Jump to content
RicardoObviouso

Natural Skill

Recommended Posts

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.

 

It is in no way shape or form a sticky question to get into.

 

Can i fly? Can i breathe underwater? Im not assuming those questions to be true by asking them. Just using the question of colonialism to illiustrate the difficulty in believing in a 'natural' ability. Those who seek to colonize were not given the natural talent to do so. I dont have the natural ability to sink a basketball, and 'the great one' doesn't have the natural ability to play hockey. There is no natural talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly. especially since hockey itself is a social construction. it is a set of rules that the players acknowlege and follow in order for the game to actually work. being good or talented at something compliments your ability to work within the confines of that specific construction. so, we judge what "talent" is through the lens of a social construct, something that isn't a biological thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no. What the hell are you guys talking about? Do you know what 'talent' means? Just because there are rules to a game doesn't mean you can't be good at it. It doesn't mean you can't be born with abilities that lead you to be more adept at working within that specific set of rules.

 

The fact is, if you took 2 totally different children and raised then identically from birth, they would not be completley equal in every way at everything. This is due to physical differences as well as biological (natural) ones. We know this because identical twins reared apart are more similar on many many levels than fraternal twins reared together.

 

If that isn't evidence enough for you I have nothing more to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they may posess simularities...

 

but to say they are born with a natural talent is insane.

There is not natural talent. Hand eye co-ordination at a higher level allowing for better sports, possible. natural talent. no.

 

 

If im 7. and then a sport is created. or anything (but we will stick with sport) we'll call the sport...."snowboarding"

 

then i try this snowboarding. and i do well. Is it because i was born with a natural talent? How could i have this natural talent? I was already born before someone conseptualized this sport.

 

I, over my lifespan, developed higher hand eye co-ordination, stronger leg muscles, blah blah blah. whatever i took to doing over time, thus developing (constructing) my skills.

 

I was NOT born...NOT born with natural talent. because talent itself is a definition created by society. Talent in hockey is skating good scoring goals, etc etc. What if falling on my ass when i stepped off the bench was the constructed goal of the game? then i'd be a wizard and Torino would be on fire right now cause i'd have smoked the italian teams! Its only a talent people posess because people have determined those things to be talent. (created)

 

In that sense, we all posess natural talent...we just havent had a sport or even come about that praises our complelty chaotic development and construction of reality...

 

 

how 'simular' are the twins? Did they look alike? Did they have a voice that sounded simular? Were they both nearly the same height? Woooooooooooooooooooow! But seriously, lets here more on these twins. If im going to understand where your coming from, i wouldnt mind the full facts (or more than you've provided) . If you can show me something i was oblivious to...i'll definatly appreciate it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, were talking about the idea of natural talent here. i understand that genetics to play an important part in early childhood development, i'm not arguing that. i do think genetics have a huge effect on how our bodies grow and how we change, and they also have a great deal of influence on what traits we're given in the first place. but with the examples we've been discussing, all we're defining natural talent by here is proficincy at a young age, which entirely relates to whether or not one is exposed to whatever they become good at. look at any child prodigy. whether its wayne gretzky, mozart, etc. they were all exposed to what they were proficient at, at a young age. that's a common theme here we can't ignore. regardless of genetics, had gretzky never been given a chance to skate nor play hockey he would never have been good at it.

 

let's face it, twin studies can only do so much. to perform a twin study, you must first make two critical assumptions which greatly affect the outcome of your findings. those assumptions being:

 

1) there are only two types of twins, and researchers can reliably distinguish between them 100% of the time

 

2) the results from twin studies are generalizable to single-born children.

 

like you, i took psychology and learned about those twin studies. most of the time they used the study to discern whether or not psychological disorders are hereditary or environmental, sometimes also looking at personality traits and IQ characteristics. but you have to realize that their definitions for these things varied and as a result, provide room for error. what is intellegence? how can you define it? or even quantify it? it wasn't standardized in any of these tests. nor were their definitions of the disorders that they were looking for in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Converge:

 

but to say they are born with a natural talent is insane.

There is not natural talent. Hand eye co-ordination at a higher level allowing for better sports, possible. natural talent. no.

 

 

If im 7. and then a sport is created. or anything (but we will stick with sport) we'll call the sport...."snowboarding"

 

then i try this snowboarding. and i do well. Is it because i was born with a natural talent? How could i have this natural talent? I was already born before someone conseptualized this sport.

 

I'm sorry but this is honestly the most insane thing I've ever heard, particularly the last paragraph. OK, the sport doesn't exist. But all the muscles and neural pathways required for it existed long before it was conceptualized. WTF are you even trying to say? Before skating was invented, there were people who would have been naturally good at it, but since it DIDNT EXIST they never devloped that talent. I'm not arguing that kids are born and know all the rules of hockey and how to score a hat trick and stuff, I'm just saying that the skills required (certain aspects of motor coordination, ankle strength etc.) differ from person to person thereby making those with a profiency in such traits better suited to certain sports or activities. Jeez.

 

Borntohula:

 

Much stronger argument, and I think you're both misunderstanding my stance. I'm not taking a side in the nature versus nurture debate, because it is both. I'm just making sure that all of the hardcore Skinner-inspired behaviorists realize that nature DOES play a role. I know nurture does as well and I'm not denying that in the slightest.

 

regardless of genetics, had gretzky never been given a chance to skate nor play hockey he would never have been good at it.

 

Well obviously. I was never arguing that, as that would simply be retarded. You can be born with all the natural talent in the universe, but get locked in a closet for your entire chuildhood and you're gonna be messed up no matter what your natural potential is. There's a very compelling theory stating that you are naturally born with a certain 'range' of IQ, lets say 95-120. No matter what you do, you can not get above that range (though in extreme cases you can go lower). This range is genetic, but your upbringing determines where you fall in this range. Live in poverty with poor education and nutrition, and you will fall lower, but live in an affluent household with parents that provide education and opportunity, and you will be well into higher territory.

 

As for your criticism of twin studies, I agree on certain points and disagree in others. The notion that the data collected via twin studies not be appliable to single born children doesn't really make any sense, as these twins are not raised in the same household or indeed with any knowledge of the other's existance. Your criticism of intelligence testing and of twin study's preoccupation primarily with intelligence is all correct, but debateable. Intelligence is very difficult to categorize, but with devlopments by Thurman, Gulford and other intelligence test theorists the models are becoming more and more adept at meausring verbal, spatial and mathematical skills. Admittedly, this is less than half of the 'intelligences', but it's still interesting research.

 

There is also an overstatement of the effect of heritability ratios, as because of cultural norms of child rearing practices, the effect of heritability is effectively reduced, but it still exists and is quite strong.

 

. but with the examples we've been discussing, all we're defining natural talent by here is proficincy at a young age, which entirely relates to whether or not one is exposed to whatever they become good at.

 

I agree that exposure at a young age is of critical importance to devloping one's ability. But I don't see how you can possibly deny that they are also born with natural talent. Was Wayne the only 3 year old to be exposed to Hockey at a young age and like it? If not, how can you account for him being better at it than any of the other thousands of kids without admitting to some sort of natural propensity?

Edited by Prometheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nature versus nurture debate, because it is both.

 

I've been following along with this debate and not saying much...mainly because you all have already brought up most of the points that you can. I only have to say that isn't nurturing a part of nature? I mean even Dinasaurs have been proven to nurture their young...so I agree with the quote above, it is both.

 

I must admit this thread has been really good though. You have peaked my interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very compelling theory stating that you are naturally born with a certain 'range' of IQ, lets say 95-120. No matter what you do, you can not get above that range (though in extreme cases you can go lower). This range is genetic, but your upbringing determines where you fall in this range. Live in poverty with poor education and nutrition, and you will fall lower, but live in an affluent household with parents that provide education and opportunity, and you will be well into higher territory.

using this quote, i think we are all firing at the same thing from the different angles.

 

 

It is my position that the upbringing determines more than the abilities people are born with. Its not a natural inate ability to put someone on to the top of their game, but the nurturing they are given through the course of their lives.

 

And if it is the nurturing and development that leads to someone being good, we cannot assume that they were naturals at a sport/event.

 

thats all im saying.

 

 

As for the insanity remark...that may be just hitting the tip of the iceberg, as i have a tendency to take any position to the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Whoever said they are good at sports video games, try going playing on Xbox Live & you'll get your butt whooped more than likely. Playing against 1 guy doesn't prove a lot. I thought i was a good gamer and i get my butt handed to me online.

 

2) There's may not really be anything called "natural skill". I would rephrase it as "natural talent".

 

3) borntohula there is something called natural talent. I was always natually talented at running and jumping. I was always the fastest or one of the fastest kids in my grade from elementary through high school. I didn't learn that, it just so happened that when i ran my legs moved faster than other kids'. My friend in high school, who never played organized ball in his life, could throw a baseball farher than most kids i knew could hit a ball. Thats natural talent, 100% complete genetics.

 

I would define a natural talent as something you are very good at that you don't have to work hard at. simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my natural skill is doin' it. i don't think anyone will argue that there was ever a time i was NOT good at doin' it from the very first time i did it. (he got off in 45 seconds! now am i skilled or WHAT?)

i think in your case, your talent is actually natural, because i assume you naturally came about having a vagina. then again, having an orifice between your legs like the rest of your sex isn't necessarily a skill either.

 

I was always natually talented at running and jumping. I was always the fastest or one of the fastest kids in my grade from elementary through high school. I didn't learn that, it just so happened that when i ran my legs moved faster than other kids'. My friend in high school, who never played organized ball in his life, could throw a baseball farher than most kids i knew could hit a ball. Thats natural talent, 100% complete genetics.

 

*sigh* genetics play a part. it's called potential. you can have all the potential in the world, the best genetics for the job, but still suck at something. why do you think italy has such a horrible hockey team? are you willing to say that it's because they've bad genetics for hockey? or maybe its because the sport isn't pushed as much in italy as it is in north america, russia, etc..

 

just because you can't attribute your running/jumping talent to actual events or periods of time does not mean that it didnt work out that way. after birth, everything that happens to you affects who you are and what you become. your genes set up the circumstances, but your environment has more power over them. for instance, your genes might determine that you become a tall person, but if, at a young age, you drink only coffee, avoid milk and start lifting weights, chances are, your growth will be stunted. not to mention something called gravity, which stunts our growth potential as well.

 

it's funny that you're more willing to attribute your ability to run to whimsical explanations and circumstances that you yourself can't actually prove, than actually saying it's learned. "my genes make me a fast runner"... oh really? did you conduct a series of tests looking at your DNA strands for months on end determining this?

 

speaking of determining... after a certain point i feel that it is almost a cop out to attribute what you do and who you've become, to nature and to genetics. are you all biological determinists? or do you believe in free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trolling this for the past couple of days. This is an excellent discussion. I must say I tend to agree with both of you to an extent.

 

Genes determine a potential in some basic area. i.e. genes will determine what sports coaches refer to as base skills, that is strength, speed, coordination, etc. But they only determine potential. Environment determines how much we meet this potential in a base skill. Training determines how we use our base skills to form complex behaviors.

 

To use the Gretzky example: He had high potential in motor coordination, strength, speed, and balance. He was in an environment with facilitated the development of these base skills. He was trained to play hockey, utilizing his base skills to allow him to out perform other players.

 

We have to note that in forming this example we also assume another fact, a higher potential begets a higher rate of development. Also we must note that a higher initial state allows faster development. That is, if Gretzky had poor balance, it is unlikely he would have ever been a good skater, also, he would have not been a "natural" skater. His ability to skate at a young age was a product of his development of his base skills, since he already had higher development, he was able to self train which is why he would have been a better skater. I think self train is a good way of looking at it. We're not talking about genetic knowledge, I'm saying that since the base skills where already sufficient, skating would be an extension of that. To use an analogy I can drive my car, I have that skill, to drive a different car with a slightly different configuration is easy, and even comes naturally to me.

 

I think the keys of my little rant is the differentiation between potential, development, and behaviour.

 

Anyway, I'll let you guys tare my post apart now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my natural skill is doin' it. i don't think anyone will argue that there was ever a time i was NOT good at doin' it from the very first time i did it. (he got off in 45 seconds! now am i skilled or WHAT?)

i think in your case, your talent is actually natural, because i assume you naturally came about having a vagina. then again, having an orifice between your legs like the rest of your sex isn't necessarily a skill either.

oh you poor thing! you think that all a girl has to do to be good at sex is spread 'em? granted you wouldn't complain if that were all, but oh the wonders that await you!

 

i sincerely hope you find them.

Edited by josiegross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my natural skill is doin' it. i don't think anyone will argue that there was ever a time i was NOT good at doin' it from the very first time i did it. (he got off in 45 seconds! now am i skilled or WHAT?)

i think in your case, your talent is actually natural, because i assume you naturally came about having a vagina. then again, having an orifice between your legs like the rest of your sex isn't necessarily a skill either.

oh you poor thing! you think that all a girl has to do to be good at sex is spread 'em? granted you wouldn't complain if that were all, but oh the wonders that await you!

 

i sincerely hope you find them.

beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh you poor thing! you think that all a girl has to do to be good at sex is spread 'em? granted you wouldn't complain if that were all, but oh the wonders that await you!

 

i sincerely hope you find them.

He needs to be introduced to pvc muscles. oh my...

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.



×
×
  • 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.