Actually, it isn’t baseless. But, like Transio said, there lots of factors that affect those inborn abilities and how you develop them. So you may have the talent, but if you do nothing, it will be useless.
In today’s world, it seems that charm pays more than intelligence. With this I’m not saying that you can be charming and completely stupid. I’m talking about regular, average intelligence at least regarding to academics. It is more than likely that a charming person uses his talent to recognize certain gestures or expressions from the people he has in front of him.
You’re basically justifying your own inability to do certain things.
But by following this thinking you basically deprive yourself of acquiring new abilities,
you reject the thought of learning something new.
Thanks for making it personal. Guess I really do just sit on my butt all day instead of constantly learning new things. How did you know?
My poor attitude (and boy did I hear a never-ending stream of nonsense whining from teachers about how I’ll never accomplish anything if I don’t believe I’m a unique snowflake or some garbage) has never stopped me from doing things or improving myself. But I’ve never deluded myself that I will be a natural at things I have trouble with.
It’s BS and you know it.
Sorry, did you have an elaborate theory as to why most 5 year olds aren’t already writing their own compositions? Where I grew up, even though it was a somewhat low-income area, there were three houses on the street with a piano it it. Oh wait, right, we were all lazy kids. Gotta love it.
BTW, early industrialists could not have read Atlas Shrugged, it was published in 1957.
Raven’s is ‘Culture Fair’ and of general intelligence hence no words are used anywhere. Though I have taken actual IQ tests and other intelligence tests in the presence of Educational Physiologists for diagnostic purposes.
Having a pretty face; like my own, does get you noticed and the women swoon and faint. Though are we actually talking of nice personality or smooth talking and manipulation of people, i.e. confidence tricksters?
Glad I wasn’t asked to be a “snowflake” although they are charming they don’t exactly have much intelligence as they melt when hot. I agree Poes a ‘smart person’ knows their limitations though will always strive to improve themselves.
People are individuals and diverse and have different talents and abilities it’s not just a case of practice. I will always be word-blind no matter what material I study or any support I receive.
Charm is the art of socialising in a positive manner thus to market yourself as an individual it will put you in good stead. If you cannot convey your intelligence you are disadvantaged.
In fact it’s probably too narrow a spectrum anyway; what is the end goal are we talking about, wealth and status in this thread or happiness in one’s-self?
“You” is general. I don’t know you, why would you think I’m accusing you of something?
I seem to be not explaining my point well. There is no such thing as being “natural” at things.
I never said anything about being lazy.
Have you read biographies of these so called geniuses? They’re all lunatics with no life outside their passion. Some with mental disorders. What kind of a 5 year old would it take to bang piano all day? Usually it comes down to parental example and/or pressure as apparently was in case of Mozart. Is that what you call a talent? If so, then so be it. But it’s not the case of begin born with it. Nobody has ever began doing something and doing it well the minute they were out of the womb. And everyone, with no exception, has dedicated their lives to it by giving up many things that we mere mortals enjoy.
So apparently, you call a talent something people dedicate their lives to, you call it natural. And then you say you’d not be a natural at it by spending 0.0001% of time at it as they do. If that’s so, I completely agree. What I don’t agree with is saying that they were born with it.
:mad: Tell that to the autistics and aspergers of the world.
I’m quite smart but emotionally stunted. I can’t get over my shyness with women much to my own dismay. I’m pretty sure if it was simply a matter of learning I would have learned it by now.
So :x you. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
No disrespect to people with disabilities but we’re talking about healthy people with no disorders
I’m shy with strangers too, with women and men alike, but so what? Usually with those I have nothing to talk about. I then become nervous and the shyness kicks in. Honestly, I wouldn’t care to do anything about this shyness because it comes due to people I’m not interested in anyway. Shyness is often confused with arrogance, so I let them think I’m arrogant. If however, they are people that I share interests with, there’s simply no time to be shy.
If you’re inclined to get rid of shyness altogether, practice small talk so you can fall back on it if you start feeling shy. You may appear like an idiot due to that sometimes, but who cares, at least then you’re not shy.
I really don’t think shyness is a problem, and it doesn’t mean you’re “emotionally stunned” because of it. It’s simply something you fall back on in some situations, but you can substitute it with something else, if you really want.
If it were a problem you would not have 1,216 posts on these forums, nor would I have 5,282 and a gazillion in General Discussions
I don’t have a problem talking with people, or women I have no interest in. Romance however is a whole other issue. And at 36 I can no longer say I’ll grow out of it. Something is wrong, diagnosis or not.
Bowing out now - this isn’t something I’m comfortable talking about.
Hate is a strong word. And regardless, we’ve had so much small talk going on here on these forums, and you as one hating it always seemed very receptive
ok, then I dislike it (almost forgot how picky you are )
what’s going on here has some humoristic twang - which i am an expert at. strained small talk, just to socialize with people who has nothing in common is something else
Excuse me, but your attitude is totally disrespectful towards me and completely inappropriate
I’m entitled to display my opinion as this is a fun discussion and all viewpoints are welcome. If you took a meaning from my comment that personally offended you, then that is not my issue, it is yours.
I stand by my statement and you should view it in the context it is meant for. There are many smart people with disabilities such as what you have mentioned, if there is any offense to be taken here, it is within your very own statement, to actually insinuate that people who do have those disabilities are not smart!
Hey, hey guys… calm down! This is not supposed to be a war! Or maybe it is?
No, now seriously, let’s not take these comments personally… And anyway, there are those who aren’t specially smart or charming … now that’s a disadvantage!
There certainly is such a thing as “being natural” at things, with the qualitative equivalent of that figurative statement meaning that some people are more genetically predisposed to aptitude at some things than others.
For example, a man who is 7’ tall is a more “natural” basketball player than a man who is 5’ tall. His height is almost entirely based upon his genetics, and yet it gives him a significant predisposed advantage in the game of basketball, i.e. a “natural” gift.
This anecdote can be applied to virtually anything we want to accomplish in life. Our genetics predispose us to aptitude, ineptitude, or mediocrity.
This statement shows a lack of understanding of how “disorders” work. Autism isn’t a “disorder” - it’s a “range” of disorders that varies from “seemingly normal” all the way to full onset autism. There are many kids with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), however, in whom you wouldn’t know it by interacting with them. On the other hand, many people who you might consider “healthy outgoing people” have serious psychological disorders (narcissism, ocd, bipolar disorder, etc), that don’t necessarily effect their ability to interact “normally” with others (and may even enhance that ability).
Psychology is not a matter of opinion up for debate… it’s a well-documented science. If you’re really interested in it, you should probably go do some reading… you’ll learn vastly more than you’ll learn debating with people on a tech forum.
That’s a physical attribute, I never said people didn’t have natural physical attributes - that would be ridiculous.
It can’t. Apply it to programming, for instance.
How did you manage to extract that from my assumption that we’re discussing only healthy people? Amazing.
Talent is not a matter of psychology or any science. It’s a belief. Though you can say that beliefs are also not a matter of opinion up for debate, there’s no policy against that.
Yet you somehow seem to believe that genetic attributes are limited to the physical, and don’t affect cognitive attributes?
It can’t. Apply it to programming, for instance.
It would stand to reason that (in line with my example of basketball) those with high intellect would be more “natural” programmers.
How did you manage to extract that from my assumption that we’re discussing only healthy people? Amazing.
The point I was trying to illustrate is that psychology is not black and white, as you seem to believe. There’s no such clear definition of “healthy” as you put it. Mental health is defined in ranges, and is usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are many people, for example, who suffer from Autism (ASD) who would could be considered “healthy” for all intents and purposes, yet your statement implies that all forms of Autism render one “unhealthy”.
No, you really can’t say that. High intellect? That’s exactly what we’ve been debating. My point is that intellect is something you acquire.
Man, OK, I agree. But for the sake of this discussion I was trying to simplify it and make that assumption. After all, if we were to account for all possible conditions and their effect on intelligence, it would be impossible. Much less when probably none of us is qualified to even discuss psychology. But we can discuss our point of views.
Aptitude is not talent. On the same site if you follow the link to Talent, you get redirected to ability, i.e. no clear definition of talent. Although some other sources would say talent is a set of abilities to do certain work, it doesn’t tell anything specific on how it’s acquired, and opinions vary. I’m not saying I’m that well read up on it, but it is my experience and point of view so far. My belief, if you will, is that talent is a result of work, where aptitude to certain abstract things certainly helps, but is not necessary or enough.
You’ve edited the post, that’s not fair.
You got me there - anything can be a matter of science, so to say something is not is just stupid of me.
But man that ranks up there with IQ model. It is all belief based. The term itself ‘gifted’ implies a belief that some power has given a gift.
I’d rather not.
Or maybe it is?