing they have entrance requirements and exams- people who want to learn and who pass the entry requirements go there. That's a little bit different from your claim, which is that solely people who want to learn go there.

I also find it kinda bemusing how you're claiming other people believe in fairy dust, yet you have cast-iron belief 100% that you're right. Just because you think you're right doesn't make it so.

I also note you didn't contradict my example of Chrissie Wellington.

I also never said that those people in the conservatories didn't work hard *too*. I'm certainly not saying that everyone at the conservatory never practised, because that'd be crazy talk. Those people put in a ridiculous numbers of hours. I'm well aware of that. The problem is you're advocating a false dichotomy- either people work hard, *or* they're talented. The truth in most instances is a bit of both.

I also find it kind of offensive how you just assume I'm a crappy player, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with you. I don't think guthrie govan or anyone like that is particularly worried by how I play, but I think I'm alrightish. Last time I checked, those people at music conservatories mostly didn't have science degrees, either.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#46
Quote by Dave_Mc
I'm guessing they have entrance requirements and exams- people who want to learn and who pass the entry requirements go there. That's a little bit different from your claim, which is that solely people who want to learn go there.

I also find it kinda bemusing how you're claiming other people believe in fairy dust, yet you have cast-iron belief 100% that you're right. Just because you think you're right doesn't make it so.

I also note you didn't contradict my example of Chrissie Wellington.

I also never said that those people in the conservatories didn't work hard *too*. I'm certainly not saying that everyone at the conservatory never practised, because that'd be crazy talk. Those people put in a ridiculous numbers of hours. I'm well aware of that. The problem is you're advocating a false dichotomy- either people work hard, *or* they're talented. The truth in most instances is a bit of both.

I also find it kind of offensive how you just assume I'm a crappy player, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with you. I don't think guthrie govan or anyone like that is particularly worried by how I play, but I think I'm alrightish. Last time I checked, those people at music conservatories mostly didn't have science degrees, either.


First of all i never talked about what kind of player you are nor did i ever claim to know you....when did this get about you?read carefully before you type.Second....if you want to write about something KNOW IT and not guess.Cause the are no entry requirements to learn classical guitar or violin or piano etc etc etc.Dont know about your country but in mine and most others there are schools everywhere where anyone can go and learn following the curriculum everyone follows.There are no entry exams or competitions you watch too much Fame i guess....

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.My paradigm of the conservatories is key because its the perfect example that when there is solid curriculum that is actually followed without fail the excuses about talent go out of the window.Thats why in electric you can meet a Guthrie or a Lane but most of the times you meet a guy that is playing 20 years and has barely the ability of hacking a few blues licks(and blaming his talentless self probably).Find a guy that plays violin for that amount of time or way less, had the proper training and isnt at the very least excellent even if he is not the ultimate solist that sells out concerts.

And finally the talent you think you might be able to measure is most of the times something practised and sometimes even without knowing.Cause you may find someone for example who has a great ear and he ll tell you truthfully he had no ear training.You go...."damn i wish i had that,what a great gift"....what you may not know though, is that this guy for example for years and years ,was out of habit, singing everything he was playing which is an excellent ear training exercise in its own right.In his mind he never ear trained although in reality he did it for years...so he did the right thing by chance but in his mind its talent .

And last i dont know who Chrissie Wellington is and frankly i dont care.If you have something to say say it.
Last edited by Dreamdancer11 at Aug 21, 2013,
#47
any decent school (I'm talking conservatory/university level school) here or in the USA or wherever will have entrance requirements. Maybe your country is different. if it is, it's the exception.

it was pretty strongly implied that anyone who believed in talent must be lazy, that they were using that as a crutch to justify their own mediocre performance.

I agree with you regarding people practising without even realising it. but that still doesn't mean that some people don't practise less than others (or more than others) etc.

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

short version: she broke almost all the world records in triathlon despite only taking the sport up in her 30s. that's against people who'd been training for it for their entire lives. in fact, she came second in the first Coast-to-Coast she entered, despite only having had rudimentary training in kayaking just before the race, and never having done kayaking before.

An extreme example? of course. But if you make superlative comments ("no such thing as talent!; everyone who's good at anything has worked hard all their lives!") all I have to find is one valid example, no matter how extreme, to prove you wrong.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 21, 2013,
#48
Quote by Dave_Mc
any decent school (I'm talking conservatory/university level school) here or in the USA or wherever will have entrance requirements. Maybe your country is different. if it is, it's the exception.

it was pretty strongly implied that anyone who believed in talent must be lazy, that they were using that as a crutch to justify their own mediocre performance.

I agree with you regarding people practising without even realising it. but that still doesn't mean that some people don't practise less than others (or more than others) etc.

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

short version: she broke almost all the world records in triathlon despite only taking the sport up in her 30s. that's against people who'd been training for it for their entire lives. in fact, she came second in the first Coast-to-Coast she entered, despite only having had rudimentary training in kayaking just before the race, and never having done kayaking before.

An extreme example? of course. But if you make superlative comments ("no such thing as talent!; everyone who's good at anything has worked hard all their lives!") all I have to find is one valid example, no matter how extreme, to prove you wrong.



Doesnt matter mate if your country requires entry exams and other countries dont or whatever...doesnt change the fact that anyone can go there even the most talentless person but if he has the desire to follow the curriculum to the letter he ll be a very good all rounded musician regardless.

Yes mostly talking about talent is the crutch of the lazy.It was never enough to be the deciding factor for anything.Its like worrying about the 1% you may or may not have while the rest 99% decides everything.

As for your example....call me when a 30 year old pencil pusher wins the 100 or 200 or 400 meters in track and field for example(i can quarantee that ll never happen).....dont call me if he or she ll win the marathon cause that has small chances of happening due to the nature of the sport......just like your triathlon queen.
#49
kinda hard to go if you live in a country (i.e. most countries) which do have entrance requirements and you don't have the funds to go to another country to do it (or don't speak the language).

I think it depends, regarding the talent thing. In some cases, yes, I agree, hard work can overcome the lack of talent. But it depends on how profound that lack of talent is, for example. Again, an extreme example, but it doesn't matter how much I practise basketball, I'm never gonna be 6'10" tall.

That's pretty convenient if you get to discount sports that are an exception to your rule.

Does Usain Bolt train so much harder than everyone else? Because he's head and shoulders above everyone else, almost painfully so.

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

Hmmmm

"Upon his entry to William Knibb Memorial High School, Bolt continued to focus on other sports, but his cricket coach noticed Bolt's speed on the pitch and urged him to try track and field events.[24] Pablo McNeil, a former Olympic sprint athlete,[25] and Dwayne Jarrett coached Bolt,[26] encouraging him to focus his energy on improving his athletic abilities. The school had a history of success in athletics with past students, including sprinter Michael Green.[15] Bolt won his first annual high school championships medal in 2001, taking the silver medal in the 200 metres with a time of 22.04 seconds.[15] McNeil soon became his primary coach, and the two enjoyed a positive partnership, although McNeil was occasionally frustrated by Bolt's lack of dedication to his training and his penchant for practical jokes.[25]

(my bolding)
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#50
Quote by Dreamdancer11
Doesnt matter mate if your country requires entry exams and other countries dont or whatever...doesnt change the fact that anyone can go there even the most talentless person but if he has the desire to follow the curriculum to the letter he ll be a very good all rounded musician regardless.


I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote 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.”


Album.
Legion.
#51
Well, there is something to be said for natural talent. Mozart was playing for royalty when he was like five. But I also think it's very over-valued. Like many others said, what separates great guitarists from the merely talented is a lot of practice and work.

That said, it also matters what kind of practice you do. If things really aren't working for you, you might consider looking for a teacher or possibly online lessons. Something that'll take your playing where it needs to go. But man, if you really want it, don't give up. Trust me, it's worth it in the end.
#52
Well, I thought I'd sneak my way into this argument. Sorry if it's a bit confusing at times since it's getting late and I'm tired.

I personally believe that talent exists in anything and can help people improve. With music, that's finger dexterity, coordination of both hands, good hearing, pitch identification, creativity (improvising, music making), etc. People that are naturally "better" at relating pitches and physical attributes to their instrument (hand coordination for guitar, better lungs for woodwinds) will have an easier time progressing than their peer who doesn't have a great ear or a bit clumsy playing.

Practicing is what sets everything aside, though. If Joe is born into a musical family and has a great ear, pretty good technique, and only plays guitar for an hour a week he can still become better a bit quicker do to his natural abilities. Now, take Bob for example, he has no musical background and a somewhat fair ear for music, and ok technique on the guitar. Bob practices for hours a day, everyday and is very dedicated. Within the first few years, someone like Joe will seem better but his attitude of barely putting any effort in will hinder him whereas Bob will end up becoming a great player with tons of dedication. Take any "shredder" on Youtube since they have phenomenal technique. Even though they play amazingly, they aren't able to produce much of any music while a guy like Slash may be a bit sloppy at times but he'll be dedicated enough to get better and make music.

This argument is very similar to athletics in my opinion. In (American) football, it's considered good for a quarterback to be pretty strong, a great thrower, pretty fast, a smart decision leader, and able to handle pressure of being blitzed. At the high school and college level when most of these players are still physically and mentally developing, you can see a ton of different attitudes. In high school, the school's starting QB is pretty fast and strong while their 2nd string isn't the best thrower, and average in speed and strength. The starter will rely on his natural abilities and not really care how he does in the future while the 2nd stringer continually works to improve. I mean, look at Tom Brady. He started playing at 14, didn't have great numbers in workouts, and he's now considered one of the best QBs in NFL history due to his dedication to become great.

So, talent does exist. What makes someone actually good is their dedication and drive to improve. If they have an attitude of "Yeah, I'm good. I don't have to practice much," they won't get better at it. If the person in question actually has the desire to become great, then their natural abilities will help them get to the level they want to be.
Skip the username, call me Billy
#53
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.


Its because of lack of dedication.People always complain and usually overdramatize situations to appear as the victims or the ones that were handed natures bad hand but in a dead honest reality they are simply not dedicated enough.If they cant do something in the timeframe THEY THINK it must be done then they go "i have no talent for this" When on the other hand they achieve something through blood sweat and tears they simply say "oh that old thing?hehe it came pretty natural to me"...to appear naturally "talented".

The are about a million reasons why someone fails in something and inate talent is the last in the list.Huge amounts of stress,bad studying plan,Incompetent teacher,lack or drive and dedication,short attention span,personal issues, or usually combinations of all the above.Inate talent is like god as i mentioned earlier.They like it cause it explains everything by default without the need to really analyze and find the heart of the problem.Its useful when you want to envoke sympathy(from the lack of it) or admiration (for having it) but under the microscope so to speak doesnt hold any significant value that ll make or break you .
Last edited by Dreamdancer11 at Aug 22, 2013,
#54
Quote by Dreamdancer11
Its because of lack of dedication.People always complain and usually overdramatize situations to appear as the victims or the ones that were handed natures bad hand but in a dead honest reality they are simply not dedicated enough.If they cant do something in the timeframe THEY THINK it must be done then they go "i have no talent for this" When on the other hand they achieve something through blood sweat and tears they simply say "oh that old thing?hehe it came pretty natural to me"...to appear naturally "talented".

The are about a million reasons why someone fails in something and inate talent is the last in the list.Huge amounts of stress,bad studying plan,Incompetent teacher,lack or drive and dedication,short attention span,personal issues, or usually combinations of all the above.Inate talent is like god as i mentioned earlier.They like it cause it explains everything by default without the need to really analyze and find the heart of the problem.Its useful when you want to envoke sympathy(from the lack of it) or admiration (for having it) but under the microscope so to speak doesnt hold any significant value that ll make or break you .


At no point will you find me arguing that "talent" is an excuse for lack of discipline or practice; I really do agree that if a person practices enough the will become at the very least a competent player.

I'm just clarifying the point that Dave is trying to make; actual concrete proof that 'talent' either doesn't matter or isn't a thing is startlingly hard to come by outside of Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers", which is still the subject of substantial criticism.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote 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.”


Album.
Legion.
#55
^ exactly.

Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.


yeah, exactly.

But he has it all worked out. I bow to his omniscience.

Quote by aerosmithfan95
Well, I thought I'd sneak my way into this argument. Sorry if it's a bit confusing at times since it's getting late and I'm tired.

I personally believe that talent exists in anything and can help people improve. With music, that's finger dexterity, coordination of both hands, good hearing, pitch identification, creativity (improvising, music making), etc. People that are naturally "better" at relating pitches and physical attributes to their instrument (hand coordination for guitar, better lungs for woodwinds) will have an easier time progressing than their peer who doesn't have a great ear or a bit clumsy playing.

Practicing is what sets everything aside, though. If Joe is born into a musical family and has a great ear, pretty good technique, and only plays guitar for an hour a week he can still become better a bit quicker do to his natural abilities. Now, take Bob for example, he has no musical background and a somewhat fair ear for music, and ok technique on the guitar. Bob practices for hours a day, everyday and is very dedicated. Within the first few years, someone like Joe will seem better but his attitude of barely putting any effort in will hinder him whereas Bob will end up becoming a great player with tons of dedication. Take any "shredder" on Youtube since they have phenomenal technique. Even though they play amazingly, they aren't able to produce much of any music while a guy like Slash may be a bit sloppy at times but he'll be dedicated enough to get better and make music.

This argument is very similar to athletics in my opinion. In (American) football, it's considered good for a quarterback to be pretty strong, a great thrower, pretty fast, a smart decision leader, and able to handle pressure of being blitzed. At the high school and college level when most of these players are still physically and mentally developing, you can see a ton of different attitudes. In high school, the school's starting QB is pretty fast and strong while their 2nd string isn't the best thrower, and average in speed and strength. The starter will rely on his natural abilities and not really care how he does in the future while the 2nd stringer continually works to improve. I mean, look at Tom Brady. He started playing at 14, didn't have great numbers in workouts, and he's now considered one of the best QBs in NFL history due to his dedication to become great.

So, talent does exist. What makes someone actually good is their dedication and drive to improve. If they have an attitude of "Yeah, I'm good. I don't have to practice much," they won't get better at it. If the person in question actually has the desire to become great, then their natural abilities will help them get to the level they want to be.


+1

I would say though that, in very extreme instances, it's possible to have enough natural talent to get by without much (or any) work. Look at chrissie wellington, or george best, or someone like that.

But it is a very extreme case, and in most instances it doesn't apply.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#56
Talent is the practise that happens when no one is looking....everything is aquired.Take improvisation for example that seems to be instantanious and totally coming...from the heart.Now dig deep and you ll find out that the improviser was listening to countless albums of this kind of music all his life (so he is resuffling imprinted ideas),most of his other lines are prearranged and though out, add also a good number of stock licks and it leaves only a small window of something truly and utterly improvised. That doesnt mean its not good of course but it means its not truly improvised with the pure sense of the word.

Now we can debate this till the cows come home but in reality the things someone calls innate talents about an individual are simply variables that the researcher isnt aware of but make all the difference in the world.Thats why following the example above you wont find anyone(lets say born in a deserted island listening only classical and pop music) to create or improvise something in jazz or fusion....neeeever gonna happen.... no matter how talented you think he is .
Last edited by Dreamdancer11 at Aug 22, 2013,
#57
how do you explain savants, then? or people who have a brain injury and suddenly start speaking norwegian, say?

I mean you can say stuff like that all you like, and I even agree with you- but the important thing is, "for the most part". There are definite, verified, scientifically accepted examples which contradict what you're saying. extreme examples, sure.

even in less extreme examples, take a course in school where everyone is a beginner, and they genuinely haven't studied any of it before. Some people pick it up faster than others.

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 22, 2013,
#58
Well I guess I don't have the guitar god gene so I probably want work hard anyway cause I'll never get good and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy lol
#59
Quote by Dave_Mc
how do you explain savants, then? or people who have a brain injury and suddenly start speaking norwegian, say?

I mean you can say stuff like that all you like, and I even agree with you- but the important thing is, "for the most part". There are definite, verified, scientifically accepted examples which contradict what you're saying. extreme examples, sure.

even in less extreme examples, take a course in school where everyone is a beginner, and they genuinely haven't studied any of it before. Some people pick it up faster than others.



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.

As i said 99% perspiration 1% inspiration.....of course in the end you can believe anything you want , but seriously worrying about innate talent is the same like worrying about the possibility of a lightning striking you when you walk .
#60
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.
#61
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
#62
Quote 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_syndrome#Notable_savants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_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 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!"

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 23, 2013,
#63
Quote 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_syndrome#Notable_savants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_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.
#64
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...
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 23, 2013,
#65
Quote 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 .
#66
Quote 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.

Quote 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.”


Album.
Legion.
#67
Quote 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 at Aug 23, 2013,
#68
Quote 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.

Quote 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.”


Album.
Legion.
#69
Quote 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.
#70
Quote 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 by Zaphod_Beeblebr

This thread is god damned ridiculous.


+1
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 24, 2013,
#71
Quote 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.
#72
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."

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 24, 2013,
#73
Quote 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 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 at Aug 24, 2013,
#74
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'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#75
Quote 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 .
#76
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.
#77
Quote 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.
#78
^ 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 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 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.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 25, 2013,
#79
Quote 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 at Aug 25, 2013,
#80
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.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 25, 2013,