O
Operalan
Guest
It seems, sadly, that there are some who might say you’re not talented based on your description. Thankfully, I totally disagree with that.
- Status
O
Operalan
Guest
Sedonaman, you have an amazing talent for continuing to stand up for what you believe, even when you are standing alone.
:thumbsup:
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Yes, I think there’s fallacy in saying that only the 2% at the top of a field have the talent. There are many different circumstances, so you can’t totally base talent on success in the field.
Then it probably gets into, are most of your music majors musically talented? They all take an audition to be accepted into a collegiate program. Music majors probably account for the upper 25% of all people who attempt music. You need ears and some natural ability to get through the classes. Of course, I’m preaching to the choir (pun intended
).
S
Sarabande
Guest
Completely agree. There was a documentary I watched once on opera singers. One of the statistics was that 60% of opera singers make $10,000 a year or less. Does that mean that those 60% (and probably more as they were not including people who may only make $11,000 to $20,000 )are untalented because they aren’t financially successful? I would say, no. It’s silly to base a person’s level of talent on their success… any kind of success. Yes, success is great and I am always thrilled and excited to hear of any colleagues “making it big”, but it isn’t everything in measuring talent.Yes, I think there’s fallacy in saying that only the 2% at the top of a field have the talent. There are many different circumstances, so you can’t totally base talent on success in the field.
Then it probably gets into, are most of your music majors musically talented? They all take an audition to be accepted into a collegiate program. Music majors probably account for the upper 25% of all people who attempt music. You need ears and some natural ability to get through the classes. Of course, I’m preaching to the choir (pun intended
BTW - I love the clarinet. It is one of my favorite instruments and wish I could play it. It is, unfortunately, not my forte.
Sorry, I had to add another music pun. I love watching and hearing you guys/gals play, especially for your phrasing. It’s a great lesson for us singers. 
O
Operalan
Guest
BTW - I love the clarinet. It is one of my favorite instruments and wish I could play it. It is, unfortunately, not my forte. Sorry, I had to add another music pun. I love watching and hearing you guys/gals play, especially for your phrasing. It’s a great lesson for us singers.
When I’m teaching, I always remind singers that they should do their best to sound like string instruments—long uninterrupted lines. Make sure the consonants do NOTHING more than divide vowels. Keep the “bow on the string”.
AND, on the other hand, when talking to instrumentalists, it is good to remind them to play as if they are vocalists—telling a story with their playing and bringing many colors to their music. We all have much to learn from each other in order to continue to develop our talents.
Sorry, I had to add another music pun. I love watching and hearing you guys/gals play, especially for your phrasing. It’s a great lesson for us singers. When I’m teaching, I always remind singers that they should do their best to sound like string instruments—long uninterrupted lines. Make sure the consonants do NOTHING more than divide vowels. Keep the “bow on the string”.
AND, on the other hand, when talking to instrumentalists, it is good to remind them to play as if they are vocalists—telling a story with their playing and bringing many colors to their music. We all have much to learn from each other in order to continue to develop our talents.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Of course it is. If everybody can do it, it’s not talent.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system, whenever there is heat transferred from body TH to body Tc [see below], the sum of the heat energy after the transfer is less that before it. This loss of energy is unrecoverable and is called entropy. So the amount of entropy has been increasing since the creation of the universe. The question then is, how did the universe get into a reduced state to begin with? The answer, m=E/c^2 [another way of writing E=mc^2], or “Let there be light!” IOW, God, by providing the energy “E”, reversed entropy when he created matter.
Now, since the burden of proof is on the advocate, show me proof that “everybody has talent” is a true statement.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Wait a minute!!! Are people here saying that everybody can do “x”? I don’t think they are, but if so, then, yes, I agree that saying everyone has “x” ability is not talent. If not, that is where the differing in opinions with regard to “talent” and “ability” comes in because there is more than one definition of “talent” from the people who put together dictionaries. Perhaps those “experts” are just numbskulls and should only include one definition of the word. But the English language is such that there are many words which have various meanings.
I, personally, have never met a person who did not have a talent of some sort. I’m not using this as proof that everyone has a talent. It’s just a statement that every person I’ve known has had a talent, but I follow more than one definition of “talent”:
3 : the natural endowments of a person
4 a : a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude
b : general intelligence or mental power : ability
Some people don’t realize they have a talent until late in life, and I’ve met many people who have gone through that. That said, there really is no way to prove that everyone has a talent or that not everyone has a talent. I have never seen your photography, but because you consider yourself above-average in your ability, it makes me believe that your work is high quality and thus talented. The word “exceptional”, would to me mean well above-average and thus extremely talented, which is perhaps what you son is. Don’t know because I’ve never seen his work, but I trust your critical eye due to the fact that you hold such a strict and narrow definition of talent. (Again, for me just because people pay money for art work does not mean to me that the person is actually more talented than another person whose work is not as financially successful.) Otherwise, your ability would only be average or mediocre… something that many would describe as a “modest talent”… competent and pleasant, but uninspiring. I guess that is where some people would draw the line as to where talent would begin as well. But, perhaps, all of these different words is just another semantics game. Who really knows?
Ok, back to the kids and learning music.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
No one said **everybody can do it. ** I believe what has been discussed is that everybody has something that they have talent in.
O
Operalan
Guest
Nope—this does not prove the existence of God in the least. As for showing that every person has talent–bring me the people. I’m happy to show the talent.
O
Operalan
Guest
S
sedonaman
Guest
I made that statement in conjunction with my example of opening your eyes in the morning.
And since the burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative, the one challenging it is under no burden to prove the negative.
This reminds me of a fellow who entered an oil painting contest and won. They took back his prize when they found out he had a chimp paint it! If it had remained a secret, undoubtedly there would have been those claiming the artist had talent. In a similar contest, another “artist” dipped live earthworms into different colors of paint and let them crawl across a canvas. He also won first prize.
I’m glad someone acknowledges a line between ability and talent.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I actually am not acknowledging it. I said that “I guess ***some *** people would draw the line as to where talent would begin as well.” I didn’t say that I, myself, believe that there is a difference between ability and talent. But I do acknowledge that some people may believe it, such as yourself, because you hold a very narrow definition of the word, “talent”. I still believe that ability and talent are synonymous as defined by many definitions in the dictionary. I still believe that if a person was never “endowed” with a natural talent or propensity for any given skill, that person has never had and will never have the ability/talent. Some may have a low level, mediocre level or high level of the same skill. If they have no ability/talent in that area and are still attempting to be successful at it, believing that they have talent in that particular field, then they are “hacks”. Although, if a person with low talent try to attempt something that requires a higher skill level, they might still be considered hacks as they went past their level. It doesn’t mean they have no talent/ability. It just means that their level of talent isn’t as advanced. Again, this is using the wider definition of the word “talent” and not just one description of it.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Sarabande;9653216:
Yes, I know.
O
Operalan
Guest
The burden of proof is not on anyone. But as there has never been one without talent, the proof is readily seen. You have not proved otherwise. Nor have you provided an example of one without talent to any degree. You never will be able to provide that. According to the definitions provided by several here, and their sources are well noted and as legitimate as yours, eye blinking would be a natural ability. Perhaps some are even more talented at blinking than others. Regardless, it would only be one of their talents.
Still looking for your mathematical and scientific proof as to the existence of God. The above doesn’t do it. As you can see, not all is provable by those methods. So, by those standards proving anything else is also unnecessary.
Still looking for your mathematical and scientific proof as to the existence of God. The above doesn’t do it. As you can see, not all is provable by those methods. So, by those standards proving anything else is also unnecessary.
S
sedonaman
Guest
You can’t prove that because you have not known everyone who has ever existed.
I don’t see it.
I see. “The burden of proof is not on anyone,” but it’s on me. You’re confused.
But not a talent because everyone can do it, just like I said.
Pure speculation.
Don’t go without chocolate waiting because the wait will kill you. Obviously, no proof will be acceptable to you.
O
Operalan
Guest
Just because anybody can do something does not diminish a talent. That one can do it “better” than another may mean they have more talent or it may mean that they’ve developed their talent to a greater degree.
I’m not confused in the least. I’m even enjoying this.
And you can’t prove that there has ever been a person in the world without talent. I’ve asked you to produce one person without talent. I admit–I’ve tried to produce one without talent…I failed.
Actually, I’m not that big a fan of chocolate, But you seem to believe that all can be defined by graphs, pyramids, mathematical equations and science. As you can see, that’s not possible. I guess that is a talent you lack–but there others you have—that’s great.
I’m not confused in the least. I’m even enjoying this.
And you can’t prove that there has ever been a person in the world without talent. I’ve asked you to produce one person without talent. I admit–I’ve tried to produce one without talent…I failed.
Actually, I’m not that big a fan of chocolate, But you seem to believe that all can be defined by graphs, pyramids, mathematical equations and science. As you can see, that’s not possible. I guess that is a talent you lack–but there others you have—that’s great.
L
LilyM
Guest
Sedonaman, are you serious? 2 standard deviations or more is your rule of thumb for talent, or thereabouts?
Since when do statisticians have any sort of monopoly on defining talent? Your maths teachers may agree with you, but I’m sure if you asked an art or music teacher, a sports coach, a history teacher or someone who teaches creative writing (all of whom are equally if not better qualified to comment) they could say plenty about definin talent, but your 2 standard deviations would get nary a mention.
And again - why 2 SDs, why not just one? Why not three?
Since when do statisticians have any sort of monopoly on defining talent? Your maths teachers may agree with you, but I’m sure if you asked an art or music teacher, a sports coach, a history teacher or someone who teaches creative writing (all of whom are equally if not better qualified to comment) they could say plenty about definin talent, but your 2 standard deviations would get nary a mention.
And again - why 2 SDs, why not just one? Why not three?
S
sedonaman
Guest
You’re confused. Maybe that’s one of your talents.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I thought I explained that was for illustration purposes.Sedonaman, are you serious? 2 standard deviations or more is your rule of thumb for talent, or thereabouts?
Since when do statisticians have any sort of monopoly on defining talent? Your maths teachers may agree with you, but I’m sure if you asked an art or music teacher, a sports coach, a history teacher or someone who teaches creative writing (all of whom are equally if not better qualified to comment) they could say plenty about definin talent, but your 2 standard deviations would get nary a mention.
And again - why 2 SDs, why not just one? Why not three?
O
Operalan
Guest
Confusion isn’t a talent (no wonder you’re getting mixed up as to what a talent is).
- Status