Knowledge is acquired. Intellect is a combination of innate abilities (acquired genetically and developmentally) to acquire knowledge, process knowledge, calculate, interpret visual input, interpret spatial relationships, interpret temporal relationships, etc., as per the “aptitude” link I posted above.
Aptitude is not talent.
I never used the word “talent”. What you call talent is, I think, a combination of aptitude (innate ability) and knowledge. Whether that knowledge is gained from “hard work” (as you assume) or other means is irrelevant to whether some are more “gifted” (apt) than others. The 2nd link in my post above discusses intellectual giftedness. Check it out.
You’ve edited the post, that’s not fair.
I do that a lot.
It is all belief based.
As is much of “Science”. That’s the difference between “theory” and “law”. Theories are beliefs, laws are proven via Scientific Method. Very little of modern medicine has been proven with Scientific Method, yet it still seems to work somehow…
But we all have those abilities… those who don’t are considered to have disorders or disabilities. So how come it’s a “gift”? Yeah, sure they’re not all equal, but not different enough for a genius to grow up alone in a cave either.
My problem with “talent” is that it assumes almost supernatural abilities, not as much in science as in our culture. And I get aggravated every time.
Yes, I have but would have to check those models and theories in more detail. And would have to check the opposing models which I’m sure there are as well.
I used the word “talent” because someone else has brought it up, and I argued that talent as such doesn’t exist. And I don’t believe in “gifts” either, regardless of psychological models, it still implies a belief.
True. Which is why I take it with a grain of salt.
“Gift”, “talent”, “aptitude” - they’re all just words. Concepts are more important than semantics.
Let’s talk in concepts, extending on my basketball anecdote:
You or I could never exceed Michael Jordan’s ability to play basketball, no matter how hard we might ever have practiced. His genetic profile is too perfect. That is his aptitude. Anyone can become a “talented” basketball player with enough work, but no average man can even come close to Jordan’s level of talent through any amount of work, because his “aptitude” far exceeds that of the average man.
The same could be said of Mozart with regards to music.
The same could be said of Einstein with regards to physics.
See where I’m going with this?
I’m aware there’s no Scientific Method here… only observation and anecdote. But certainly you can see the logic. Aptitude is innate. It’s a genetic predisposition to acquiring skill in a certain arena.
Not exactly. I’m not as tall as Michael Jordan and will not be no matter how hard I try. However, had I been training as hard as he was for as long as he was, had I as good teachers and training conditions, maybe I’d exceed his ability to play point guard. Theoretically there’s no reason why that would not be possible.
I don’t disbelieve better cognitive abilities. I disbelieve natural talents, as in being born being able to compose music.
Typical (yet pretty much standard) attributes that most employers seek are communication skills, a good college degree or perhaps a clean job history.There are six elements that make up erotic capital: beauty, sexual attractiveness, social skills, liveliness, presentation and sexuality. All elements have become just as important as educational qualifications, alongside good old-fashioned hard work in the employment market.
Holistically, both erotic capital and brains are essential in the overall being of a working professional. It’s how you balance and take control of both aspects that would give you the edge in the corporate world.
By the way Erotic Capital is a new presented theory in the labor market of Dr. Catherine Hakim.
I love the last line the extra smart and extra charming LoL…
Yes, but the thing is that we have those abilities to different extent. And you can see it with babies, too. Some babies are more noisy (in my book, more annoying) than others.
There’s a genetic predisposition. Women normally are better at communication because genetically we had to communicate more… raising the babies
And I don’t think that all people have the same amount of intelligence! And even those who do… don’t have the same type of intelligence.
That’s why some people need to study much more than others to get to the same point.
Having said that, I prefer brains to charm. I love learning more than talking to others. although when I talk nobody can stop me! :x
Well I have to agree with you Molona it’s better to know most of the things and share them to others than talking there and seducing others to buy or invest in your products or business…LOL…didn’t mean anything about that but we have to accept the truth, not all of us has the same intelligence as you,him or her. We are all unique it’s not on the looks but it’s how we sort things out.
No I didn’t mean to say you have to be erotic too…LoL, I have to say it to add some aspects to this post, I respect your points of view and I agree with you totally…peace
Let me just sum up everything I’ve said in this thread because I feel it’s gone awfully wrong and I’ve managed to confuse myself and no doubt others.
My first argument was against “the existence of inborn talent”, but somehow it’s gone to arguing aptitude, giftedness and Michael Jordan’s ability to play basketball.
To sum up, talent is a definition of an exceptionally well done work. Work implies knowledge, and knowledge is not innate. Therefore the existence of inborn talent is impossible by definition.
I didn’t argue aptitude. And giftedness, as much as I don’t like the term, I shouldn’t have argued either.
Ultimately my point was that giftedness is not a necessary or sufficient condition for talent, and people give way too much credit to it.
To sum up, talent is a definition of an exceptionally well done work.
I didn’t look it up; I’ve always seen “talent” as meaning something innate. You can have a talent for doing something but not be as good as someone who does it professionally simply because you didn’t work on that talent, but to me it means your baseline (where you start) is higher. Meaning, someone with a talent for physical movement and grace and speed will not need to work nearly as hard as someone without that talent to become, say, a Michael Jordan.
Or, in other words, I think anyone without the innate talents Jordan had before he ever picked up a ball who goes up to a professional b-ball coach and says, “I’m willing to practice until the cows come home; can you train me to be as good as Michael Jordan?” will get “I doubt it” as an answer.
Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree then because we’re probably arguing semantics more than anything.
P.S. Only a bad coach would say that. Motivation is everything in training and to kill it just like that… It’s not about becoming a Michael Jordan but doing your best to come as close as you can. And I’m sure many people have told Jordan before he’s become the Jordan that he’d never be as good as Wilt Chamberlain. And you know what, he never was, he never scored 100 points in a single game or averaged 50+ points per season or hold as many records. But that’s not the point. The point is that regardless of where your aptitudes and abilities start, it’s up to you to make a talent out of them.
If you look at what constitutes cold hard results - and I’m not talking about just displaying your certain aptitudes for the show but real productive results - it’s mostly work. So who cares about the small percentage of aptitudes that drive you that way? I don’t. To me the top people of their trade only show what is possible and set a bar for others to reach, which is raised over and over again. So if so many people are “gifted” maybe you are too, and it kinda dilutes the idea of a gift - whether everyone is gifted or nobody is, there’s little difference (not to be confused with everyone being equal).
Having been on the brain side to long meet a very nice lady who is naturally charming (airline stewardess, reitred, thought the airlines hire for nice looks? okay they count too, but they hire Charm ) This gal has taught me a lot about charm and putting others first.
She has a brain, shes has been using it to help others. She thinks about what she can do to help another persons day go that little bit smoother and makes it happen. Me? I am learning. She can sell ice to an eskimo if she needed to, her, she would figure out what they really need and help them find it at the best price. With a smile, a few questions and makes the suggestion sound like thats what they asked for originally. A large part of business is charm.
Me, I think sometimes parents and schools overlook teaching Charm. Many brainy types learn enough charm to get by and not stand out. And the academics are easy enough that everyone feels they are doing okay.
and then what else? will the list ever end? 
meet a very nice lady who is naturally charming (airline stewardess, reitred, thought the airlines hire for nice looks? okay they count too, but they hire Charm ) This gal has taught me a lot about charm and putting others first.