What is talent?

[Kat]

Shayne,

I am simply asking for clarification from both sides because I'm not sure if there truly are any differences. No slight intended.

Kat

[Paul Mawdsley]

If Shayne and Victor each are operating from different meanings of the concept "talent," then so be it. There is no reason to assume either is playing semantic games. Discussions are simply being confused by the use of different meanings. Once these meanings are out in the open surely the confusion and frustration can be brought to an end if both parties are more interested in communication and identifying truths than in being right. Is this what both parties are interested in? We'll see. Will the discussion now turn to a consideration of facts and ideas or will it continue to be about the one-oneupmanship of establishing the relative status of perspectives? I have seen some interest in the former but there seems to be an invisible hand at work pushing the players toward the latter. Personally, I find the dynamics underlying the invisible hand more interesting than the discussion of talent.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

Be nice, now.

Michael

[sjw]

I am simply asking for clarification from both sides because I'm not sure if there truly are any differences. No slight intended.

And again, Victor was the one who started with the differences, and with Rand not me. So you should ask him where he differs from Rand if you care. I think Rand was just fine as is on this topic--I don't see it as a badge of honor to gratuitously differ with Rand (nor do I worship her or consider her infalliable--I have differences on various topics--the fact that I need to say that should perhaps be taken as insulting by certain people who like robots repeat the mantra "you're just a Randroid" everytime someone defends a view of hers). All of this indicates big enough differences with Victor to discern. I don't see why I should have to highlight them any more than they already are highlighted.

Really, I think this latest accusation that we're both playing word games is just a variation on the egalitarian, politically-correct "you're both wrong, so just kiss and make up" bullshit. First it was "you're both being insulting, so kiss and make up", now it's "you're both playing word games, so kiss and make up." The motive is, in my opinion, the same: to exempt yourself from judging who's right and who's wrong. And again I say that if you're not going to go to the trouble of reading through carefully and figuring out who's wrong, then don't jump in here and claim we're both wrong. I don't claim that you have a burden to judge one way or the other, but if you're not going to do it objectively, then don't do it at all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You didn't read Kat's posts correctly. She was not accusing anyone of anything. She was asking because she was genuinely confused. (If you make such a point of being read correctly, and I agree that you should, the least you can do is extend the same courtesy to others, especially those who are well-meaning.)

About Rand, I have some doubts of my own on Rand's clarity about tabula rasa. I have cited her in other places where I have discussed this, but before I air these doubts here, I want to review Rand's words again and see if the doubts continue. I will get back on this and I will bring her own words with me.

Hopefully that should clear up misunderstandings.

btw - I do not consider you to be a Randroid. A bit thin-skinned, maybe, but not a Randroid. You are way too independent in your thinking to be that. Another forum owner with whom I no longer communicate used to call you a "Randroid on stilts." This was about a year and a half ago. (It's true.)

Enough gossip. I'm starting to feel my hillbilly roots...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You didn't read Kat's posts correctly. She was not accusing anyone of anything. She was asking because she was genuinely confused. (If you make such a point of being read correctly, and I agree that you should, the least you can do is extend the same courtesy to others, especially those who are well-meaning.)

About Rand, I have some doubts of my own on Rand's clarity about tabula rasa. I have cited her in other places where I have discussed this, but before I air these doubts here, I want to review Rand's words again and see if the doubts continue. I will get back on this and I will bring her own words with me.

Hopefully that should clear up misunderstandings.

btw - I do not consider you to be a Randroid. A bit thin-skinned, maybe, but not a Randroid. You are way too independent in your thinking to be that. Another forum owner with whom I no longer communicate used to call you a "Randroid on stilts." This was about a year and a half ago. (It's true.)

Enough gossip. I'm starting to feel my hillbilly roots...

Michael

[sjw]

btw - I do not consider you to be a Randroid. A bit thin-skinned, maybe, but not a Randroid. You are way too independent in your thinking to be that. Another forum owner with whom I no longer communicate used to call you a "Randroid on stilts." This was about a year and a half ago. (It's true.)

Yeah, I remember a "forum owner" who accused me of being a Randroid when I was telling him there were virtues in Peikoff, then I was a "Brandroid" when I told him to stop turning a blind eye to ARI's past. Whenever there's a disagreement, I seem to end up on neither side of it as well as on both sides... Must be that "kung fu Objectivism" you mentioned ;)

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Better to just nurture your nature.

Bingo.

This big Mexican standoff over semantics... Shayne's "inherent capacity" and Victor's "innate talent" seems to just be a lot of hair splitting. The terms still have yet to be defined. It sounds to me like you are almost talking about the same thing yet talking past each other. Can you explain the difference between innate talent and inherent capacity as well as give your definitions of tabula rasa?

Of course, people are not literally born knowing that which is learned, but some individuals catch on and learn certain skills extremely quickly and this generally referred to as inborn talent. There truly are some amazing people out there.

Gentlemen, your definitions, please.

Kat

I see no reason to repeat the definition of talent when I have aptly supplied definitions, descriptions, evidence, and elaborations of it already—and so has Angie, a rather dramatic case-in-point at that. How could anyone have missed the Wiki definition of “talent” and “innate” and “inherent” just a few posts back? It is my understanding of the word and I accept it. Those definitions are really no different than the popular usage---when the so-called “man on the street” recognizes talent or uses the word.

I think my communication break down with Shayne began some time ago with the assumption that to grant the existence of innate talent is to deny the existence or downplay the necessity of hard work and the volitional development of one’s abilities. I have bent over backwards trying to explain that I acknowledge both. I have maintained that there is innate talent and that it is something that must [or can] be honed to maturity. It was Michael who made a crucial point bringing together the idea of innate talent and later on “giving it your all.”

MSK: “An innate capacity does not just pop into existence at birth and then stop right there, whereas the rest is volitional learning. It develops automatically as the organism develops. An acorn becomes a tree with branches and leaves, although you can't see them in the acorn. Everything biological about a human being grows automatically, like height, eyesight (regardless of the comments in "The Comprachicos," a baby cannot choose not to learn how to see), even the capacity to make initial integrations, yet I constantly see insinuated--and even stated outright--that a capacity doesn't grow automatically… An innate capability will develop and get better and better up to a point automatically from simple growth, regardless of the volition of the person having it. The person can choose to use it or not.”

Bingo!

*** *** ***

It seems to me that Shayne and I are of one mind—as of late, and finally—and so I do say that the existence of talent is grudgingly being acknowledged. I think everyone else sees what I see, but they know Shayne to be a very proud person. The fact of the matter is that it is slowly dawning on him that he needs to step up to the plate and be honest with himself and others: he was wrong in denying the existence of innate talent—that he now acknowledges by his description of it, and his suborn refusal to give this description a name.

Let’s take a quote of Shayne’s and mine and place it side-by-side and the readers of this post can decide by their own judgment if Shayne and I are talking about the bloody same thing:

SHAYNE: There are two things that are essential to mention on this topic. The first is the most obvious, and hardly controversial in any context, the common culture is quite aware of it: we are all born with different potentials. This follows from the law of identity combined with day to day observations that we differ in just about every concrete measure. Who disagrees with this? Pretty much no one.”

AGAIN, let's read it. Shayne: “There are two things that are essential to mention on this topic. The first is the most obvious, and hardly controversial in any context, the common culture is quite aware of it: we are all born with different potentials. [italics mine] This follows from the law of identity combined with day to day observations that we differ in just about every concrete measure.”

Yes, this is right. This obvious phenomenon that we are born with different potentials---hints at the concept called INNATE TALENT. So now that you have identified it, let’s attach a name to it. That has been done. I did it. Others did it, too. Shayne has now done it.

Well, well, well.

VICTOR: “There is no question that practice makes perfect—or, at least, practice makes better. It is also true that repetition, devotion and applying yourself are the foundations to acquiring a skill. But I do argue that some people seem to be “wired at birth” and are more apt at a given area—such as math, drawing or music. In many cases, you see it from the very beginning.” Some people are "visually illiterate" and some aren't. Those who aren't, have a talent. This is innate, but it needs to be honed. Practice perfects or sharpens that which nature gave us. For those who are visually illiterate, it can be said they lack the mental/visual aptitude necessary to translate lines and colors into meaningful images. They may have talents in other areas, but they lack the talent of being visually literate. I heard that Pre-industrial aboriginal tribes cannot make sense of two-dimensional renderings of a three-dimensional object so it is unlikely they'll be hiring me soon.”

And:

“The dictionary states that the word “talent” is referred to as a “natural ability” or a “superior, apparently natural ability in the arts or sciences or in the learning or doing of anything.” For me, talent can be said to be a “raw material” that can be honed when one consciously decides to become a craftsman of these raw materials.”

Are we NOW talking about the same thing, posters? Yeah, that's what I thought.

*** *** ***

But looking back: Shayne clearly took opposition to the idea of innate talent at the outset of this thread—designating the opposition as the “talent people’—claming “They have no facts to prove their claims. They are obviously biased. E.g., Victor says that if someone doesn't become a good artist, then they must have had no inborn talent” and “Talent is obviously not inborn because what people refer to by 'talent' is always man-made. There is no natural selection in play for drawing or playing basket ball.”

So, it would seem that I have remained consistent within this thread—whereas Shayne has been flip-flop-there-is-no-such-thing-as-talent, wait-I-never-said-talent-doesn’t-exist-the-use-of-the-word-talent-is-in-my-vocabulary-those-talent-people-are-wrong-I-have-no-problen-using-the-word-innate-or-inherent…” here and there and everywhere...Bla, bla, bla.

Oy!

But I can now walk away from this thread intellectually satisfied, because I have established my case. Yes, I really did. And Shayne knows it--and acknowledges it—and denies it. And all at the same time, too. That boy has talent.

Let’s bottom line it: a definition of talent has been supplied, validated, proved and described [yes, folks, really]. Look up the words talent, ability, and innate you will see that Shayne and I are now talking about the same damn thing, the meanings, synonyms, semantics, etc. It's all there.

Sure, Shayne went in fighting for the non-existence of talent. Now he is having second thoughts. No strike that...he knows he lost the argument. He just won't admit it. I know it, and to all readers...you know it.

Good night, Irene.

Call me a smug bastard. Just don't call me late for dinner.

Victor :turned:

Edited December 29, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

So what you're saying Victor is that now, like me, you agree with Rand?

[Victor Pross]

So what you're saying Victor is that now, like me, you agree with Rand?

I agree with Rand about a lot of things. Could you be a bit more vague?

edit: Posters, here is a projection: Shayne will go away for a bit, thinking. The wheels in his head are turning—like a hamster on a spinning wheel in a cage—and what he’ll come back with is not a monumental argument to establish the non-existence for talent [his original position at the outset of this thread] but rather this: what a bastard I am….in so many different words perhaps--shit, he’s good at that--but essentially it’ll be about what a bastard/asshole I am. Or else he’ll dish up another diversion in order to avoid the subject of the thread. I don’t wish to be prophetic. I wish to put forth a deterrent.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

I agree with Rand about a lot of things. Could you be a bit more vague?

I'm talking about Rand's view on talent that you disagreed with before.

[Victor Pross]

I agree with Rand about a lot of things. Could you be a bit more vague?

I'm talking about Rand's view on talent that you disagreed with before.

To insure that we are on the same page, what is Rand’s view of talent, and where did I disagree with it?

[sjw]

To insure that we are on the same page, what is Rand’s view of talent, and where did I disagree with it?

Rand's view of talent: "No one is born with any kind of 'talent', and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. Writers are *made*, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made."

I didn't dig through all this mess, but here's something I found that indicates that you disagree with Rand's view: "I am NOT saying that people are not self-made in skills and abilities. But ALL of them?"--i.e., you think we are born with at least some skills and abilities. On the other hand, I think we are born with very general capacities/potentials. Talent, in the sense that I and Rand use the term, refers to concrete skills and abilities that are acquired, you aren't born with them.

Now you prance about declaring that I agree with you. If I do, it's because you've changed your mind, not me.

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

First order of business: I believe the Rand quote you have selected is referring to her views about writing and writers--that they are made and not born—and this specification does not cast the net so wide over every other area and activity. She is talking about writing. That's one thing.

Secondly—and within the boundaries of the above consideration—I agree with Rand that writers are, basically, made and not born—insofar as writing is a form of communication. And so long as human beings are conceptual creatures who acquire a language, developing grammar and punctuation skills, etc, and therefore communicate, this will speak to being an acquired skill.

So what?

Rand said that all writing is a form of communication, and I agree. Where innate talent might come into the framework, however, is where creative writing is concerned, and it would seem that some people have better imaginations for, say, developing stories and characters, etc. There is innate talent and acquired skills.

Thirdly, I’m not sure why you are now leading this inquiry down the road of what Rand believed or didn’t believe about innate talent. I love Ayn Rand, but I love the truth more; my eyes are focused on reality. I’m trying to understand something in reality, not hunt for Rand passages and quotes.

Furthermore, I have not changed my mind at all. I begun this thread as an inquiry, but I shifted to conclude the existence of innate talent and acquired abilities.

You asserted “Now you prance about declaring that I agree with you. If I do, it's because you've changed your mind, not me.”

WHAT? Shayne, let’s get the facts straight: I confirmed the existence of innate talent. You denied it. I did not change my mind. Here it is again: I believe in innate talent and you don't. There you have it. It’s really that simple.

To summarize: a, I believe in the existence of innate talent—you didn’t [or didn’t and now do, or didn’t and still don’t], b, I believe in the existence of innate talent—that must later be developed and honed through volitional effort. C, I believe there are cases where people have no given talent in a given area, but later acquire a certain skill through sheer effort.

*** *** ***

Let’s consider these mesh of words associated with the question of talent:

capacities/potentials/skills and abilities:

wiki definition of skill:

skill (plural skills):

1: Capacity to do something well; technique, ability. Skills are usually acquired or learned, as opposed to abilities, which are often thought of as innate.

Also:

Synonyms: Capacity; talent; cleverness; faculty; capability; efficiency; aptitude; aptness; address; dexterity; skill. Ability, Capacity. These words come into comparison when applied to the higher intellectual powers.

Usage notes: Ability has reference to the active exercise of our faculties. It implies not only native vigor of mind, but that ease and promptitude of execution which arise from mental training. Thus, we speak of the ability with which a book is written, an argument maintained, a negotiation carried on, etc. It always something to be done, and the power of doing it.

•Capacity has reference to the receptive powers. In its higher exercises it supposes great quickness of apprehension and breadth of intellect, with an uncommon aptitude for acquiring and retaining knowledge. Hence it carries with it the idea of resources and undeveloped power. Thus we speak of the extraordinary capacity of such men as Lord Bacon, Blaise Pascal, and Edmund Burke. "Capacity," says H. Taylor, "is requisite to devise, and ability to execute, a great enterprise." The word abilities, in the plural, embraces both these qualities, and denotes high mental endowments.

Ta-da!

*** *** ****

Finally, for all those Orthodox types, here’s something from Atlas Shrugged, regarding talent, to savor:

“The d'Anconia heirs had been men of unusual ability, but none of them could match what Francisco d'Anconia promised to become. It was as if the centuries had sifted the family's qualities through a fine mesh, had discarded the irrelevant, the inconsequential, the weak, and had let nothing through except pure talent; as if chance, for once, had achieved an entity devoid of the accidental.

Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and he did it without effort. There was no boasting in his manner and consciousness, no thought of comparison. His attitude was not: "I can do it better than you," but simply: "I can do it." What he meant by doing was doing superlatively.

No matter what discipline was required of him by his father's exacting plan for his education, no matter what subject he was ordered to study, Francisco mastered it with effortless amusement. His father adored him, but concealed it carefully, as he concealed the pride of knowing that he was bringing up the most brilliant phenomenon of a brilliant family line.”

See you all in the funny papers. :turned:

-Victor

edit: I want to thank Angie, my honey pie, for her help and suggestions.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Finally, for all those Orthodox types, here’s something from Atlas Shrugged, regarding talent, to savor:

“The d'Anconia heirs had been men of unusual ability, but none of them could match what Francisco d'Anconia promised to become. It was as if the centuries had sifted the family's qualities through a fine mesh, had discarded the irrelevant, the inconsequential, the weak, and had let nothing through except pure talent; as if chance, for once, had achieved an entity devoid of the accidental.

Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and he did it without effort. There was no boasting in his manner and consciousness, no thought of comparison. His attitude was not: "I can do it better than you," but simply: "I can do it." What he meant by doing was doing superlatively.

No matter what discipline was required of him by his father's exacting plan for his education, no matter what subject he was ordered to study, Francisco mastered it with effortless amusement. His father adored him, but concealed it carefully, as he concealed the pride of knowing that he was bringing up the most brilliant phenomenon of a brilliant family line.”

See you all in the funny papers. :turned:

-Victor

edit: I want to thank Angie, my honey pie, for her help and suggestions.

That's a pretty good excerpt. I love the sifting through the family qualities and letting nothing through but pure talent reference, done without effort and mastered easily, and love the what Francisco promised to become, also love the end where she says a brilliant FAMILY LINE. This is hinting at that it is also hereditary as the family line has produced over centuries brilliant minds but Francisco took the cake. It is obvious from this excerpt that Francisco exhibited these abilities at a very young age and anything he undertook was effortless for him and that the d'Anconia heirs could not match what Francisco was to become.

By the way, you're welcome, honey.

Angie

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

Be nice, now.

Michael,

I guess I can be a little ignorant of such things in certain frames of mind. I didn't realize I was not being nice. I was simply in identify-what-I-see mode. When I am in this space I don't pay much attention to social rules. Thanks for the tap on the shoulder. I should probably consider my social context a little more. The opportunity to objectively reevaluate one's perspective and statements can be quite valuable.

Paul

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps it might be useful to read the discussion in this thread first, before we start to repeat it all here. The discussion about Rand's statement about talent was introduced by me on p. 3. I'm still convinced that Rand didn't mean by talent something like acquired skill. Why would she put the word between scare quotes, if she thought it was just a synonym for acquired skill? The only reason I can think of is that she thought that the whole idea of 'talent' (as an innate capacity or predisposition) is an invalid notion. Second, the whole statement would be utterly trivial otherwise, as no one is claiming that a newborn child can write a novel, compose a symphony or solve differential equations, so why all the fuss? It also squares with her idea that people can raise their own IQ by 40 points, just by choice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

I was joking. Your comment on the social dynamics being more interesting than the topic at hand reminded me of Jerry Springer and I got quite a chuckle. "Be nice" was in the context of chiming in.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

I was joking. Your comment on the social dynamics being more interesting than the topic at hand reminded me of Jerry Springer and I got quite a chuckle. "Be nice" was in the context of chiming in.

Michael

Oops!!! I still think I have been a little in a socially oblivious mode recently. That's why I took what you said the way I did. I've been trying to work through some thoughts on causality in general and social dynamics in particular. The type of focus I need for this is not very conducive to paying attention to the nuances of social flow.

Paul

PS- I also tend to loose my sense of humour in this mode.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[sjw]

Perhaps it might be useful to read the discussion in this thread first, before we start to repeat it all here. The discussion about Rand's statement about talent was introduced by me on p. 3. I'm still convinced that Rand didn't mean by talent something like acquired skill. Why would she put the word between scare quotes, if she thought it was just a synonym for acquired skill? The only reason I can think of is that she thought that the whole idea of 'talent' (as an innate capacity or predisposition) is an invalid notion. Second, the whole statement would be utterly trivial otherwise, as no one is claiming that a newborn child can write a novel, compose a symphony or solve differential equations, so why all the fuss? It also squares with her idea that people can raise their own IQ by 40 points, just by choice.

Rand was not stupid enough to have thought what you are saying she thought. Also, I *think* I read elsewhere where she made a similar point to mine regarding how we each have identity. And there is no way she said we could raise our IQ just by choice. I'm sure she meant by a lot of hard work and effort, and only if you had started out below your potential IQ. That was her point in Atlas about Galt, Ragnard, and Francisco: she had Hugh underscore to Dagny that these were normal men who (unlike most normal men) had lived up to their potential.

And as I have said before, that is the right thing to emphasize in this connection. To go back to the athletic comparison: yes, some are genetically wired to say, be able to ride a bike faster. But when it comes down to it, it's not very much faster. Leaving aside those with disabilities, all men can adapt with years of serious training to become far faster than if they just casually rode a bike. All normal men can become excellent bike riders. Likewise, I'm sure some men's brains permit them to adapt faster and better to certain mental activities. But that doesn't mean we can't all learn to draw or do math very, very well. And that's what should matter to you anyway (unless your job is to win zero-sum contests like bike races). Not whether you're better than some other human, but whether you're the best you can be. Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

[Rich Engle]

It's toned down, for sure, BUT:

I would like someone to explain the purpose of even sticking the now-tinier (but still existent) gaffs. I could quote recent ones, but it would be like putting out the fire with gasoline.

But, again, what is the purpose?

And, no, "he or she started it" is a far from sufficient answer as to purpose.

State your premises, gaffers.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

Perhaps. But would they have any tal.....Never mind. :twitch:

[sjw]

Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

Perhaps. But would they have any tal.....Never mind. :twitch:

Proving that this isn't about "word games". The "talent" side thinks you are born to be good at some particular pursuit; Ayn Rand, I, and a few others here think that with the right motivation, method, and effort at the right time and normal men can be good at virtually anything. The posts over the past week had more to do with Victor's straw man than anything else.

As I said before, I think this based on my own experience. If Victor's experience has led him to think that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never be good at logic or philosophy even though he thinks himself to be good at drawing, well then who am I to argue with him. ;)

Edited December 29, 2006 by sjw

[Paul Mawdsley]

As I said before, I think this based on my own experience. If Victor's experience has led him to think that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never be good at logic or philosophy even though he thinks himself to be good at drawing, well then who am I to argue with him. ;)

Because I am not Victor, I can easily take this in the humorous spirit in which it is intended.

Proving that this isn't about "word games". The "talent" side thinks you are born to be good at some particular pursuit; Ayn Rand, I, and a few others here think that with the right motivation, method, and effort at the right time and normal men can be good at virtually anything. The posts over the past week had more to do with Victor's straw man than anything else.

I don't see these perspectives as being mutually exclusive. They are the result of a different focus on the same existents. The disagreements are on how to process reality, not on reality itself.

Paul

[Rich Engle]

Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

Mostly. Sure, the majority can "become" one. Results may vary. Total meltdown can occur, even after the most magnificent effort has been made.

The former Soviet countries endorse this. Over there, you don't have long to figure out what you're going to be. If, like my Ukranian violinist Oksana, you decided you liked to conduct and play violin, that's what happens (in her case around 9)-- you're in music school, and you'd best well finish it or the next thing you know you're going to be working behind a stamping press or whatever. Their teaching methodology (in music, for sure) is fantastic, with very little margin for error.

But even with that, for one reason or another some just don't end up with that virtuostic sparkle.

For 18 years, I mostly made my living teaching people of all ages how to play the guitar. There were a couple of times where it, for sure, just wasn't worth the effort to obtain even mediocre results.

I have seen people try dilligently, with focus. With me trying different teaching techniques from all angles. From even having other extremely qualified instructors come in and coach. All kinds of attention being put on these people. In the end, they'd either just stick it through as needed (some parents say if you do this, you're committed for X years) then put it down forever, or they'd come to us and, in all honesty, say "this just absolutely is not for me, at all, I realize that now." And as dissapointing as that is to a teacher, by then you are pretty much understanding what they mean, because you have seen the struggle.

Struggle which was still, in a way, worth it, because work is work, effort is effort. But they would have never been remotely decent, nor competitive, as musicians.