What is talent?

[CNA]

Shayne,

I would also like to hear the answers to Victor's questions. It may very well clear up quite a bit. Remember, we are presenting arguments and looking for an answer, exploring this area as objectively as possible. Obvioulsy this is an area that is sensitive for some and too many insults are being thrown. I am sure many many here would also like to hear your understanding and answers to Victor's questions. I know I am one of them.

Angie

[sjw]

Sigh... You refuse to own up but start to behave yourself, at least, for this one post. Since you don't own up I can only assume that you're behaving yourself only for the moment, just so you can bait me into giving you some more words to prance about on.

It's ill-considered for me to answer you, don't you think? I mean, that's what you're doing right? Asking me politely for the moment because you "just know" that I'm going to be giving you a rope to hang me with, and then regardless of what I say, you'll prance about hanging me with that rope, whether imaginary and made up by you, or real in the sense that I really said something bogus? You're totally trolling me now, just as you have been this whole thread.

[CNA]

Sigh... You refuse to own up but start to behave yourself, at least, for this one post. Since you don't own up I can only assume that you're behaving yourself only for the moment, just so you can bait me into giving you some more words to prance about on.

It's ill-considered for me to answer you, don't you think? I mean, that's what you're doing right? Asking me politely for the moment because you "just know" that I'm going to be giving you a rope to hang me with, and then regardless of what I say, you'll prance about hanging me with that rope, whether imaginary and made up by you, or real in the sense that I really said something bogus? You're totally trolling me now, just as you have been this whole thread.

Shayne,

Again, I am trying to find a solution to this thread, an answer. My definition of talent, Victor's definition of talent, Paul's definition of talent, and so on may be quite different than yours and this may be the REASON we are at a stand still in this regard and there is NO progress being made.

I am also very curious to know what your understanding of talent is and the answers to Victor's questions. If you decide to not give an answer for fear of being "hung" as you say, then I don't know what else to do in resolving this thread and/or getting past this speed bump. I am wanting to explore this as objectively as possibile and one of the ways is for all of us to have an understanding of the definition of talent and what is encompassed in the definition of talent.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

please....

I second Angie’s post. That you may encounter further disagreement is the offshoot of an intellectual argument, but I’m not looking for a rope to hang you with “no matter what”—I’m genuinely trying to understand your points, and that I have disagreed on what has been presented doesn’t make you my target and does not indicate dishonesty with me. Hell, I’m seeking elucidation here. Truly I am. You will note that my original post that started this discussion in the first place was one of an inquiring nature. It was not polemical.

-Victor

[Victor Pross]

Shayne on Nov 2, 2006: 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. Mental capacities are even harder to measure than physical capacities. IQ tests are mainly a measure of acquired skill, not innate capacity. I think that most people who are called "genius" probably had ordinary capacities but just developed them to their utmost. 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.

Shayne on Dec 25, 2006: “…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.

Let’s select two key passages from Shayne’s paragraphs—and then we’ll take a little look into Wiki for some support.

***

Shayne said:

[1] “Talent is obviously not inborn because what people refer to by "talent" is always man-made.”

[2] “…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.

Moving along...

The terms “inherent” and “innate” can be seen here:

http://thesaurus.oxid.ro/Definition/inherent/index.html

inherent:

accessible, at hand, attendant, automatic, available, basic, born, characteristic, congenital, connate, constitutional, deep-seated, distinctive, elemental, elementary, esoteric, essential, fundamental, hereditary, immanent, immediate, implanted, implicit, impulsive, in view, inalienable, inborn, inbred, indigenous, individual, indwelling, infixed, ingrained, inherited, innate, inner, instinctive, integral, internal, intimate, intrinsic, involuntary, inward, inwrought, irreducible, libidinal, native, natural, normal, on board, on deck, on hand, peculiar, present, private, regular, resident, secret, spontaneous, subjective, subliminal, typical, unalienable, unchallengeable, unconscious, unlearned, unquestionable, within call, within reach, within sight

Also if he fights the definition of talent, give him the wiki definition with the link included in it about abilities where it states intellectual abilities.

Noun;

Talent:

1.a unit of weight and money used in ancient times in Greece, the Roman Empire, and the Middle East.

2. a marked ability or skill. He has the talent of touching his nose with his tongue.

3. the potential or factual ability to perform a skill better than most people.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ability

ability (plural abilitys)

The quality or state of being able; power to perform, whether physical, moral, intellectual, conventional, or legal; capacity; skill or competence in doing; sufficiency of strength, skill, resources, etc.; -- in the plural, faculty, talent.

Synonyms for TALENT:

http://thesaurus.oxid.ro/Definition/talent/index.html

Geist, Muse, ability, ableness, acuity, acuteness, adequacy, adroitness, afflatus, aptitude, aptness, art, artistic skill, artistry, arty-craftiness, bent, braininess, brightness, brilliance, bump, caliber, capability, capableness, capacity, child prodigy, clear thinking, cleverness, competence, craft, creative thought, creativity, daemon, daimonion, demon, dexterity, divine afflatus, dower, dowry, efficacy, efficiency, endowment, equipment, esprit, expertise, facility, faculty, fire of genius, fitness, flair, forte, genius, gift, gifted child, gifted person, giftedness, gifts, inclination, ingenuity, inspiration, instinct, intellectual genius, intellectual prodigy, keen-wittedness, keenness, knack, long suit, makings, man of parts, mental alertness, mental genius, mental giant, mercurial mind, metier, native cleverness, natural, natural endowment

:turned:

***

Again Shayne said: “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.”

Is Shayne’s paragraph not an indication of…um…TALENT? He grants the existence of innate ability—or as he would prefer—“inherent ability.” So it seems that innate talent does exist—and Shayne grants its existence—even if he denies it. When you think about that, it is rather amusing.

I want to thank you, Shayne. It seems that I didn’t need to hang you with my words—you provided your own. ;]

So there it is, INNATE TALENT is a reality.

**

Edited December 26, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Given the painstaking efforts I made to argue my points, I want to rap up my point with a quote from our gracious host. MSK’s practical advice to Shayne:

"We should be careful to remember that a word has more than one definition and that the word "talent" is used (not by Rand, but in the culture at large) to indicate both innate potential and developed capacity. This is a case where a lot of polemics happen over semantics.

As to your question about practical purpose, I can give you a very practical purpose for deciding if a person has a strong innate potential or not: to avoid ignoring reality. Correct identification.

I find that correctly identifying the reality I observe is enormously practical, especially in evaluating it.”

Thanks, Michael. Too bad it was heeded. I also thankful to Angie, by baba, you provide the Wiki Links—and who struggled honestly with the question of this thread to come to her own conclusions.

[sjw]

Is Shayne’s paragraph not an indication of…um…TALENT? He grants the existence of innate ability—or as he would prefer—“inherent ability.” So it seems that innate talent does exist—and Shayne grants its existence—even if he denies it. When you think about that, it is rather amusing.

On the one hand, you can almost play the part of "I'm genuinely interested in the truth here, please explain", while on the other, you take every opportunity to ignore someone trying to explain something to you. I repeatedly stressed that there's a distinction I have in mind between talent and capacity. But you purposefully and systematically evade it, for no other purpose than to mock me. You pretended to try to coax some more information out of me, pretending that you actually had an interest, but you reveal your real purpose here, your apparent purpose in life: To mock. That is likely why you like philosophy: it gives you the tools you need in order to make people look like the fool (at least to you and any dupes nearby stupid enough to buy your stupid tricks).

I think you revel in caricature for one reason only: you love to mock. Not as a means to belittle evil, but as a destructive end in itself.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Shayne,

If the facts are on your side, state them. If you accurately identify the facts, they cannot hang you. I happen to think you have some valid points but they do not invalidate Victor's.

Do you conceive "talent" as being some sort of innate patterns of consciousness that precede the development of one's mental and physical skills? Conceived this way, I would have a problem with the concept of talent also. This is very different to a concept of talent that views one's mental/physical capacities as having such a distribution and orientation to create heightened aptitudes in certain activities. The former assumes a mystical ghost in the machine that causes the individual to behave and develop skills along a predetermined spectrum. The latter assumes a human being to be an entity with a particular mental/physical identity, that will acquire skills according to that identity in the context of will and volition.

In the latter view, there is no ghost in the machine causing behaviour and development. Behaviour and development are caused by the action of the willful and volitional core of consciousness via the physical structures of the brain and body which, through practice, produce the automated action patterns we call skills. Talent is what we call it when the willful and volitional core of consciousness is innately aligned with the physical structures of the brain and body to acquire a certain spectrum of skills with ease. Talent reaches another level entirely when the intuitive processes of the imagination integrate with this specific spectrum of skills. In my mind, this is where genius is separated from the merely talented. His talent at developing and integrating the images in his imagination is what separates Einstein from other very talented physicists. As Ellen said, Einstein's specific talent was that he was a visionary.

Paul

(Note: I would also consider the willful and volitional core of consciousness to be grounded on the dynamics of physical structures in the brain.)

[sjw]

If the facts are on your side, state them. If you accurately identify the facts, they cannot hang you.

In spite of CNA's poor reading of what I wrote, I don't care whether Victor thinks he hung me or not (I seriously doubt he could catch me in an actual contradiction, but if he did then that wouldn't bother me either; unlike him, I'm willing to learn from my mistakes). So that's not the issue here. The issue is obvious, and I have a hard time seeing how you and CNA can miss it since I've repeatedly stressed it: I think Victor has crossed the line of bad behavior numerous times, he's either willfully or neglectfully distorted my position on numerous occasions (not to mention when he attributed someone else's position to me and then blamed *me* for doing that!), I've called him on it, and he's neither owned up, nor apologized, nor promised to stop.

This isn't about insults. This is about gross intellectual negligence bordering on libel. So don't come back to me and say "but you insult Victor too". That's bullshit. I'm not objecting to insults as such (I do object to baseless insults--Victor indulges in that too). I'm objecting to his gross negligence in representing my views.

So that's the real issue. That's *obviously* the real issue. I don't see why I should put up with that crap. And I don't see why the rest of the people in this thread let him get away with it. Under these conditions, why try to explain yourself, and why expect someone to?

[Paul Mawdsley]

If the facts are on your side, state them. If you accurately identify the facts, they cannot hang you.

That's *obviously* the real issue. I don't see why I should put up with that crap. And I don't see why the rest of the people in this thread let him get away with it. Under these conditions, why try to explain yourself, and why expect someone to?

Your spin. Your choice. Does this mean you have nothing more to add to this thread? Does this mean you have no desire to talk about anything but perceived social realities? Why not talk about the ideas as I was trying to do?

Paul

[Victor Pross]

Shayne, it would seem that you are dishonest: I did acknowledge a mistake in attributing a quote to you—and it can be seen on Page 12, post 226 of this thread. That’s all I have to say regarding your post above because I have already proved to myself [and indirectly others] what this thread sought out in my inquiry. That you don’t answer Paul’s question---or offer further argumentation for the enormous intellectual case you have for the non-existence of talent...I’ll leave for others to speculate as to why you refrain. I know the answer.

-Victor

Edited December 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Shayne,

Wow is all I have to say. Really, I am laughing right now. Shayne, do not even try to push this onto me and blaming my poor reading of your posts. Wow. LOL. They are your own words in black and white. The REAL issue of this thread is INNATE TALENT and not the insults that have been thrown by some parties on this thread, including yourself as well as Victor. Do not blame Victor for your making the choice to throw insults back at him which by the way you have done and so has he. It's right here on this thread in black and white. It is what it is.

I still would like to hear your answers to Victor's questions as well as any facts and evidence you have.

Angie

[sjw]

Shayne, it would seem that you are dishonest: I did acknowledge a mistake in attributing a quote to you—and it can be seen on Page 12, post 226 of this thread.

Bullshit. You didn't own up. You didn't apologize. You blamed it on me.

[Victor Pross]

"...he [Victor] attributed someone else's position to me and then blamed *me* for doing that!), I've called him on it, and he's neither owned up, nor apologized, nor promised to stop."

I said on post 226: "Whoops. Shayne, I attributed words to you by mistake..."

Is this not owning up to it?

Anyway, not to be taken in by this deflection any further, why not answer Paul’s question and own up to your claim for the ace card you have to disprove the existence of innate talent?

-Victor-

Edited December 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

"...he [Victor] attributed someone else's position to me and then blamed *me* for doing that!), I've called him on it, and he's neither owned up, nor apologized, nor promised to stop."

I said on post 226: "Whoops. Shayne, I attributed words to you by mistake..."

Is this not owning up to it?

Not if you blame it on me.

I don't wonder about you Victor. I wonder about all the people who don't call you on this kind of shit.

[sjw]

Does this mean you have no desire to talk about anything but perceived social realities? Why not talk about the ideas as I was trying to do?

Yeah, expecting not to be grossly misrepresented at every turn = "perceived social realities".

[CNA]

Shayne,

Explain to me why I would make the choice and take on the repsonsilibity of calling Victor or anyone else on anything WHEN it is NOT directed at me? Wow, it now looks like I am responsible for other people's thoughts and actions towards others or that I may possibly condone it by not intervening. Again LOL. Wow, that has social meta stuff written all over it. Let me remind you that this is between you and Victor and not you and Victor AND all others on OL. It's not our responsibility but YOURS to call Victor on it. And Victor to call YOU on it.

Angie

Edit: Since you are still posting on this thread, I still would like to hear your answers to Victor's questions and any evidence and facts you have.

Edited December 27, 2006 by CNA

[sjw]

Explain to me why I would make the choice and take on the repsonsilibity of calling Victor or anyone else on anything WHEN it is NOT directed at me? Wow, it now looks like I am responsible for other people's thoughts and actions towards others or that I may possibly condone it by not intervening. Again LOL. Wow, that has social meta stuff written all over it. Let me remind you that this is between you and Victor and not you and Victor AND all others on OL. It's not our responsibility but YOURS to call Victor on it. And Victor to call YOU on it.

Again, bullshit. You chose to get involved by criticizing me for my behavior. Once you did that, you had a responsibility to judge the situation fairly.

But I agree that not all the participants have such a responsibility. Only those choosing to get in the middle and start tossing around criticisms, as you have.

[Paul Mawdsley]

I wonder about all the people who don't call you on this kind of shit.

Shayne,

For one, I don't read the shit. It bores me. I have no interest in the social power plays people engage in. I do have some questions though. Why are you letting Victor's actions, or inactions, determine your behaviour? Why do you give him this power over you? Why not just state your case with complete disregard to what Victor does or doesn't do? This would seem to be the individualist thing to do.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Does this mean you have no desire to talk about anything but perceived social realities? Why not talk about the ideas as I was trying to do?

Yeah, expecting not to be grossly misrepresented at every turn = "perceived social realities".

"Why not talk about the ideas as I was trying to do?"

Paul

[sjw]

I wonder about all the people who don't call you on this kind of shit.

Shayne,

For one, I don't read the shit. It bores me. I have no interest in the social power plays people engage in. I do have some questions though. Why are you letting Victor's actions, or inactions, determine your behaviour? Why do you give him this power over you? Why not just state your case with complete disregard to what Victor does or doesn't do? This would seem to be the individualist thing to do.

Paul

In other contexts Victor would be sued for his behavior. He constantly indulges in "Shayne said X", where "X" is something I did not say.

If someone threw eggs at my house, then I'd have an obligation to clean them off. They created that obligation with their nihilism. That's not letting them "determine my behavior". That's being a victim of their nihilism. Victor is no different. He attributes words to me that I did not say, and I have to come back and clear the record. It's crap. He should stop or be booted from the forum for it.

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

I apologize for any insults that I may have dished out. It was only last night that I told Angie that I can be a very sarcastic man when I feel that I am pushed. I don’t wish to insult you. I want to return this thread to its topic. I will try again:

What is your case, a final statement, your argument regarding the claim of the non-existence of innate talent? You claim to have it, but don’t offer it. Don’t answer for my satisfaction or illumination—but for the others who have made the request that you do so. Do you not respect Angie or Paul [or even any others reading this thread] at all to offer your case? You claim to have an argument but you don’t dish it up. That is a let down, like a man who tells you a joke but withholds the punch-line. Why make the claim—or begin the joke without delivering its closing?

-Victor

Edited December 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

In other contexts Victor would be sued for his behavior. He constantly indulges in "Shayne said X", where "X" is something I did not say.

If someone threw eggs at my house, then I'd have an obligation to clean them off. They created that obligation with their nihilism. That's not letting them "determine my behavior". That's being a victim of their nihilism. Victor is no different. He attributes words to me that I did not say, and I have to come back and clear the record. It's crap. He should stop or be booted from the forum for it.

But you are not cleaning off the eggs. You are holding your breath until someone else does it for you. You are striving for your ends through social manipulation rather than independent self-assertion. If you have something of substance to say about "talent," then say it. Otherwise I am not interested in what you have to say on this thread.

Paul

[sjw]

Shayne, I apologize for any insults that I may have dished out. It was only last night that I told Angie that I can be a very sarcastic man when I feel that I am pushed. I don’t wish to insult you. I want to return this thread to its topic. I will try again:

You "may have dished out"?

Anyways, I made it clear that it's not the insults I'm objecting to, it's the misrepresentation. I didn't just think I made it clear--I actually made it clear. But you didn't see it for some reason. I don't know the reason. So I don't know why you're even saying this. I don't know why you say half of what you say to me. It bears little relation to what I actually said. That's the problem.

Are you just not remembering the conversation, and guessing as to what's being talked about? What's the deal?

[CNA]

Explain to me why I would make the choice and take on the repsonsilibity of calling Victor or anyone else on anything WHEN it is NOT directed at me? Wow, it now looks like I am responsible for other people's thoughts and actions towards others or that I may possibly condone it by not intervening. Again LOL. Wow, that has social meta stuff written all over it. Let me remind you that this is between you and Victor and not you and Victor AND all others on OL. It's not our responsibility but YOURS to call Victor on it. And Victor to call YOU on it.

Again, bullshit. You chose to get involved by criticizing me for my behavior. Once you did that, you had a responsibility to judge the situation fairly.

But I agree that not all the participants have such a responsibility. Only those choosing to get in the middle and start tossing around criticisms, as you have.

Shayne,

You should really go back and read my posts as to whom my criticisms have been directed, which includes not only you but Victor as well and I have judged it accordingly and fairly.

I have grown quite tiresome of this thread and the recent posts; that is, UNLESS you have something to say that is relevant to Innate Talent.

Angie

Edited December 27, 2006 by CNA