What is talent?

[CNA]

Matus,

That is all you had to do was clarify. I did not read your most recent post, although skimmed through looking for information relevant to this thread and saw none nor did I read the links you put up. Right now, I am more interested in what this thread is about and an explanation with what has been presented thus far.

I also did not state that you were envious or what have you. If I was going to accuse you of envy, I would have said it *directly* to your face. The post would have been addressed to you and would have stated that I thought you were envious or a hater of the good or whatever. But I did not do that. I just stated in a post with additional comments that this is something this boy has been heavily subjected to, especially in the doc from medical students and the like. Keep context in mind as to when I used the word envy in relation to this boy. Go back and read my post as to when I used this word.

Angie

Edit: In regards to my last post to you on how I personally took your post to mean TO ME, not to you or anyone else BUT ME, that is how I understood your post to be and the way it was worded. That is why I responded to you the way I did.

Edited December 23, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Victor, you do not respect Kat's property enough to leave a thread she killed dead. How charming and mature. Nice red herring too, completely obfiscating the fact of your vicious personal attack against me being a completely egregious mis interpretation of a simple joke. That fact that you were so ready to jump on that incorrect interpretation speaks much more about the nature of your mentality than mine. If you wish to continue to discuss my opinions of Lennon petition Kat to re-open the thread, if not, respect her, as I did, and drop it.

Matus,

She closed the thread because of the kind of views you expressed! Forget the joke, if that’s what it was. Or do you wish to milk it for all it’s worth as an example to show what a rotten person I am? That’s all you have in your deck of cards? The simple fact that you can't admit that you are wrong on the subject of innate talent--speaks volumes. In the face of ample evidence that you argue away to protect the “sanctity” of a misunderstood idea of tabula Rasa speaks much more of your mentality. Am I an enemy of Objectivism? Do you wish me dead, too?

-Victor

Edited December 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Matus1976]

Matus,

That is all you had to do was clarify. I did not read your most recent post, although skimmed through looking for information relevant to this thread and saw none nor did I read the links you put up. Right now, I am more interested in what this thread is about and an explanation with what has been presented thus far.

I did not address the comments yet as I did not think it was worthwhile continuing any discussion if you were under the impression I was lying, and as such that I am a lier (thus making absolutely everything I say suspect). I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way shape or form envious of this child, or any genuis or intellect, that it was just a bad joke easily mis interpreted online. I'll have to try to respond to the points raised tomorrow.

Matus

[Matus1976]

Victor, you do not respect Kat's property enough to leave a thread she killed dead. How charming and mature. Nice red herring too, completely obfiscating the fact of your vicious personal attack against me being a completely egregious mis interpretation of a simple joke. That fact that you were so ready to jump on that incorrect interpretation speaks much more about the nature of your mentality than mine. If you wish to continue to discuss my opinions of Lennon petition Kat to re-open the thread, if not, respect her, as I did, and drop it.

Matus,

She closed the thread because of the kind of views you expressed! Forget the joke, if that’s what it was. Or do you wish to milk it for all it’s worth as an example to show what a rotten person I am? That’s all you have in your deck of cards? The simple fact that you can't admit that you are wrong on the subject of innate talent--speaks volumes. In the face of ample evidence that you argue away to protect the “sanctity” of a misunderstood idea of tabula Rasa speaks much more of your mentality. Am I an enemy of Objectivism? Do you wish me dead, too?

-Victor

Funny that you use your admission of being a rotten person as an attack on me (for milking that fact?)

The simple fact that you can't admit that you are wrong on the subject of innate talent--speaks volumes. In the face of ample evidence that you argue away and just blatently ignore to protect the "sanctity" of a misunderstood idea of innate talent speaks much more of your mentality. Am I an enemy of Objectivism? Have you stopped beating your wife?

Matus

[Victor Pross]

Matus,

That is all you had to do was clarify. I did not read your most recent post, although skimmed through looking for information relevant to this thread and saw none nor did I read the links you put up. Right now, I am more interested in what this thread is about and an explanation with what has been presented thus far.

I did not address the comments yet as I did not think it was worthwhile continuing any discussion if you were under the impression I was lying, and as such that I am a lier (thus making absolutely everything I say suspect). I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way shape or form envious of this child, or any genuis or intellect, that it was just a bad joke easily mis interpreted online. I'll have to try to respond to the points raised tomorrow.

Matus

Matus, on some blog, I believe it is, you state: “Eudaemonist: Aristotlean Eudaemonist, started a web group based on Aristotle's wonderful concept of Eudaemonism, which is to embrace and nourish all the things that make being alive and human wonderful and worthwhile. That ultimate happiness is achieved the productive self actualization.”

Okay, fine, you are not envious of this kid. However, I studied Aristotle’s Eudaemonist view and I don’t see how the concept of innate talent clashes with it. But honestly, do you see the idea of innate talent clashing with “productive self actualization”? Is the opposition you so stridently exert one of an ethical thrust?

-Victor-

Edited December 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Small suggestion.

Now that the dust seems to be settling a little, less acrimony and more ideas would be more than welcome. It is possible. I know it is.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Matus, on some blog, I believe it is, you state: “Eudaemonist: Aristotlean Eudaemonist, started a web group based on Aristotle's wonderful concept of Eudaemonism, which is to embrace and nourish all the things that make being alive and human wonderful and worthwhile. That ultimate happiness is achieved the productive self actualization.”

Okay, fine, you are not envious of this kid. However, I studied the Aristotle’s Eudaemonist view and I don’t see how the concept of innate talent clashes with it. But honestly, do you see the idea of innate talent clashing with “productive self actualization”? Is the opposition you so stridently exert one of an ethical thrust?

-Victor-

Ah, an opening for productive conversation! Victor, please retain this mentality until tomorrow until I can have a chance to make a more detailed response.

Matus

[CNA]

Matus,

That is all you had to do was clarify. I did not read your most recent post, although skimmed through looking for information relevant to this thread and saw none nor did I read the links you put up. Right now, I am more interested in what this thread is about and an explanation with what has been presented thus far.

I did not address the comments yet as I did not think it was worthwhile continuing any discussion if you were under the impression I was lying, and as such that I am a lier (thus making absolutely everything I say suspect). I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way shape or form envious of this child, or any genuis or intellect, that it was just a bad joke easily mis interpreted online. I'll have to try to respond to the points raised tomorrow.

Matus

I've already stated that if I thought you were envious or what have you, I would have said it directly to your face but I did not do this. Again, I responded to you the way I did because of how something I personally took and you later clarified it. I just wanted to make sure that the context that the word was used in was kept in mind.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

Matus, on some blog, I believe it is, you state: “Eudaemonist: Aristotlean Eudaemonist, started a web group based on Aristotle's wonderful concept of Eudaemonism, which is to embrace and nourish all the things that make being alive and human wonderful and worthwhile. That ultimate happiness is achieved the productive self actualization.”

Okay, fine, you are not envious of this kid. However, I studied the Aristotle’s Eudaemonist view and I don’t see how the concept of innate talent clashes with it. But honestly, do you see the idea of innate talent clashing with “productive self actualization”? Is the opposition you so stridently exert one of an ethical thrust?

-Victor-

Ah, an opening for productive conversation! Victor, please retain this mentality until tomorrow until I can have a chance to make a more detailed response.

Matus

I will. If you promise to not employ a recycled ash of spurious moralistic vitriolic already used on this thread.

I’m feeling the Christmas spirit!

-Victor

edit: Matus, If we have anything in common it is an appreciation for Rand and motorcycles. I see this from your website. Those are two weak spots for me.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Small suggestion.

Now that the dust seems to be settling a little, less acrimony and more ideas would be more than welcome. It is possible. I know it is.

Some personalities just clash. I know I always clash with anyone who is strongly authoritarian. The best I can manage with such people is to bite my tongue. I'm beginning to think Victor and Matus are victims of their own identities. Separate them and they can play nice. Put them together and they are pit bulls in a dog fight. Sometimes the best thing you can do is agree to disagree and walk away. There is certainly little of value being produced in this thread now. A lot could be accomplished if each would stop trying to convince the other they are right. More could be accomplished if each could hold the opposing perspective in his consciousness without the impulse to reject it but, instead, with an impulse to objectively explore it.

Actually, there is some value in observing this spectacle beyond that of watching an accident. It makes for an interesting case study in psychological/social dynamics. Objectivist Rage-- I have no idea what Barbara was talking about.

Paul

Edited December 23, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Victor Pross]

From the web-site of Matus1976:

“This is not a new idea. But it may be the most powerfully pressing one ever to be disrespected by the corporate world. There are far too many smart, educated, talented [emphasis mine] people operating at quarter speed, unsure of their place in the world, contributing far too little to the productive engine of modern civilization. There are far too many people who look like they have their act together but have yet to make an impact. You know who you are. It comes down to a simple gut check: You either love what you do or you don't. Period.”

I most certainly agree with the general idea of this paragraph, and so I find something else we have in common. There was something that caught my attention. Did someone mention the word talent?

Now yor're talking my language!

-Victor

Edited December 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I don't know if you will read this or not, as it has been a few days since you last posted.

You are an individual. I recognize, respect and value you as such.

As for some others out there in the wilderness, I prefer not to associate with people who use "guilt by association" as a method of cognition. It is too akin to the hillbilly racism I eschewed as I grew up. (I don't like guru-wannabees either, but that's another issue.)

Michael

[sjw]

Thanks Michael. I agree, it *is* hillbilly racism. That sort of thing has a long and rich history in Objectivist circles; "some others" are just copying the behavior, contributing in style, but not in substance.

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

I don't know if you will read this or not, as it has been a few days since you last posted.

You are an individual. I recognize, respect and value you as such.

As for some others out there in the wilderness, I prefer not to associate with people who use "guilt by association" as a method of cognition. It is too akin to the hillbilly racism I eschewed as I grew up. (I don't like guru-wannabees either, but that's another issue.)

Michael

Well, I'm an Elvis fan, but I wouldn't go this far. :shocked:

[Matus1976]

Sorry Everyone, with the Christmas time I have just been waay too busy to formulate a good response and collect my thoughts on the subject, although I think some interesting productive discussion can be had. I hope to in the next day or two.

Merry Capitalistmas, Newtonmass, happy holidays, Merry Christmas, etc to all...

[Victor Pross]

Sorry Everyone, with the Christmas time I have just been waay too busy to formulate a good response and collect my thoughts on the subject, although I think some interesting productive discussion can be had. I hope to in the next day or two.

Merry Capitalistmas, Newtonmass, happy holidays, Merry Christmas, etc to all...

In the spirit for the wish of productive discussion, I wish to summarize the essence of my argument in this post. If there is to be any further posts--either to support or critique the question of innate talent—they may use the below as a reference. No more “hillbilly cognition” intimidation, please—even it’s for the sake of not annoying our host MSK—or boring Paul.

When it comes to certain abilities and capacities “practice makes perfect” as repetition [among devotion and applying yourself] are the foundations to acquiring a skill. For example, some people, given their physical structure, are better and more apt at playing sports. Given whatever physical advantage they may have, it remains true that training and practice are a given to hone what they have been given.

But what about innate talent? Paul asks: “Does the notion of talent not contain within it an element that requires consciousness. The size of your body might give you certain potential advantages in ability but talent level is an expression of the individual’s mental ability to capitalize on the physical advantages.”

Talent commands respect and awe. People often recognize it when you see it: “Wow, are you ever talented!” or “You have a lot of talent!” Talent commands instant respect, given the scarcity of it. Nobody is dazzled by the person who performs some tricks in Photo Shop, learns to operate a computer, drive a car, bake a cake—all activities that involve a measure of skill. Why? The difference is here is this: the latter are “acquired skills” while the former is “innate talent”--which is, as its name suggests, innate. “The best way to prove innate talent,” Angie argues “is in infants where all the theories that have been presented so far from long hours of study and so on will be difficult to apply to a child as young as 10 months.” Such a test would apply to a truly gifted child, but I don’t think it is a final yard stick in all cases to determine talent in a given child by so young an age [after all, I was three and my talent surfaced at this age].

Here is my argument: some people, as can be clearly observed, seem to be wired at birth and are more apt at a given area—such as math, drawing or music and other intellectual pursuits. In many cases, we can observe a “wired-in ability” from the very beginning. 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.”

Let’s take the question of drawing: I exhibited an advance skill at a very young age, which I’m told was three. This lime-lighted me at school and home, and I amazed the adults around me everywhere I went. The other children were envious because they could draw as well as I did no matter how hard they tried. I was more advanced. But this is not to say that what I am doing today is similar to what I was doing at the age of three. Of course there is room for improving on one’s ability. MSK wrote: “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.”

You see, I believe anybody can take a series of drawing classes—people who moan “I can’t even draw a stick man”--and later walk away with marginally improved skills. But these people will never be able to paint like Rembrandt. It doesn’t matter if you take a random child and train him from an early age till he’s fifty-years-old. Some people will never paint, compose music, etc, like the masters. Why not? Because they don’t have “the gift.” We are speaking here of something non-tangible. As Angie stated: “The issue of innate talent is a lot more complex than you think…” Scientists, experts, and so forth still haven't been able to settle this question. It's not as simple as it seems.” But the question of innate talent is observable for one and all, even if we are only beginning to understand it.

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. There is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities. But I've come to understand that Rand was particularly referring to conscious thought with her tabula rasa edict. So we should not be too hard on Rand. That man is born tabula rasa means only that he doesn't have knowledge [conscious though] at birth. In this case, I agree with Aristotle and Ayn Rand. As Reidy stated: “As I recall Rand's statements denying innate ideas, this applied only to factual knowledge, not to aptitude or sensitivity. Where the latter - high IQ, perfect pitch, athletic aptitude and so on - come from is a question for empirical psychology, not philosophy. None of these requires knowing facts that you haven't learned, so I don't see a problem for Rand.” In any event, I think that there are piles of evidence to show that people are NOT born equally—metaphysically.

Shayne has argued in this thread that “What nature does give us are physical and mental capacities. Although we can measure these crudely (such as the height of a basketball player), for the most part the only way to discover your true capacity is give it your all.” He grants that nature gives us physical and mental capacities, but he avoids stating the obvious: nature does not grant her gifts equally in the physical realm—and he avoids it because that would draw too attention to the fact that nature does not in the mental realm either. In is obvious that nature has equipped some over others with greater intellectual and mental skills, some of which can be identified as ‘talent—this being a raw material needs to be honed and developed with practical experience and practice. He further states that “Mental capacities are even harder to measure than physical capacities.” In the face of all the evidence, to suggest that skill and talent can’t be measured is patently false. Shayne goes on to argue further that “The idea of "inborn talent" stifles development of talent, it makes people stick with what they are already comfortable with instead of growing, on the premise that it's not possible to grow since they don't have the talent for it; a vicious cycle.” This is equally false, but even if it were largely true, the fault lies with the individual—not with what a non-volitional nature gave him or her.

One can see that the entire thrust of his argument is ethical and has much less to do with observation and the examining of case studies.

-Victor-

Edited December 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Kid with down syndrome. Tabula Rasa? Not applicable to question?

Just throwin ideas out there.

[sjw]

"He grants that nature gives us physical and mental capacities, but he avoids stating the obvious: nature does not grant her gifts equally in the physical realm—and he avoids it because that would draw too attention to the fact that nature does not in the mental realm either."

I didn't state the obvious because it was the obvious. Obviously people are born with dramatically different potentials or capacities. No, actually, I have stated this obvious point already, so Victor is lying. The issue is that Victor does not grasp the talent/capacity distinction I was trying to make; he's deaf, blind, and dumb to the distinction. On top of that he does not listen, he expends zero effort to comprehend the points of his adversaries, so he will never grasp the distinction.

On top of that, his lack of basic respect and civility is apalling. If he was a decent person, he'd think "maybe I don't fully understand Shayne's point" (particularly since I've repeatedly told him he didn't) and give me some measure of benefit of the doubt and maybe expending a tiny bit of effort to comprehend, instead of incessantly attributing dishonest motives and prancing about stepping all over my words while he pretends he can speak for me.

Note to the inevitable moronic retort that I'm insulting Victor while objecting to his insulting behavior: Victor's behavior is not based in any sort of rational principle, it is wholly unjustified, it is pure irrationality; what I'm doing is calling a spade a spade. There's a huge difference. If you don't see the difference, then take the implied insult with my compliments.

Edited December 25, 2006 by sjw

[Victor Pross]

"He grants that nature gives us physical and mental capacities, but he avoids stating the obvious: nature does not grant her gifts equally in the physical realm—and he avoids it because that would draw too attention to the fact that nature does not in the mental realm either."

I didn't state the obvious because it was the obvious. Obviously people are born with dramatically different potentials or capacities. No, actually, I have stated this obvious point already, so Victor is lying. The issue is that Victor does not grasp the talent/capacity distinction I was trying to make; he's deaf, blind, and dumb to the distinction. On top of that he does not listen, he expends zero effort to comprehend the points of his adversaries, so he will never grasp the distinction.

On top of that, his lack of basic respect and civility is apalling. If he was a decent person, he'd think "maybe I don't fully understand Shayne's point" (particularly since I've repeatedly told him he didn't) and give me some measure of benefit of the doubt and maybe expending a tiny bit of effort to comprehend, instead of incessantly attributing dishonest motives and prancing about stepping all over my words while he pretends he can speak for me.

Note to the inevitable moronic retort that I'm insulting Victor while objecting to his insulting behavior: Victor's behavior is not based in any sort of rational principle, it is wholly unjustified, it is pure irrationality; what I'm doing is calling a spade a spade. There's a huge difference. If you don't see the difference, then take the implied insult with my compliments.

Shayne, Shayne, nasty, nasty. Didn’t you read the sign coming in? No more “hillbilly cognition” intimidation, please—even it’s for the sake of not annoying our host MSK—or boring Paul.” You even cleverly reference that you are being insulting so as to defuse being called on it—anybody who objects would be a “moronic retort.” But from where I’m sitting, I see the ploy and can see, also, that you don’t have any argument in regards to the discussion. None that has held water. So you see, I 'grasp' just fine.

Shayne, you have made no distinction between talent/capacity in the mental realm, not really. You haven’t done so because you don’t grant the existence of talent to distinguish it from anything else.

In any event, I have been accustomed to the tactic of being called irrational by certain people in Objectivist circles—and it amounts to nothing more than an ‘I don’t agree with you’ laced within an insult. It would seem that there is a lot of irrationality here, because others agree with me that there is such a thing an innate talent---Angie and MSK as two examples.

It’s too bad that you don’t focus that energy on speaking about the Indian boy—not that this is the only evidence, but it most certainly is a most dramatic example.

-Victor

Edited December 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

It’s too bad that you don’t focus that energy on speaking about the Indian boy—not that this is the only evidence, but it most certainly is a most dramatic example.

It's too bad you don't listen. It's too bad you see someone else's "nastiness" but not your own.

The boy is easy to explain in my theory. Here's a simplified answer which to your mind will only create more objections (you can lead a fool to the truth but can't force him to understand): some people are born with muscles that adapt much more quickly to exercise stimulus. It's an inherent natural capacity their muscles have that other people's don't. Likewise, some people's minds have the capacity to learn much more quickly. This is oversimplified somewhat, since muscles can have a capacity to adapt to strength or endurance training; the mind undoubtedly has similar parameters that give rise to differences in ability in different areas--without there being some inborn ability to a specific "talent" for a concrete activity such as drawing or math.

[Victor Pross]

No retort, Shayne, A question: You give “bunny ears” to the word talent, but you speak of inherent capacities, both physical and mental. You will note that the word “innate” and “inherent” is the same thing--and I believe that you are purposely avoiding the word “innate” when making a point to support your case and give “the bunny” when you use the word talent. Why?

You wrote: …”the mind undoubtedly has similar parameters [physical] that give rise to differences in ability in different areas--without there being some inborn ability to a specific "talent" for a concrete activity such as drawing or math.”

Regardless of the bunny eared “talent” to downplay it---what you are describing is talent! Some people, to use your words, have an INBORN ABILITY for a concrete activity such as drawing or math. This is what is meant by the word talent.

To quote this entire paragraph:

“…some people are born with muscles that adapt much more quickly to exercise stimulus. It's an inherent natural capacity their muscles have that other people's don't. Likewise, some people's minds have the capacity to learn much more quickly. This is oversimplified somewhat, since muscles can have a capacity to adapt to strength or endurance training; the mind undoubtedly has similar parameters that give rise to differences in ability in different areas--without there being some inborn ability to a specific "talent" for a concrete activity such as drawing or math.”

Yes, talent—as recognized in the intellectual realm!

I wish to thank you, Shayne. Really, no nastiness, I’m thankful. It’s not often that an opponent makes my point for me.

-Victor

edit: Let me ask you this: how do you understand the word talent—as used by others—that you find it to be false. Maybe if you define the word as you understand it, it might clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

No retort, Shayne, A question: You give “bunny ears” to the word talent, but you speak of inherent capacities, both physical and mental. You will note that the word “innate” and “inherent” is the same thing--and I believe that you are purposely avoiding the word “innate” when making a point to support your case and give “the bunny” when you use the word talent. Why?

In fact I have no problem with using the word innate or inherent, that I chose one and not the other means nothing other than that. It's just that you're a presumptuous fool. I think it's safe to assume that these presumptions are really just projections of your own dishonest/malevolent psyche.

Regardless of the bunny eared “talent” to downplay it---what you are describing is talent! Some people, to use your words, have an INBORN ABILITY for a concrete activity such as drawing or math. This is what is meant by the word talent.

No, I am describing something different from talent, making a distinction that is real but evidently too fine for you to grasp without piles of painstaking effort and suffering of your ignorant presumptions on my part, if even that would cut it.

I wish to thank you, Shayne. Really, no nastiness, I’m thankful. It’s not often that an opponent makes my point for me.

I didn't make your point, but you're certainly foolish enough to think such a thing.

edit: Let me ask you this: how do you understand the word talent—as used by others—that you find it to be false. Maybe if you define the word as you understand it, it might clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

Now, after all that, as an afterthought, you start to sense that maybe you should ask me what I think rather than putting your own foolish thoughts into my head. If you would start out this way as a habit, rather than being a presumptuous ignoramous as a habit, well then I could talk to you on polite terms.

[Victor Pross]

Well, no argument from Shayne—just gratuitous insults. Hey, Michael…what was that you said about “hillbilly cognition”?

Okay, one more time [sigh]. I’ll try to seek clarification of your stance. You say: “In fact I have no problem with using the word innate or inherent, that I chose one and not the other means nothing other than that.”

Okay, fine. You have no trouble using the word “innate”—can we agree on that? Even though we have been arguing over the question of innate talent…but anyway.

You add on this: …I am describing something different from talent, making a distinction that is real…”

So it is the word “talent” that you object to? Is that right? I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, so you tell me. Is the word “talent” not within a rational vocabulary? We have the green light on innate from you, so what about talent?

Again, I ask you: What is your understanding of the world “talent”—as used by others—that you find to be a false notion? You see, this is the heart of the matter. "So-and-so has a lot of talent": How is this word different—in popular usage—from how it has been described here? Why do you object to it? What is our disagreement about? What is the nature of it?

Please, Shayne, an answer is most appreciated to these specific questions. It will clarify so much to all those who are reading this post. Are you trying to say that intellectual ability is not considered a talent? Is that it?

-Victor-

Edited December 26, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Well, no argument from Shayne—just gratuitous insults. Hey, Michael…what was that you said about “hillbilly cognition”?

Victor that is bull. They weren't gratuitous insults; they were well-reasoned and well-targeted insults that actually apply to the real you, and were justly earned by you from your poorly-reasoned and not-well-targeted insults you've been falsely applying to me.

I wouldn't insult you if you wouldn't constantly harrass me with your insulting, presumptous remarks. You keep pretending like you want to know what I think while at the same time baiting me over and over with your foolishness and providing no motivation to deal with you on anything but the terms of trading insult for insult.

How about you own up for your poor behavior and start behaving yourself. Then I'll make the effort to try to help you understand what I'm saying (even though I think the meaning is quite clear already).

[Victor Pross]

Again, I ask you: What is your understanding of the world “talent”—as used by others—that you find to be a false notion? You see, this is the heart of the matter. "So-and-so has a lot of talent": How is this word different—in popular usage—from how it has been described here? Why do you object to it? What is our disagreement about? What is the nature of it?

Please, Shayne, an answer is most appreciated to these specific questions.

It will clarify so much to all those who are reading this post.

Are you trying to say that intellectual ability is not considered a talent? Is that it? No words put in your mouth, you answer as you wish. I'm asking questions now. That's all. Please.