Jump to content
RicardoObviouso

Natural Skill

By RicardoObviouso, in Open Discussion

Recommended Posts

RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted (edited)

everyone has a natural skill at something. sometimes it pays, sometimes it doesnt.

 

i played semi-pro hockey for the latter years of my teenage life, but i was never a natural at it. it took me a long time to develop my skill at golf, baseball and even my job.

 

turns out mine is sports video games. my secretary has a son who is 16. his main hobby is playing and mastering the EA games. today he brought in his xbox and we played a few games. i schooled him in every one and the only game i had played prior was nhl 2006. in which i beat him 11-3 (i was the st louis blues and he was ottawa with a few extra star players.

 

i thought at first he was letting me win because i was his moms boss, but i could clearly see him getting frusterated and at one point he yelled AT the video game. anyways, i got to thinking about being a natural at something and just wondered if anyone here has put any thought into it, or if you have discovered yours.

Edited by one_trick_pony
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prometheon

Prometheon

Posted
Posted
it wasnt his "destiny" nor was he good at hockey from birth. he worked at it like everyone else. it was learned.

Yeah ok, but the whole environmental thing can only go so far. Only the very uneducated choose a side in the nature vs nurture debate (and most people choose nurture) because we know, scientifically, that it is a factor of both.

 

If you took a random kid and exposed them to the identical environmental stimuli as Motzart, they would NOT be as good of a composer. Ditto if you took a kid and tried to make them into Gretzky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
borntohula

borntohula

Posted
Posted
Yeah ok, but the whole environmental thing can only go so far. Only the very uneducated choose a side in the nature vs nurture debate (and most people choose nurture) because we know, scientifically, that it is a factor of both.

 

If you took a random kid and exposed them to the identical environmental stimuli as Motzart, they would NOT be as good of a composer. Ditto if you took a kid and tried to make them into Gretzky.

uneducated? i am aware that it is a factor of both. but to what extent? that is what i am trying to argue.

 

i understand that the debate has its limits, but when you're trying to argue that someone is genetically predisposed to play hockey well, or is really good at video games naturally, that's a leap itself.

 

i'm not denying that it's a mix of things. but when it comes to something like sports, or just in relation to what someone is good at, genetics can only take you so far. it reminds me of how some people try to argue that black people are genetically predisposed to be faster than any other race, that's why they do so well at track.

 

in waynes case, i still hold that his talents are more a product of great parenting, a good attitude, and the fact that he practiced 4-5 hours each day. his genetics may have provided the potential for his success, but had he never applied himself, or if walter gretzky was a dead beat and never helped wayne with his hockey, wayne would not be where he is today.

 

saying someone is naturally good at something means that had wayne never played hockey, and decided at the age of 30 to pick up a stick, he would've still been "the great one".

 

existence preceeds essence.

 

but let's use a different example. i'm a good writer. i was not a good writer from birth, and was never considerred a child prodigy like mr. gretzky. it took time and a lot of shitty essays to get me where i am today. did my genetic makeup kick in later? or was it my experiences that led me to where i am now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

it doesnt matter what you're good at NOW, it matters what you've been good at your whole life.

 

 

if you keep the wayne gretzky example open... he could skate better than he could walk and had an eye for the game that cannot be learned. walter stepped in and decided to coach his son because he saw the natural talent that wayne possessed and developed it from there.

 

its quite obvious that no one is good at something FROM BIRTH, so thats a shitty cop out and a invalid argument. you would be considered a natural at something at an entirely young age (e.g. being three years old and being able to skate and stick handle)

 

you're a writer now. i work with numbers... in highschool i SUCKED at math and took grade 10 math two and a half times before i understood it, now i make hundreds of thousands of dollars playing with numbers. i dont consider myself a natural at my profession just because i'm good at it now.

 

the question i asked at the very beginning of this thread was (in layman's terms) WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN A NATURAL TALENT AT?

Edited by one_trick_pony
Link to comment
Share on other sites
borntohula

borntohula

Posted
Posted
it doesnt matter what you're good at NOW, it matters what you've been good at your whole life.

 

 

if you keep the wayne gretzky example open... he could skate better than he could walk and had an eye for the game that cannot be learned. walter stepped in and decided to coach his son because he saw the natural talent that wayne possessed and developed it from there.

 

its quite obvious that no one is good at something FROM BIRTH, so thats a shitty cop out and a invalid argument. you would be considered a natural at something at an entirely young age (e.g. being three years old and being able to skate and stick handle)

 

you're a writer now. i work with numbers... in highschool i SUCKED at math and took grade 10 math two and a half times before i understood it, now i make hundreds of thousands of dollars playing with numbers. i dont consider myself a natural at my profession just because i'm good at it now.

 

the question i asked at the very beginning of this thread was (in layman's terms) WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN A NATURAL TALENT AT?

gretzky is still a bad example. child prodigy. how many of us here are child prodigies?? the exception should not become the rule. perhaps saying that is a cop out as well. who put a stick in wayne's hands? who let him skate at the age of three? my parents didn't put me on the ice until i was 5 or 6. who knows, i could've missed out on some pretty important hockey development time. had walter gretzky not played and enjoyed hockey as much as he did, do you think wayne would've been able to progress as much as he did? he may have had the potential in him, but growing up in any other situation, his talents wouldn't have been able to manifest.

 

let's just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prometheon

Prometheon

Posted
Posted (edited)
i'm not denying that it's a mix of things.

 

OK.

 

it reminds me of how some people try to argue that black people are genetically predisposed to be faster than any other race, that's why they do so well at track.

 

Well there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that people of Afrcian descent possess more fast-twitch muscle fibres than those of European descent. Which would make them naturally better at track events like sprinting (100m, 200m) but worse at endurance things, like the 1500.

 

saying someone is naturally good at something means that had wayne never played hockey, and decided at the age of 30 to pick up a stick, he would've still been "the great one".

 

Actually, no. Not even close. At all. We know scientifically that sensory and motor development, as well as cognitive has several 'critical periods'. These are periods where, if no sensory experiance is encountered, it will never develop. An example is with newborn kittens. If their eyes are sewn shut during a certain period of thier life (I think it was 2-6 weeks, though I can't remember) they will NEVER be able to see. After 6 weeks, you can sew their eyes shut for as long as you want, but they will be able to see afterwards. 2-6 weeks is the 'critical period' for visuosensory development. People also have these critical periods, and it applies to cognition as well as sensory reception.

 

Therefore, if Wayne never picked up a stick before 30, a VERY compelling argument could be made that he had passed his critical period for the motor skills required for hockey. Also, new neural networks are more difficult to form in older age, and when formed, would take longer to be sheathed in myelin and thus work at satisfactory reaction speeds. Myelin is like a lubricant for axons, which are basically little wires that carry neural signals. This is all very simplified, but it gets the basic idea accross.

 

but let's use a different example. i'm a good writer. i was not a good writer from birth, and was never considerred a child prodigy like mr. gretzky. it took time and a lot of shitty essays to get me where i am today. did my genetic makeup kick in later? or was it my experiences that led me to where i am now?

 

Let me give you another example. There are people, like William Faulkner, who never graduated highschool and are better writers than you and I could ever be. Obviously practice and education will help you improve; that's the point. But natural ability does exist. Faulkner would not have had to work nearly as hard to become better than you are. It's as simple as that.

 

Additional proof can be found through twin studies of twins (both fraternal and identical) who are seperated at birth. If identical twins have more similarities than fraternal ones, it is obviously because of their closer gentic similarity. This is the case in such studies. Identical twins are much closer in IQ range etc. The heritability of IQ is between 50 and 70 percent.

 

If you're still not convinced I've got pages more. One of the benefits of taking psychology. You study quite a bit of heritability and genetic/social correlation/interaction.

 

EDIT: Holy shit, I just realised how long this was. Sorry for the friggin essay.

Edited by Prometheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually, no. Not even close. At all. We know scientifically that sensory and motor development, as well as cognitive has several 'critical periods'. These are periods where, if no sensory experiance is encountered, it will never develop. An example is with newborn kittens. If their eyes are sewn shut during a certain period of thier life (I think it was 2-6 weeks, though I can't remember) they will NEVER be able to see. After 6 weeks, you can sew their eyes shut for as long as you want, but they will be able to see afterwards. 2-6 weeks is the 'critical period' for visuosensory development. People also have these critical periods, and it applies to cognition as well as sensory reception.

 

Therefore, if Wayne never picked up a stick before 30, a VERY compelling argument could be made that he had passed his critical period for the motor skills required for hockey. Also, new neural networks are more difficult to form in older age, and when formed, would take longer to be sheathed in myelin and thus work at satisfactory reaction speeds. Myelin is like a lubricant for axons, which are basically little wires that carry neural signals. This is all very simplified, but it gets the basic idea accross.

fuck. i'm gonna try to figure out all the critical periods for stuff and turn my first born into some kind of supreme being!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Converge

Converge

Posted
Posted
Actually, no. Not even close. At all. We know scientifically that sensory and motor development, as well as cognitive has several 'critical periods'. These are periods where, if no sensory experiance is encountered, it will never develop. An example is with newborn kittens. If their eyes are sewn shut during a certain period of thier life (I think it was 2-6 weeks, though I can't remember) they will NEVER be able to see. After 6 weeks, you can sew their eyes shut for as long as you want, but they will be able to see afterwards. 2-6 weeks is the 'critical period' for visuosensory development. People also have these critical periods, and it applies to cognition as well as sensory reception.

 

 

Wouldn't that imply that its developmental skills, not natural skills?

 

if he didnt play during those developmental periods, he wouldnt have developed those skills. if he wasn't exposed in the critical period, he wouldn't have pulled it off. Like a kitten with his eyes shut, without walter putting the stick in his hands....he'd be blind.

 

Had walter hooked me up with a stick before i could walk right....

 

 

Do you think whites have a natural disposition towards colonial attitudes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prometheon

Prometheon

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't that imply that its developmental skills, not natural skills?

 

Well this point was rebutting what he said about Wayne being able to pcik up a stick at 30.

 

Do you think whites have a natural disposition towards colonial attitudes?

 

Well aren't you kinda assuming that they do in the very question? If the attitudes you're talking about are 'colonial', wouldn't all colonials need to possess them by definition? It's a sticky question to get into

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WalrusMeat

WalrusMeat

Posted
Posted (edited)
.... Well, I'm a published writer at fifteen...

 

Does that say anything?

Me too. Although I'm beginning to doubt it's what I'm supposed to do in life.

 

I haven't written in about a year. I've completely lost all inspiration.

I'm working on three novels right now, and write atleast seventy pages of one of them every day.

 

 

 

Adam, I hope you die painfully.

Edited by NinjaStyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept