Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
“For 37 years I've practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius”
Pablo de Sarasate (Spanish Violinist and Composer. 1844-1908)

Ppppfffttt 37 years this kids 8 years old practices 2-3 hours a day; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGTfDf4b5oE

And this one is an academic at 9 years old http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbo5Y-8sTQ

How about this 22 year old no formal training and lived in the streets from the age of 5, homeless, no lessons in singing yet can compete with the worlds best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ46Ot4_lLo

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
...

Innate specific aptitud

I mantin that it doesn't exist, not only that, I DARE someone to give me empirical evidence supporting the assertion that it does

As previously mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_savant
There are lots of cases out there.  Incredible talent in one area - but otherwise a dud.

In the business world, look to the Peter Principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Hard-working, bright, people get placed in jobs they have no talent for.

I could see it myself when I taught a college computer class.  Some mature, educated, hard-working, career-successful people had to struggle with it, while others breezed through.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Investigate the history of Mozart, get your answer there
Both him and his sister were placed with an instrument at birth.
His sister Wasnt MOZART because she had to get married and be a woman. BS

Yes, give an intelligent 3 year old an instrument, pressure them into it, every day, they will be a gifted child. And of course, resent you for it

Preposterous...  And write a symphony at 9?  His talent is the result of many lifetimes experience, it is innate... His abilities, "talent's," accompany him/her through many life times. What do you think Prodigies are all about?...

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't believe in talent I believe in being intelligent, HARD WORK and dedication.

How would you account for Leslie Lemke?

Or Stephen Wiltshire?

Or Kieron Williamson?

Or Rex Lewis-Clack?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Nobody can present evidence of talent then?

See above.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Nobody can present evidence of talent then? Great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Nobody can present evidence of talent then? Great.

I tried to be modest (in my first post) by emphasizing that nothing happens overnight (except the coming of a new day ), but when you keep insisting on it - okay, here is THE EVIDENCE! (One of my very first work which is done only a month after I installed and launched Photoshop for the first time in my life.)

However, I am a Mensa member since I was 17 years old and God knows I've worked my but off the past year in order to become one of the best retouchers here. (To avoid any confusion, I am not - not even remotely! - there yet, but I'm working on it...)

On the other side, no matter how intelligent I am, I've never managed to drive a car - and God knows how hard I was trying to do so as well! - or to make my favorite apple pie.

The cut the long story short, yes, there are certain talents and there's definitely a different types of intelligence (as you can see from the above, I suck at a spatial one, big time!), but what we do with them, at the end of the day, depends on our inner force, motivation and dedication rather than just having them.

And you, my dear Natalia, being prepare to admit it or not, are EXTREMELY talented (it can be perfectly seen in your beginners work which, in my opinion, lacks in technical knowledge and execution, not it talent!) and that is the main reason why you are WHO you are today in the world of professional retouching. Without it, you'd be just a technical nerd (no offense to nerds, I just love them!), incapable of making any aesthetic or creative decision, and this world would be poorer for a real artist which you definitely are!

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

I can't keep track of your arguments because you seem to continually change the definition of the term "talented" to suit your argument that it doesn't exist.

In one post you're describing it as "innate ability", in another you interchanging it with the word "skill" and, in yet another, you veer off into an example of "success."

If we're going to argue whether "talent" exists, it would help if the definition didn't constantly change from one post to the next.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't believe in talent I believe in being intelligent, HARD WORK and dedication.

Revised to appear more intelligent…

I don’t believe in talent, I believe in intelligence, hard work, and dedication!

I assume the purpose of your post is to show that you think your current work is better than the work you did in 2005. Is my assumption correct?

Zorka wrote:
And you, my dear Natalia, being prepare to admit it or not, are EXTREMELY talented (it can be perfectly seen in your beginners work which, in my opinion, lacks in technical knowledge and execution, not it talent!) and that is the main reason why you are WHO you are today in the world of professional retouching. Without it, you'd be just a technical nerd (no offense to nerds, I just love them!), incapable of making any aesthetic or creative decision, and this world would be poorer for a real artist which you definitely are!

+1

General intelligence (measured how?) is one thing - being better at some things than others is another. I've always been good with spatial, logical and visual stuff but useless at math and crosswords. My intelligence is the same in either case of course, but I just have more natural aptitude (if you don't want to call it "talent") at some things than others.

From what I've seen (I'm 50 years old now) some people are just naturally good at certain things while other people just naturally have no clue about them and however intelligent they are, however hard or long they work at mastering them, will never rise above 'mediocre' at best. There are 17 year old photographers here on MM who are already producing vastly better work with more refinement and aesthetic maturity than some who claim to have been professionals for 30 years!



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

FLEXmanta wrote:
Some people I know who work in high end, have no technical base at all. They just light up this and colorize that and presto: Vogue cover.

Is not about technical base.

Someone who was brought up in a family of painters, or theater or movies, designers, interior decorators, or even art appreciators, will have an apparent innate ability. We learn mostly in an unconscious way. I didn't know I was learning when my father took me to see printing machines or showed me dots in a dupont

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Someone who was brought up in a family of painters, or theater or movies, designers, interior decorators, or even art appreciators, will have an apparent innate ability.

Are you evading the inconvenient counter-examples I posted earlier?

Peano wrote:
Are you evading the inconvenient counter-examples I posted earlier?

No, I'm assuming someone intelligent would understand EXCEPTIONS are not empirical evidence to support an assertion.

It's the same argument put front for the theory of multiple intelligences that was strongly criticized for the lack of evidence.

Peano wrote:
Are you evading the inconvenient counter-examples I posted earlier?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
No, I'm assuming someone intelligent would understand EXCEPTIONS are not empirical evidence to support an assertion.

I didn't make any assertions about the existence of talent. You did. Let me refresh your memory:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I mantin that it [talent] doesn't exist.

[and]

In fact, cognitive neuroscience data gathered from research doesn't support individuals being "innately good at something"

The first time Leslie Lemke touched a piano, he played a concerto that he had only heard. He had no instruction, had done no practicing, and had not been brought up in an environment that exposed him to music or musical instruments. 

At the age of 7, with no musical training, Rex Lewis-Clack began playing the piano. He could play back classical compositions after hearing them only once.

She who asserts bears the burden of defense. You have asserted that talent (meaning "innately good at something") doesn't exist. If that is correct, then you must explain how savants like Leslie and Rex display extraordinary ability at arts such as music and painting without any training or other nurturing.

Assertion is not argument. You have declared that talent doesn't exist, but facts aren't created by declaration, and you haven't provided one scrap of evidence to support your assertion, nor have you addressed obvious counter-examples.

Don’t imagine that you've given evidence with this statement:

In fact, cognitive neuroscience data gathered from research doesn't support individuals being "innately good at something"

There you make an error of logic. If data doesn’t support a proposition, that doesn’t mean the data refutes the proposition. If neuroscience data doesn’t support the claim that “some people innately good at something,” that doesn’t imply that the data supports the contrary proposition “no people are innately good at something.”

Unless you can offer an argument and evidence, you give no one any reason to accept your flat-footed declarations.

I certainly don't accept them.

Ken Fournelle wrote:
Bravo Peano

Peano wrote:

Peano wrote:
Are you evading the inconvenient counter-examples I posted earlier?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
No, I'm assuming someone intelligent would understand EXCEPTIONS are not empirical evidence to support an assertion.

I didn't make any assertions about the existence of talent. You did. Let me refresh your memory:


The first time Leslie Lemke touched a piano, he played a concerto that he had only heard. He had no instruction, had done no practicing, and had not been brought up in an environment that exposed him to music or musical instruments. 

At the age of 7, with no musical training, Rex Lewis-Clack began playing the piano. He could play back classical compositions after hearing them only once.

She who asserts bears the burden of defense. You have asserted that talent (meaning "innately good at something") doesn't exist. If that is correct, then you must explain how savants like Leslie and Rex display extraordinary ability at arts such as music and painting without any training or other nurturing.

Assertion is not argument. You have declared that talent doesn't exist, but facts aren't created by declaration, and you haven't provided one scrap of evidence to support your assertion, nor have you addressed obvious counter-examples.

Don’t suppose that you've given evidence with this statement:

There you make an error of logic. If data doesn’t support a proposition, that doesn’t mean the data refutes the proposition. If neuroscience data doesn’t support the claim that “some people innately good at something,” that doesn’t imply that the data supports the contrary proposition “no people are innately good at something.”

Unless you can offer an argument and evidence, you give no one any reason to accept your flat-footed declarations.

I certainly don't accept them.

+1 Talent does exist and you don't become talented...you just are or not!! Well explained David!!

The Invisible Touch wrote:

+1 Talent does exist and you don't become talent...you just are or not!! Well explained David!!

Exactly like this talent does exist.

For example I like music a lot and I tried to teach how to play guitar ( even I paid twice professional teachers for that) , and simply no way.
I could not tech anything, absolutely anything.
Because I am ANTI TALENT for guitar  and I know that.
And I can spend next 5 years with learning and I know I will never learn to play guitar.

From the other side because this is very interesting thread  I want to share something.
One great friend of mine is very well known and established fashion photographer
( he is not on MM ),  and he has son , he will be only  17 in june .
His young son is in love with photography like his father  which is normal
Last month my friend sent his son to me to learn how to work with retouching because kid knew  basic stuff from his school.
I took young kid at the office and I was working 3 days on files for my customers and he was sitting next to me and he was watching what I do.
The fourth day he started to work alone next to me with my advises and "his eyes" with some my old files.
I was really surprised with his talent  , and at the end of the day finally I left him  to  make one file alone without any my advises.
He finished file I took coffee with him and I told him kid watch your file and tell me where you are wrong?
Immediately he told me this is not bad work  but I don't like what I made with lighting and colors.
I started to laugh and I told him kid  you found your way because you understood that retouching is only lighting and colors.
Next day we came to office and I told him kid, stage is yours , you have working station, you have professional monitor, this is your file for work, find some background ( I didn't want to give him background, I let him to choose alone, because I wanted to see what he will choose) and  see you for 2 hours.
I went to take launch in restaurant, when I came back after 2 hours I saw this



I still keep his file in my folder.
I could not believe what 17 years old kid  made with  his second file ever which he made alone with composite work.
I opened my mouth and I told him you don't need me anymore in next couple of months we will discuss on MM with some threads "how to get this look " from your work for your father.
I called my friend ( his father) and I sent him file to see, and he said to me  you are joking  with me, you made this file not my son , lol .
And he didn't believe me until his son went back home and when he made another file in front of him on his computer.
That is talent.
You don't become talent , you just are or not.
If you have talent you need just a few steps with your intelligence to find your way or someone to push you with some advises ( of course later you have to work very hard to upgrade your work and skills to be better and better  because you have to learn every day )
If you don't have talent no one can help you.
I wish I had his talent for my guitar , but I am not that guy

Best Regards to all!
ST

Peano wrote:
I didn't make any assertions about the existence of talent. You did. Let me refresh your memory...

No need. I know what I think.

Those who make the CLAIM that TALENT exist need to prove it. I'm simply stating the non existence of something.

Why would I need to falsify something there is no proof of? The default for an issue like talent (the null hypothesis, if you will) is There is no talent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Peano wrote:
Unless you can offer an argument and evidence, you give no one any reason to accept your flat-footed declarations.
I certainly don't accept them.

You're probably religious. We can't prove there's NO god either.

Exceptions such as Savants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

Are an anomaly. Untrue for full functioning brains. Not valid evidence.

ST Retouch wrote:
One great friend of mine is very well known and established fashion photographer
( he is not on MM ),  and he has son , he will be only  17 in june .
His young son is in love with photography like his father

yeah and you use THIS example to show us an example of innate talent instead of I SAW THIS SINCE I WAS BORN DAY AFTER DAY AND NOW I CAN DO IT? lol

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Is not about technical base.

Someone who was brought up in a family of painters, or theater or movies, designers, interior decorators, or even art appreciators, will have an apparent innate ability. We learn mostly in an unconscious way. I didn't know I was learning when my father took me to see printing machines or showed me dots in a dupont

This is true, I also grew up in a family of musicians.

But some people are born with perfect pitch.  Not really good relative pitch, which can be learned, but perfect pitch, which cannot.  That is a talent.

1k-words-photograpy wrote:
I certainly think you can practice your way to competency, so I'm with the OP there.

But some things you can't teach and I think there are multiple instances where you can not teach the difference between competent and great.

You can only teach someone to be competent.  After that they must learn to teach themselves.  Most never embark on that journey or are not taught the proper way to go about it.

I clicked on the like regarding the book on talent that was posted earlier in the thread and immediately smiled when he talked about how the students were made to practice.  It's so very, very true.

We now live in a society where good enough is taught.  We're "hey, we all learn differently, we're all special little snowflakes" is embraced.  That's fine to a point, but that point usually happens after you master the fundamentals of craft and the traditional pedagogies, developed over centuries work, and they work for a reason.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
But some people are born with perfect pitch.  Not really good relative pitch, which can be learned, but perfect pitch, which cannot.  That is a talent.

And do you have EVIDENCE of this assertion ?

Other than the Savant syndrome?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
And do you have EVIDENCE of this assertion ?

Other than the Savant syndrome?

Oh, absolutely, I've known a few.

One was a piano player who had to keep tuning tools with him at all times, because if the piano was "in tune" to itself - something the rest of us were perfect with, it would drive him crazy if it were out of perfect tune (like to a tuning fork).  He would see a note on the paper and hear the perfect note in his head while at the same time hearing the piano would could be off a quarter step or even a full half step, so he would retune it.  I used to tune my bass to him back stage (as did the other instrumentalists) and we were always in perfect tune with the piano.

I had good relative pitch (sometimes called passive perfect pitch), which means I trained myself to hear and reproduce A at 440 and, by using the old Do Re Mi method, could then get to any other note.  That's different.  If you just hit a key on a piano, I had to try and figure out what it was using that method, he simply immediately knew (called active perfect pitch or absolute pitch).  Freak. 

While it's rare, it's common enough, I'm sure it has been documented.

Here:

http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/clas … tpitch.htm

And for an academic study looking to crack the genetic code behind it:

http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
You're probably religious.

Yet another of your assumptions that is false.

Exceptions such as Savants ... Are an anomaly. Untrue for full functioning brains. Not valid evidence.

LOL ... so now we learn that a child who can play a Mozart piano concerto lacks a functioning brain.

How adroit you are at rejecting anomalies as "not relevant" to your bald assertions.

In 150 A.D., Ptolemy said the earth was the center of the universe, and the stars revolved around it. Much later, along came upstarts who observed that some of the stars (the planets) didn't proceed smoothly along their paths. They appeared to stop occasionally, reverse course briefly, then proceed on their way.

Rather than toss this anomaly out as irrelevant, scientists sought to explain it. They tried, and tried again, to reconcile it with Ptolemy's theory. But to no avail. At last, Galileo proved that Ptolemy was mistaken, that the earth was not at the center of the universe.

Only a radically different theory enabled scientists to make sense of the anomaly of retrograde planetary motion. Had they followed the Taffarel Method of Scientific Inquiry, they would have dismissed the anomalous observations and clung to the Ptolemaic model of the universe.

Did you inherit your amazing powers of reasoning from your ancestors? Or was it developed in you while you were still in your cradle?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I don't believe in talent I believe in being intelligent, HARD WORK and dedication.

http://www.worth1000.com/artists/NataliaT

Those are the things I did when I started - Talented? I don't think so.

I show you mine, show me yours. Show there's no such thing as talent and we all sucked in the beginning.

x

Sorry, but I disagree.
There are people that graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Photography in my class that still couldn't shoot a memorable picture to save their life.
If you have chance, watch the movie Amadeus. One can be good, but to be great their must be have a bit of talent.

My best friend, who passed on way to early, was always better than anyone in class. She struggled with the technical side. In fact, even after she became a professional, she still had some problems with that aspect. 
But there is a difference between good, great and genius. She was Genuis, most of the rest of us fall short.
http://www.cynthialevine.com/

In Balance Photography wrote:
So it's a measure of natural aptitude.
How do we measure it?
If we can't measure it, how do we know that it exists?

Edit: Is talent just a word for success that we can't fully explain?

Talent and its existence is indisputable. You don't measure or analyze it quantitatively. You admire it qualitatively, while taking into account how it would have been created compared to the average individual.

Few people have it.
The rest of us only wish we did.
None should be jealous about it and try to deny it exists.

Peano wrote:
How adroit you are at rejecting anomalies as "not relevant" to your bald assertions.

I'm not the one making an assertion, I know this is hard on you, but saying something "is not" is not considered an assertion.
Those who DO make the assertion have to prove it. There's no empirical evidence for it. Not for talent, not for "multiple intelligences"

Exceptions are not evidence 
I'm not saying "stop the research on it" I'm saying NOW there's no evidence to support the existence of innate abilities, so I can say "there's no such thing as talent" until is proven other wise.

I have a throat infection, but I'll get back to the debate soon.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
No need. I know what I think.

Those who make the CLAIM that TALENT exist need to prove it. I'm simply stating the non existence of something.

Why would I need to falsify something there is no proof of? The default for an issue like talent (the null hypothesis, if you will) is There is no talent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

That's pretty poor logic. Talent is understood to exist. Has been for a long time. It has no physical manifestation or properties of energy; it's merely a title awarded in recognition to a phenomenon that's synonymous with skill and is in wide spread public use. You're the one coming along and making the claim that said title doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you.

1k-words-photograpy wrote:
I certainly think you can practice your way to competency, so I'm with the OP there.

But some things you can't teach and I think there are multiple instances where you can not teach the difference between competent and great.

I disagree. You can teach most things. Some things are just harder to comprehend, hence take longer to learn, but to deny ability to learn is to go to the extreme (i.e., to say that people are stupid). Discounting a somatic disability, I think it's just mental laziness.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
I'm lost. How is talent bullshit?

It's one thing to criticize innate talent, or talent that you're born with sure, everyone struggles in the beginning but talent can be developed and grown. But this doesn't mean that everyone will be equally talented. All things being equal, there will be those who have a higher aptitude for any given artistic endeavor with comparatively little effort while others will struggle despite their best efforts.

+1

there are also some people that no matter how hard they work and how hard they try will never really be good at something.

Michael Lohr  wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree.
There are people that graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Photography in my class that still couldn't shoot a memorable picture to save their life.
If you have chance, watch the movie Amadeus. One can be good, but to be great their must be have a bit of talent.

My best friend, who passed on way to early, was always better than anyone in class. She struggled with the technical side. In fact, even after she became a professional, she still had some problems with that aspect. 
But there is a difference between good, great and genius. She was Genuis, most of the rest of us fall short.
http://www.cynthialevine.com/

+1

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
saying something "is not" is not considered an assertion.

Once again, you merely assert what you imagine to be true. And, again, you're mistaken. Since Aristotle, logicians have recognized four standard-form categorical propositions, two of which forms are negative. Here is an accurate description copied from Wikipedia:

In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies members of one category (the subject term) as belonging to another (the predicate term). The study of arguments using categorical statements (i.e., syllogisms) forms an important branch of deductive reasoning that began with the Ancient Greeks.

The Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle identified four primary distinct types of categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called A, E, I, and O). If, abstractly, the subject category is named S and the predicate category is named P, the four standard forms are:

- All S are P.
- No S are P.
- Some S are P.
- Some S are not P.

While I'm at it, I'll just toss in this passage from a textbook on logic. Note the author's use of "assert" in this excerpt:

A categorical proposition is a statement that relates two classes, or categories. The two classes in any given categorical proposition are placed in a subject-predicate relationship. Something is predicated, or asserted, about some subject. What is asserted is that a class (indicated by the subject term) is either included in or excluded from the class indicated by the predicate term. Thus, "No bachelor is married" asserts that the class indicated by the subject term (bachelors) is not found at all in the class indicated by the predicate term (married persons). Similarly, to say that all Catholic priests are male is to assert that everyone who is a Catholic priest (the subject term) is included in the male-class (the predicate term).

You said that talent "doesn't exist." That is a categorical proposition, an assertion.

Sorry, Natalia, but you can't defend your position by simply ruling all challenges to be out of bounds. First you reject anomalies as "not relevant" to your outlandish and unsupported claims, and now you sweep away 25 centuries of logic.

What are you going to heave overboard next? The Peano axioms?

That would cut me deeply.