I don't think you are anymore. Some people talk big but can't back it up. But you're just talking about what you know and for some that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be able to do it. Usually people just talk shit and are idiots. You're not.
Wait a minute, did I wake up in bizzaro world? Shouldn't we be giving each other the finger instead of this touchy feeling stuff? ---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
I'll apologize in advance for hijacking a perfectly good thread on dog training.
Loved the discussion on experience v. talent, it was entirely worthy of five pages of comments, which I read in one sitting, almost a small book's worth of words and perspectives.
I find myself in the Gussow, Kyzer, nacoran camp. ie. there is such a thing as talent, and while it is a necessary condition for true greatness, it is not a sufficient condition.
But what puzzles me about the discussion is the insult perceived by those who deny talent's existence, when told they have it. Is it a bad thing to be told you're talented? When did talent and hard work become mutually exclusive? And when did the definition of talent become: one who "progresses" faster than others?
I use my experience in sports as a guide for me on this. I was successful (competed through college and at the minor league professional level). There were definitely guys who I worked as hard (and as smart) as, who were much better than I was (if you're going to argue I couldn't know their work habits, don't even bother, we'll just agree to disagree). The funny thing is with one guy in particular, it wasn't even size, strength, speed,agility or any physical skill that set him apart. We were roughly equal in those catagories. It was his unique ability to "see" the playing surface, as though he were above it all, looking down on it. In my opinion, and I believe this as firmly as anything I believe, that ability was not a teachable or learnable one. Guys like him were wired differently.
Why is there only one Wayne Gretzky (arguably the greatest hockey player that ever lived)? Yes, he put his 10,000 hours in, and then some. Are the talent denyers saying no other NHL player has practiced as much, or as hard, or as smartly? Not the fastest, biggest, or strongest.... Gretsky too had that "seeing the surface from above" trait, it's innate. In fact when asked the secret to his success Gretzky stated "I don't skate to where the puck is, I skate to where it's going to be."
That innate athletic sense, that magic, for me is the same type of magic a truly talented musician has when he/she is, to steal another sports metaphor, "in the zone", and produces a piece of music that moves you or makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
Now to make the above statement doesn't mean you're asserting that the talented person in question didn't practice or work hard. OF COURSE THEY DID!!! But to get to the absolute top, however you define that, is not something everyone can do. To say that it is, is to be delusional in my opinion.
The really cool thing about life, is that you'll never know whether you are one of the ones who can be the best of the best.......unless you try.
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 9:31 AM
I understand that whole slow motion thing that happens when you're good at something. For me, I can hear the beginning, middle point and end of each note. I can easily predict was is coming next. And I can hear myself thinking about notes in between the notes. BUT there is where I have an issue with the talent thing, IF that slomo experience were defined as talent why isn't it there in the beginning?
Being great at something involves connecting universal vibration with whatever tool you're using. A tool can be your vocal cords, an instrument, pencil etc... The guys who are merely really good at something are the people who go through the motions but there is no emotion, creativity or drive behind what they are doing.
The "non-talented" almost always talk about how they are not creative. I believe EVERYBODY is creative, the great ones use chain it to everything, the good ones are creative within a creative context, and average people don't understand how to connect the process or they do not believe they are creative.
FYI- I don't feel insulted when people call me talented or gifted.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Buddha: "I understand that whole slow motion thing that happens when you're good at something. For me, I can hear the beginning, middle point and end of each note. I can easily predict was is coming next. And I can hear myself thinking about notes in between the notes. BUT there is where I have an issue with the talent thing, IF that slomo experience were defined as talent why isn't it there in the beginning?"
It's interesting that you make that comment Buddha because when i made that point about seeing the playing surface i thought of you as well regarding hearing the beginning middle end thing.
i'm convinced they're related and not teachable.
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 9:55 AM
Your creative aptitude is already developed with your drawing. It's the same thing with me an piano, I can hear all of this great music but I can't pound it out on the piano like I would like because the pathway or connection from idea to manifestation on the piano is not developed.
What many people don't understand is the creative side has to be cultivated along with the work. The human body is simply a conduit. Everybody is born with the ability to create but it's often not progressed because the focus is usually more on proper technique.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
"It was always there. It just couldn't be expressed until you trained yourself in other "pre-cursor" (maybe not the right term) skills."
right! And that's why talent is a label for people who can't do it.
I believe there is an etheric plane of knowledge that we are able to tap into. I have always been able to do this but I have always believed that everybody can tap into this.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 10:03 AM
I was at an arts and crafts festival last year. You know-the kind with all kind of food and craft booths. There was this one lady there who wanted you to fill out a questionnaire about the arts. To cut to the chase,she thought there was way too much emphasis on sports in schools and not enough about the arts. She felt that you could be taught to develop your creativity and wanted to start programs in schools to do just that. Seems that schools spend far more money on sports program and give short shrift to the arts.
@ Buddha ...i think it is a self realization, talent...why else would i drop something that i do so well in favor of another i know little about? when i played sports i closed my eyes and envisioned me doing something and it made me a better player. I could tell after 2 months of solid effort that i had a knack for playing or translating what i hear on the harmonica. ive always wanted to channel the creative juices into music but never had an outlet. now i have one. and id like to think it shows...
am i particularly talented at harmonica? no... am i talented as far as being able to hear things clearly and recognize it on the fly? maybe... i feel it through and through, so it must mean something. ive certainly seen others who are better in the same amount of time, but ive seen just as many or more that are worse too...
i agree that learning this instrument simply cannot float on talent alone. no one gets good without putting in the work. for some who are talented, technique is all they need to focus on to make beautiful music.
"right! And that's why talent is a label for people who can't do it.
I believe there is an etheric plane of knowledge that we are able to tap into. I have always been able to do this but I have always believed that everybody can tap into this."
LOL!! I thought we were on the same page for a brief fleeting instant and then I lost it.
When you say "talent is a label for people who can't do it"..do you realize the pejorative connotation of that statement?..or perhaps you don't care. I wholehartedly reject the notion that those who don't achieved greatness, fail simply because they didn't work hard or smartly enough.
At this point i'm not sure whether we fundamentally disagree or it's just a matter of semantics.
I don't know Honkin. It's hard to think about this stuff while I'm working. I'm actually sitting here cutting combs and I have to watch the machine in case that something goes wrong. The last thing I need is a chuck of harmonica comb lodged in my noggin.
I think way back during the pre-christianity period people were far more connected to nature and all that is. There were many shamanistic cultures where peeps would sit there and simply try to connect. I don't mean to turn this into a religious thread but when the Christians came with their notions of what they think is right, they wiped out the pagan and shammanic societies because they fear that people would discover the truth about life and connectedness. Since, people have been controlled through fear and consequence and the ability to connect to etheric knowledge has been suppressed.
One of the common things I have noticed with "talented" people is the general disdain for mass media and because of that, the mind altering frequencies have not affected them as much.
We didn't have a TV in my house until I was nine years old. I spent all of my early days, reading, drawing, painting and playing with the piano, guitar and other things. I think that environment, aside from people literally trying to kill me is what got me to focus supremely on being creative. I had a lot of internal bullshit going on and I expressed myself through art, music and sports. ---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 10:30 AM
"It's hard to think about this stuff while I'm working. I'm actually sitting here cutting combs and I have to watch the machine in case that something goes wrong. The last thing I need is a chuck of harmonica comb lodged in my noggin."
For all of the other forum members who have ordered harps from Buddha, i'm going on the record here, it's not my fault when you get them or what shape the combs are in ;-)
Well I was raised Catholic and I'm now an agnostic. I always considered myself a person of science, but more and more i see how little we really know which makes me curious about the metaphysical.
I will say this, i couldn't agree more about your postions on mass media and TV in general (not so sure about mind altering frequencies though), and i'm the lead idiot for how much attention i pay to both.
I was trying to find an article on talent in general, but I found this one about musical talent: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
Musical talent proves to be air on a gene string
By Lorna Duckworth, Social Affairs Correspondent
Friday, 9 March 2001
Musical families such as the Osmonds, the Jacksons, the Corrs and the Gallaghers are born, not made. Their talents are almost certainly inherited rather than taught, says research using British twins.
Musical families such as the Osmonds, the Jacksons, the Corrs and the Gallaghers are born, not made. Their talents are almost certainly inherited rather than taught, says research using British twins.
The study, which showed that having a good ear for music is strongly inherited, could explain why there have been so many musical dynasties across the spectrum.
Scientists from the world's biggest centre for research into twins, at St Thomas' Hospital in London, asked 568 female twins to recognise 26 popular melodies and detect when notes were out of tune. By comparing the scores of identical twins with non-identical twins, the researchers concluded that 80 per cent of a person's ability to detect pitch and tone was genetic, while 20 per cent was acquired.
Announcing the results yesterday, Dr Tim Spector, director of the Twin Research Unit, said: "Before we did this I would have guessed that exposure to music would have been more important than your genes. But it appears that genes have a much greater influence on your musical ability or ability to appreciate it than environmental factors.
"It helps explain these musical dynasties. Our previous work on humour showed that it wasn't inherited, but this suggests that music is."
The history of pop is littered with brother and sister bands such as the Beverly Sisters, the Nolans and the Bee Gees. Franz Strauss, the first horn of the Bavarian concert orchestra, was father of the classical composer Richard Strauss. Examples from the world of jazz include the brothers Randy and Michael Brecker and the pianist Ellis Marsalis who fathered his more famous sons, the saxophonist Branford and the trumpet player Wynton.
During the study, 136 pairs of identical twins and 148 pairs of non-identical twins were asked to complete a "distorted tune test" developed by experts at the US National Institute on Deafness in Maryland. The test involved 20-second clips of 26 common melodies such as national anthems, nursery rhymes and folk songs, most of which had some errors in them.
Among the identical twins, whose genes are all the same, there was a strong correlation of 75 to 80 per cent in the answers given by both twins. But the non-identical twins, who share half the same genes, got the same answers only about 40 per cent of the time. Dr Spector said musicians would almost certainly owe their talent to having the correct genes, while other people would always struggle to learn music. Overall the results showed that one in four adults had problems recognising tunes and one in 20 had severe tone deafness. Dr Spector said this could mean some parents were wasting their money sending children to music lessons. "If children started life on the lower end of this scale they are not going to achieve that much, however much parents spend on music lessons. It doesn't mean music lessons are worthless, simply that you have a certain genetic potential."
Among the identical twins who took part in the study were Deanne Grout and Glynis Brown, 50, of Crawley, West Sussex, who discovered that they had 100 per cent perfect pitch. Mrs Grout said: "I have been to concerts and heard them singing off key and got quite embarrassed for the performers. We always knew we could tell if somebody was singing off key, but we didn't realise other people couldn't tell."
Evelyn Brown, 49, and her identical twin, Alma Macfarlane, also scored 100 per cent in the study. Both women have always enjoyed singing, and their mother would have loved to be a piano teacher.
Mrs Macfarlane said her identical twin daughters, Lynsey and Kirstin, were talented musicians. She said: "My husband's family is not musical at all. I didn't ask my daughters to do music, they just came home from school and asked to play recorders. Now they play in bands and write songs." _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
I don't know why it's not absolutely obvious that there is a such thing as inborn talent. There are short people, there are tall people; smart people, dumb people, red-heads, blonds, etc. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!! Physical differences have effect in athletic talents in obvious ways. Why is it inconceivable to realize that our brains are different, too?! (Forest Gump vs Eienstein.)
"Dr Spector said musicians would almost certainly owe their talent to having the correct genes, while other people would always struggle to learn music."
that's all fine and dandy but I think it's BS. Musical families have constant high level music going on and babies in the womb are exposed to this.
I am the only musician or creative person in my family. I mean my entire family on both sides. My dads side of the family are all Doctors and my mother's side, the boys are doctors and the girls are lawyers. In vietnamese culture, people marry "up" according to social status. Doctors are viewed as #1 and lawyers are #2. My mother was only allowed to marry a doctor. And my mom's brother are only allowed to marry lawyers.
My entire family is very left brained. In fact when I was a child, science and sports were crammed into me. I'm left handed and therefore naturally right brained but I think I ended up being "whole" brained because I cultivated my creative side and was forced to enhance my technical side.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 12:47 PM
"Why is there only one Wayne Gretzky (arguably the greatest hockey player that ever lived)? Yes, he put his 10,000 hours in, and then some. Are the talent denyers saying no other NHL player has practiced as much, or as hard, or as smartly? Not the fastest, biggest, or strongest.... Gretsky too had that "seeing the surface from above" trait, it's innate. In fact when asked the secret to his success Gretzky stated "I don't skate to where the puck is, I skate to where it's going to be."
If you really analyze and search for the truth you will find. dig deeper, don't simply attribute what you don't understand to talent. Malcolm Gladwell covers this stuff in his book. Hockey players born in certain periods of the year have an advantage because they have a whole year to grow versus other hockey players. There is a cut off date. Wayne gretsky was part of the advantageous group. Combined with a supportive environment, and a killer work ethic, he became the best. NOBODY is born to be a great hockey player. He worked harder than anybody else for it. All examples of greatness can be attributed to hard work and environment, not talent. I don't know WHY people say "i'm in this camp of talent". Talent has been DISPROVEN. So it's either a choice to ignore the facts and delude yourself or open your eyes.
I agree that we are all equal in what we could achieve if we set our mind to it. Some may take longer but we can all get there. That's the reason there isn't just one (or a few) great person in everything, the others went out and did it too.
so here's a definition of talent.
tal·ent (tlnt) n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. 2. a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality. b. A person or group of people having such ability: i.e. = The company makes good use of its talent. 3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
Except for the opening statement in 2a, the rest of the definition signals achievement and development, including the second part of 2a that speaks of ability of a superior quality.
Ability or achievment aren't gifts or things bestowed upon us by some freaky genetic coding. They are earned and developed through dedication, practice and learning.
Some may be able to get there sooner but I believe that we can all get there.
talent hasnt been disproven. talent is still defined as it was years ago...
a whole year to grow.. so gretsky's greatness can be attributed to one whole season of growth? i dont think so... ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 2:16 PM
Ya know that video Buddha showed of people running accross water? Well, athletic ability is a talent. Who do you think would have more talent at running accross water: A heavy-set, big-boned person with little feet, or a lanky guy with big feet? That's genetics. Their bodies are different. Do y'all think everybodies' brains, eyes and ears are all exactly the same? Obviously not. Some dogs have more talent at tracking game or finding drugs than other dogs. Why? The sense of smell. Genetics.
There's nothing left for this thread except to repeat, repeat, repeat.
Last Edited by on May 12, 2010 3:24 PM
I noticed in Rick Davis' What Level Are You thread, only two people answered in an unexpected and non-standard way with videos. Everybody else simply typed out their answer as expect or "conditioned" by the masses.
It's no surprise to me that both of the people who answered with videos are highly creative and into energy work.
Interesting...
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
no, he asked a question with specific, yet limited, guidelines for a response. its no diff than you asking about everyones INJT or EJST test score or whatever it is...did anyone respond with a vid to that one... lol :-) ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
look buddy you first have to understand that I am sitting here flat sanding combs while pretending to have a partae with Lorene Greene, Holden Caufield, Jesus and Buckweed.
I'm having a moment so don't try to ruin it.
the guidelines don't matter and in fact its better that no guidelines were exhibited because the subjects have freedom 888redrum redrum888 to choose.
I think most people just answered in the expected way. But the more creative ones answered in a creative way. Shit lost my train of thought.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
MAl, you can keep saying talent has been disproved until your blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that people are genetically different with different potential. It's not fair, but it's life. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work to maximize their potential. It doesn't mean you can't exceed people's expectations. It just means no matter how far I stretch my hands I can't reach the notes on a piano that some people can. I will never be a passable soprano or be able to create the cavernous cupping that some harp players can. I can squeak out vocal notes all over the bass range even up into the alto range. I can find someone who can reach notes on the piano (and who doesn't get carpal tunnel) and I can get a good effect pedal. Technology is a great equalizer. I can understand ideologically why you want to believe that it's all work. For someone with talent, and believe me, you have some, it's hard to accept that you owe a little bit of your success to luck.
That doesn't mean you don't deserve a huge amount of credit for taking that raw talent and turning it into skill, but there are so many things that can go wrong with the human body and brain.
If you want to be great at something you need to work hard at it. Believing that a good work ethic can get you anywhere is likely to give you that work ethic, but that doesn't mean talent doesn't help too.
Buddha, in your response to gene's post, remember that there are dominant and recessive genes. It's possible for two brown eyed parents to have a blue eyed (recessive gene) kid and even people with a natural talent can squander it.
As to responding in an expected way, I think the last time someone asked what level people where at several people posted videos. I think it has more to do with motivation and confidence and whether you have a video camera handy than huge leaps in creativity or different ways of thinking. Like Edison said, invention is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. (I personally have 10 or 15 ideas sitting around that if I was motivated I could turn into cool inventions, including some weird ideas for harmonica.) I can be creative. I'd be much better off financially if I was motivated instead.
You may like this story though. It's late so I won't fact check it. This is how it goes, as best as I can remember. I might be running a couple different stories together.
There was an article about entrepreneurs. They were focusing on the head of Bose. For years they have been researching acoustic shock absorbers for vehicles. The article talked about how the fact that Bose was independently owned allowed them to do long term less instant profit research. The article moved on to discussing the interview techniques the owner used. He was kind of reluctant to share his secret, because it was one of those tricks that you can only use when people don't know it. During the more casual part of the interview he'd ask them what kind of car they drove. Most of them were pretty successful, so there in a BMW or a Lexus. Then he'd ask them about the car. Some of the interviewees would start bragging about how great the car was. Some would say, well, it's OK, but it really could use a better whatever. He'd hire the people who came up with ideas to make their cars better. He wanted people who weren't satisfied with good enough.
(The names of companies and positions of executives may have been changed because my memory is Swiss cheese.)
Putting words in your mouth: "The two that were more creative have a genetic disposition to be creative, as shown by the fact that their creativity shows up in their music (which does require work, anyway) as well as the inclination to post videos. (It requires no work to have that inclination)."
If this was your train of thought, I'm glad to see you look at all sides of an issue.
And I'd like to gleefully holler, "YEAH, SEE? SEE?" But I'm afraid I'm too honest to do that. IF that was your train of thought, I agree that it COULD be evidence of inborn talent...But not necessarily. 1. That kind of thinking could be a product of genetics or nurture or both. 2. You don't know how many of the responders who didn't post a video are creative.
HEY, Y'ALL: I got a question: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, aren't nurture (which, I believe, has been interpreted to mean "nurture from a very early age") and inborn talent the same thing? After all, we didn't choose our genes and we didn't choose our nurture. (It's the hard work later in life that we chose or chose not.)
Last Edited by on May 13, 2010 12:12 AM
The point about nurture is that with the same genes we could have been different if we had been nurtured differently. ---------- Kinda hot in these rhinos!
MAL: "If you really analyze and search for the truth you will find. dig deeper, don't simply attribute what you don't understand to talent. Malcolm Gladwell covers this stuff in his book. Hockey players born in certain periods of the year have an advantage because they have a whole year to grow versus other hockey players. There is a cut off date. Wayne gretsky was part of the advantageous group. Combined with a supportive environment, and a killer work ethic, he became the best. NOBODY is born to be a great hockey player. He worked harder than anybody else for it. All examples of greatness can be attributed to hard work and environment, not talent. I don't know WHY people say "i'm in this camp of talent". Talent has been DISPROVEN. So it's either a choice to ignore the facts and delude yourself or open your eyes."
A few thoughts here: First, citing Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers in support of the theory that talent doesn't exist, is curious. Gladwell himself acknowledges up-front that the individuals he's discussing, from the get-go, posses a rare talent that is a once in a generation type event. What his book does, is illustrate how hard work and and somewhat random events (luck) combine to allow these individuals to bring that talent to fruition.
Addtionally, Gladwell is the furthest thing from a serious researcher (see gene's example above), his background is as a jornalist and his main skill is in making interesting and complex topics accessible to mainstream readers. Talent hasn't beeen disproven, the nature versus nurture debate will likely rage on long after we're gone,and truth is, it's probably a mixture of both which accounts for greatness.
You made the statement "if you analyze and and serach for the truth you will find". Based on what you wrote your philosophy seems closer to: search until you find something that supports your preconceived notion while misinterpreting published works to fit your beliefs.
People say "I'm in the camp of talent" because they choose to see the world the way it is, not the way they wish it to be. I said in my original post I was perplexed at why people would take being called talented as an insult. Now I get it, to acknowledge the fact that talent exists one must face the possibility that they may not have it.
Last Edited by on May 13, 2010 6:34 AM
I've read through this whole topic --- very interesting. Here is my take.
I believe that "talent" is a predisposition, or aptitude, which arises from many factors including both genetic and environmental ones. So, for example, with music, a talented individual has a well developed understanding of the "language" of music, probably from being exposed to it from an early age, and if they play an instrument, have the physical dexterity to learn it quickly.
So in my view, talent gives you a head start on things, but plenty of hard work is still required to master the physical skills of playing an instrument (or singing) as the vehicle for musical expression. A musically talented individual without a work ethic will not become a great musician.
Also, in my view, experience (the 10000 hours thing) will also get you there, if you have the determination, persistence, focus, discipline, instruction (direction), and physical/mental capability for the task. Clearly the 10000 hours is not set in stone. Talented people may get there faster (but they still need to put in their "experience" time).
I'm not of fixed belief about the metaphysical stuff that Buddha has mentioned. I keep an open mind and if I ever connect with it, then I will know. I do believe that there is more to this life and universe than we currently know or understand. I wasn't expecting that it could help me play harmonica, but now I'm open to that too.
Just because you can't quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I like the term "it",instead of talent. Buddha-that last post was spot on,IMHO
Last Edited by on May 13, 2010 12:17 PM
Andrew, lol. I had a teacher who resembles your remark. She was a self-proclaimed communist. It was around the time of the first Gulf War and she was complaining that we were shooting SCUD missiles at Iraq. She couldn't remember Gorbachev's name. She learned just enough communism to back her belief's and ignored the rest. She also showed up at the end of the teacher evaluation survey to personally take them to the office. I imagine she threw out the ones she didn't like. She gave the rest of us pinkos a bad name. I know people who used some of the tactics ACORN has been vilified for to convince lawmakers of their causes correctness. It was academic dishonesty and laziness. I've seen it on the other end of the spectrum too. We live in a crazy world. ---------- Nate Facebook
This is very interesting and it happens to be what I am listening to as I work. Philip Dick is a man whom many would consider very "talented" this is a documentary about him and well worth the time to watch. I've posted part one, you can find the other parts yourself.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Where did I cite malcolm gladwell? Besides the fact that I didn't, I kept showing studies done by eric anderrson that WERE very scientific. Malcolm gladwells book is more accessible and for entertainment, but it's based on the things I posting earlier. No one seemed to read what I was showing though when I was talking about real scientific research.
You can choose to ignore the facts that in study after study over the years, no evidence of "talent" or "innate abilities" have shown up. The top in every field just worked very very hard to get where they are. If someone was "born with it" or "had it or didn't have it" then they would coast there easily and quickly. That is simply NOT the case. The great tennis player serena williams, and her sister, were not born with talent. They were born into a supportive environment with a highly dedicated parent who would make them work harder than any kid should have to. Look at the polgar sister (greatest female chess players ever). All three become very good very quickly, born into a home with a pushy father who made his kids study chess puzzles for 6-8 hours a day). That was their normal childhood, working hard at one thing for hours everyday. Tiger woods? same thing. Mozart? Same thing. I mean come on, the evidence is clear that hard work equals top, exceptional performance and NOT talent. Talent, whether it exists or not, is completely irrelevant. But, I have realized one thing: some people are either born with the ability to analyze and see the truth, or they want to ignore everything they see and claim that is what I am doing.
It's kinda like people believing the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary. It took a couple hundred years, but everybody realized the truth.
Another book to look up is: Lazlo Polgars "bringing up genius" He posits that ANY child can become a genius with the right upbringing. And you know what: IT ISN'T A COINCIDENCE OF TALENT THAT HE HAD 3 DAUGHTERS WHO BECAME THE BEST FEMALE CHESS PLAYERS EVER. In fact, the one daughter who becomes only a "International master" instead of a "grandmaster" said it came down to she didn't work as hard as her sisters. A lot of what Buddha was saying is true that kids are connected and they lose it. With the right environment they can keep that and develop their genius.
and Kyzer you can't change the facts. If you have any scientific evidence that shows "these "talented" kids did in 2000 hours what these no talent kids did in 5000!". Never happened by the way. Anything to bring to the table besides "I saw this, did this, etc. and it must be because of talent." I have looked and couldn't find any. Maybe you know something I don't or have found something.
And the video that Buddha posted earlier is the most important: practice "deliberately" to achieve greatness. Many people need to practice on how they practice.
seeing it in front of you is not disputable. holding it in your hands is not disputable. the reason i cited my own experiences is that it trumps whatever opinion i could read in a book. the earth isnt flat because someone saw it wasnt...what relevance does it have to you now anyway? theres no scientific evidence of god, yet hundreds of millions of people believe in it... are they fucked up too? where would that idiocy come from? you are not willing to concede to anything other than your opinions which are based on the opinions of others who conditioned you to believe their opinion is fact. in my OPINION, you feel the need to force your opinion of talent on other people because you simply dont like the fact that a dude with 1500 hours in to your 5000 will be able to cut your head... the bottom line is: im not going to change your mind and you arent going to change mine. deal with it and move on...
