Mozart, Bach, Beethoven,etc........Lucky or Blessed?

[sedonaman]

When I have been speaking of “talent” I have been, for the sake of argument, using Definition #4 from a post further back in the thread, that emphasizes “special degree of ability.” …

Sedonaman is saying, in effect, that not everyone has “a special degree of ability”. That is to say, not everyone has something that they are unusually skilled in compared to the average person. He is not saying that some people have no ability at all, just that some people have no special (in the sense of unusual level of) ability.

I’m glad someone sees that. However, if “a special degree of ability” is the same as “talent”, then some people have no talent, which is what I have maintained all along.
…

Now, I’ve only stated the obvious no doubt, but my suggestion is this: In order to get anywhere in this conversation, you’re going to have to stop using the word “talent” and use something more specific, such as “special degree of ability.” Because the original argument that came up will get lost if the debate shifts into the meaning of the word “talent”; since the dictionary itself gives different meanings of that word, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere on that particular issue, unless one side or the other is willing, for the sake of argument, to grant the other’s interpretation of the word at least for the sake of this conversation…

The only problem I have with “special degree of ability” is that it is not used in homilies about using your abilities. “Talent” is the word used and to which I object in that sense.

That is not necessarily true. It is hypothetically possible for everyone in the whole world to have unusual or special levels of ability IF they have them in (relatively) different areas. Here’s an analogy: “Precious Metals” are, by definition, rare…but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be, in theory, a LOT of precious metals, as long as each individual precious metal was fairly rare. There could, for example, be 6 thousand precious metals, but each one was, on its own, rare enough to be precious. Just so, there could be thousands of different possible “special abilities”, such that each individual ability was excelled at by few enough people to be “special” but there were still enough different special abilities, in theory, to go around so that everyone had one, even if he may never find it…

But the existence of rare precious metals implies the existence of common, non-precious metals. If non-precious metals didn’t exist, the rare ones would not be considered rare since there would be nothing to compare them to. Likewise, the existence of people of “a special degree of ability” implies there are those without that degree of ability, and it’s more probable [in my mind] that there are people without any “special degree of ability" than the probability of every person having one “special degree of ability”. That’s what I meant.

Thx for your kind (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[sedonaman]

Well, your carpentry skills are a talent - they are superior, to mine and many many people’s, and so constitute a talent. …

No. Just a different degree of average ability. Just being better than someone else doesn’t mean I’m talented. We’d have to use a different method of determination. My son takes photographs; I take photographs. I consider my photographs above average. My son wins a $1,000 first prize in a photo contest. He sells his pictures for hundreds of dollars each. I’ve had a few printed in the local paper. He has talent; I have only above average ability.

Would you say the men competing in the 100m sprint in the Olympics aren’t all supremely talented just to qualify for the Games, even though some were a level above?

As I stated in my pyramid analogy, they would be among the top blocks of the pyramid. If I took 20 minutes to “run” the 100m sprint, would that be talent? Of course not. It’s way below average ability.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

prodigy-a young person with exceptional qualities or abilities

genius-an exceptionally intelligent person or with with exceptional **skill **in a particular area of activity

ability
1.possession of the skill or means to do something
2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area

talent-natural aptitude or skill

aptitude-a natural ability to do something

 

[LilyM]

QUOTE=sedonaman;9637733]No. Just a different degree of average ability. Just being better than someone else doesn’t mean I’m talented. We’d have to use a different method of determination. My son takes photographs; I take photographs. I consider my photographs above average. My son wins a $1,000 first prize in a photo contest. He sells his pictures for hundreds of dollars each. I’ve had a few printed in the local paper. He has talent; I have only above average ability.

Uh no. If your local paper is anything like mine many many photos are submitted by aspiring photographers for each one that gets selected. BOTH of you accordingly have talent - his is just of a higher order than yours. To use my analogy both of you might be of Olympic standard, he might be finals or medal standard.

 

[Operalan]

:dts: They are different.
This is a red herring. How can I do that when you don’t accept my definition, and I don’t accept yours? In any event, have you ever heard of “a jack of all trades and master of none”?
:dts:

Which would only show that someone has some talent at all trades but has never mastered any. That something has never been mastered doesn’t mean that talent doesn’t exist in that person–and maybe the person isn’t even “that” talented on whatever you’re choosing to illustrate–but that doesn’t mean that person has no talent in something else. Even your definition, show me a person who has zero talent in anything. That person doesn’t exist.

Which proves that a talent is an ability. But to conclude, therefore, that an ability is a talent would be a fallacy.
:dts:

Not at all.

So? That’s a different issue altogether. Someone being talented in one thing doesn’t mean that everyone has talent, which is what you are saying.

Uh–I’ve said MANY times that people can be far less talented in one thing and even have almost zero talent in any one thing–that doesn’t discount the fact that they have talent in other things. Everybody does indeed have talent in one way or another.

According to my definition, there is a point at which simple ability ends and talent begins.

Nope—there is no such arbitrary measuring point.

So, I think “everyone has talent” is a silly statement, and harmful as well. :sad_yes:

Harmful? Hardly.

 

[Operalan]

prodigy-a young person with exceptional qualities or abilities

genius-an exceptionally intelligent person or with with exceptional **skill **in a particular area of activity

ability
1.possession of the skill or means to do something
2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area

talent-natural aptitude or skill

aptitude-a natural ability to do something

Yep–this is pretty accurate.

 

[sedonaman]

Harmful? Hardly.

See #49.

 

[sedonaman]

Yep–this is pretty accurate.

:dts:

 

[sedonaman]

…
Uh no. If your local paper is anything like mine many many photos are submitted by aspiring photographers for each one that gets selected. BOTH of you accordingly have talent - his is just of a higher order than yours. To use my analogy both of you might be of Olympic standard, he might be finals or medal standard.

In any event, this doesn’t prove that everyone has talent.

 

[Operalan]

In any event, this doesn’t prove that everyone has talent.

As for #49—irrelevant.

One doesn’t have to be the greatest at all things in order to have talent. He may even stink at things and still have talent–it’s just that he has less talent. Your scenario of photography only shows that you are less talented (it doesn’t mean you have zero talent). And even if you have less talent in photography, I’m sure there are some things, compared to your son, where you have more talent.

You and I will continue to go round and around on this–no, we don’t agree on the definition of talent. There is no level of talent that defines whether one has talent or not. We all just have greater or lesser amounts of it.

 

[sedonaman]

As for #49—irrelevant.

No it isn’t … because not every ability is a talent.

One doesn’t have to be the greatest at all things in order to have talent.

I never said one does. Why do you keep saying this? Those at the top of the ability pyramid [e.g., those qualified for Olympic events] have talent; the rest below that have only ability. How many times do I have to say it to make my position clear?

…it’s just that he has less talent. Your scenario of photography only shows that you are less talented (it doesn’t mean you have zero talent). And even if you have less talent in photography, I’m sure there are some things, compared to your son, where you have more talent.

Whether I have talent compared to my son is irrelevant. My ability must be compared to that of the world of photographers. What is more irrelevant is introducing other endeavors for comparison.

You and I will continue to go round and around on this–no, we don’t agree on the definition of talent. There is no level of talent that defines whether one has talent or not. We all just have greater or lesser amounts of it.

:dts: Why would you want to hurt people by telling them they have talent when the only “talent” they have is love for their mothers? All you have to do is accept that “talent” defines the upper X%, some relatively small number, of an endeavor. Mensa, for example, requires you to be in the top 2%. Then when someone says, “He has talent”, we’ll know what is meant. Those without talent will know it and put their efforts into areas where they are most likely to succeed, as opposed to most likely to fail. :sad_yes:

 

[Operalan]

:dts: Why would you want to hurt people by telling them they have talent when the only “talent” they have is love for their mothers? All you have to do is accept that “talent” defines the upper X%, some relatively small number, of an endeavor. Mensa, for example, requires you to be in the top 2%. Then when someone says, “He has talent”, we’ll know what is meant. Those without talent will know it and put their efforts into areas where they are most likely to succeed, as opposed to most likely to fail. :sad_yes:/QUOTE

Because it is NOT true that someone’s ONLY talent is love for their mothers. That’s a false premise.

I won’t accept that “talent” defines just the upper X%—because that too is a fallacy. Mensa is an organization that accepts the top 2% of I.Q. people. That doesn’t mean that the lower 98% have zero to offer. Is that what you believe? Talk about harmful and cruel.

And this phrase—“those without talent will know it and put their efforts into areas where they are most likely to succeed, as opposed to most likely to fail.”

In other words–you are really saying—those who don’t have enough talent to succeed at one thing should discover where they have MORE talent in other things and where their talents are more on a level that will allow them to succeed elsewhere. Those talents exist in some for for all—it is in incumbent on all to figure out what those talents are.

 

[LilyM]

My problem with your definition of talent, sedonaman, is that it seems to entirely depend on results. Anyone who has watched the Olympics knows that there are many factors that influence results, talent only being one.

That champion Chinese hurdler who has won lots of races at nearly every level but has twice, due to injury, failed to achieve in Olympic finals is, by your criteria, apparently less talented than he would be had he not, through no fault of his own, been injured. His failures certainly put him outside of the top x%, x being those who have added Olympic success to all the other types.

Same with those athletes of decades past who were robbed by the since verified widespread doping of Eastern European athletes. They too are outside the x%.

By the way, I’m not so much saying that everyone is talented as that talent itself is difficult to pin down. A young man living in urban New York may physiologically be more than ABLE to run 100m in a faster time than Usain Bolt, but may simply never have had reason to do so, nor any interest in doing so. Does that make him talented but lazy or untalented?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

My problem with your definition of talent, sedonaman, is that it seems to entirely depend on results. Anyone who has watched the Olympics knows that there are many factors that influence results, talent only being one.

That champion Chinese hurdler who has won lots of races at nearly every level but has twice, due to injury, failed to achieve in Olympic finals is, by your criteria, apparently less talented than he would be had he not, through no fault of his own, been injured. His failures certainly put him outside of the top x%, x being those who have added Olympic success to all the other types.

Same with those athletes of decades past who were robbed by the since verified widespread doping of Eastern European athletes. They too are outside the x%.

By the way, I’m not so much saying that everyone is talented as that talent itself is difficult to pin down. A young man living in urban New York may physiologically be more than ABLE to run 100m in a faster time than Usain Bolt, but may simply never have had reason to do so, nor any interest in doing so. Does that make him talented but lazy or untalented?

Very good points. An amateur at an activity may very well have talent, but not be the upper % in the world. Talent is what gives you the natural ability to do something, but proper training and practice is what unleashes it. Look at Mozart. His dad Leopold was also a musician and pushed him. You don’t think he would have been composing at age 5 if his dad hadn’t pushed him, do you?

There are many amateur musicians that very well could be musical geniuses. For example, the guitar/ singer who just sounds decent, but not spectacular may have taught him/herself entirely by ear with no help or training. With training from a young age, his/her quality of performance may have been significantly better.

 

[Sarabande]

And this phrase—“those without talent will know it and put their efforts into areas where they are most likely to succeed, as opposed to most likely to fail.”

In other words–you are really saying—those who don’t have enough talent to succeed at one thing should discover where they have MORE talent in other things and where their talents are more on a level that will allow them to succeed elsewhere. Those talents exist in some for for all—it is in incumbent on all to figure out what those talents are.

Wow! I haven’t been on this thread for the weekend and look how large it got! I think you are right on this. If a person has no talent in one area, then you would hope that he/she will get into something where they do have talent and can succeed.

Very good points. An amateur at an activity may very well have talent, but not be the upper % in the world.

True. At the same time, some amateurs can actually be in the upper %, yet just had neither the ambition or luck to be “successful”. I’ve met and performed with many opera singers who had world class voices, yet were still trying to “make it” due to bad timing, bad luck, not being able to promote oneself so well, etc. I think sometimes there may be a tendency to believe that the talent of a person should be validated by certain “success factors”… mainly financial. To me whether or not a person can garner $1000 per performance does not measure “talent”. It means nothing to me in terms of measuring talent due to my experience of working with very talented musicians who have not been financially successful, yet continue to pursue it either as a modest career or as an amateur. Part of talent, to me, is the gift that God has blessed the person with and then how well that person has mastered the gift. If God did not give the person the aptitude of becoming a musician, artist, athlete, writer, etc., then that person basically has no talent/ability in those particular areas.

Talent is what gives you the natural ability to do something, but proper training and practice is what unleashes it. Look at Mozart. His dad Leopold was also a musician and pushed him. You don’t think he would have been composing at age 5 if his dad hadn’t pushed him, do you?

Yes. And we have to remember that Leopold was also a consummate musician in his own right. He was the one who taught Mozart how to compose, play instruments, etc. He was very ambitious for his son (and daughter… also a talented musician in her own right. She just was, unfortunately for the time, a female.) It’s just that Leopold was not as talented as his son. It did not mean he was untalented, but not a genius like his son. It was one of those instances where the student surpassed the teacher… rather early in life. Wolfgang was fortunate in that he was born into a musical family who recognized his abilities, nurtured them and encouraged them. Had he been born a fishmonger’s son, he may not have become one of the greatest composers of the Classical period.

I got into this discussion with my husband and family this past weekend because I found this to be an interesting one. Everyone agreed that ability and talent were pretty much synonymous and that it was all about symantics. It also depended on the context of what you were talking about. For instance, in a room full of young, equally talented pianists, if you said that all of them had the “ability” to become world class pianists, you would know that the word, “ability” also meant “talent”. That said, we did discuss how different people will place a line where “talent” and “ability” begin. This line definitely moves depending on the person with whom you are talking. There doesn’t seem to be a concrete, unmovable line that distinguishes a person of talent. A person, like sedonman, follows a very strict, narrow definition of what talent is, so his line that constitutes “talent/ability” is a very high one. Another person will follow a less narrow definition and that line of what constitutes “talent/ability” is lower.

Ok, have to stop my thought processes. The kids need me and I need to practice my “talent” of classical singing so that it will still be considered a “talent/ability”. haha!

 

[sedonaman]

…
I won’t accept that “talent” defines just the upper X%— … That doesn’t mean that the lower 98% have zero to offer. Is that what you believe? …

In Post #61, I said that “this is Manichean, a false dilemma: God has made you either a genius or a zero. There is nothing in between. I reject that.” A false dilemma is a fallacy. fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

And this phrase—“those without talent will know it and put their efforts into areas where they are most likely to succeed, as opposed to most likely to fail.”

In other words–you are really saying—those who don’t have enough talent to succeed at one thing should discover where they have MORE talent in other things and where their talents are more on a level that will allow them to succeed elsewhere. Those talents exist in some for for all—it is in incumbent on all to figure out what those talents are.

No. Those who don’t have enough ability to succeed at one thing should discover where they have MORE ability in other things. People with talent already know what it is.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I got into this discussion with my husband and family this past weekend because I found this to be an interesting one. Everyone agreed that ability and talent were pretty much synonymous and that it was all about symantics. …

If this were true, talent would be as common as dirt, thus defeating the very concept of “talent”. As I have said several times, “everyone has talent” renders the term meaningless.

 

[KindredSoul]

My problem with your definition of talent, sedonaman, is that it seems to entirely depend on results. Anyone who has watched the Olympics knows that there are many factors that influence results, talent only being one.

That champion Chinese hurdler who has won lots of races at nearly every level but has twice, due to injury, failed to achieve in Olympic finals is, by your criteria, apparently less talented than he would be had he not, through no fault of his own, been injured. His failures certainly put him outside of the top x%, x being those who have added Olympic success to all the other types.

Same with those athletes of decades past who were robbed by the since verified widespread doping of Eastern European athletes. They too are outside the x%.

By the way, I’m not so much saying that everyone is talented as that talent itself is difficult to pin down. A young man living in urban New York may physiologically be more than ABLE to run 100m in a faster time than Usain Bolt, but may simply never have had reason to do so, nor any interest in doing so. Does that make him talented but lazy or untalented?

Very good points. An amateur at an activity may very well have talent, but not be the upper % in the world. Talent is what gives you the natural ability to do something, but proper training and practice is what unleashes it. Look at Mozart. His dad Leopold was also a musician and pushed him. You don’t think he would have been composing at age 5 if his dad hadn’t pushed him, do you?

There are many amateur musicians that very well could be musical geniuses. For example, the guitar/ singer who just sounds decent, but not spectacular may have taught him/herself entirely by ear with no help or training. With training from a young age, his/her quality of performance may have been significantly better.

I believe these two posts sum up my feelings, which I’ve said earlier. Talent is just too hard to identify in certain cases (such as if Mozart had not been in the kind of situation where he would have tried music, or such as if someone who would have had a very high talent with athletics sustained a permanent injury before ever being able to show anyone that talent, etc.) for us to be able to ever say, with confidence, that any given individual doesn’t have any talents. It is always, always possible that this talent has simply been undiscovered or, due to circumstances, simply has no way of displaying itself.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

If this were true, talent would be as common as dirt, thus defeating the very concept of “talent”. As I have said several times, “everyone has talent” renders the term meaningless.

I would think that this would only be true if you were saying “Everyone had talent in X.” If everyone had talent in the same thing, it would be a meaningless word. But if everyone had talent, but there was enough variation in what those talents were, then it would still be possible for each different talent to be rare enough to be considered talent.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Sarabande]

If this were true, talent would be as common as dirt, thus defeating the very concept of “talent”. As I have said several times, “everyone has talent” renders the term meaningless.

I disagree with this. We all know that talent is not as common as dirt. That is because there is not just a few kinds of talent out there. I don’t believe anyone is saying that everyone has talent in solely one area or just a few areas. There are certainly different levels of talent, but it doesn’t make one with less talent, without talent, with which I don’t think you would disagree. ie. Chopin very talented in composition especially for the piano, but not as talented as Bach in orchestral music. It doesn’t make him only “able” (by your definition of the word) and under the line of what constitutes talent just because he isn’t as talented scoring orchestral music.

As it has been mentioned many times, most people in different areas of expertise will use “talent” and “ability” synonymously and everyone will know what they are talking about. If they didn’t, then I would concur that talent would be “as common as dirt”. That said, I will give “talent”, depending on the context of the conversation, could serve as a stronger word than ability, but not in all cases.