Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
"If you knew how much work went into it, you would not call it genius."
- Michelangelo, on the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, as quoted in Speeches & Presentations Unzipped (2007) by Lori Rozakis, p. 71.

What a strange quote. I wonder, of all the people who have ever looked into all the work and effort that Einstein put into his studies such as the mass-energy equivalence equation, special relativity and general relativity, the photoelectric effect, wave/particle duality and so on, how many of those people would be foolish enough not to consider Einstein a genius?

Looking up the word "talent" in a thesaurus gave the following: skill, ability, proficiency, expertise, knack, aptitude, flair and competence. These are all words that can swapped with the word talent so to say that "talent is overrated" is equivalent to saying that skill is overrated, or that competency is overrated. Likewise, to say that "talent is BS", or that you "don't believe in talent" is the same as saying that proficiency is BS or that you don't believe in expertise. This position doesn't make any sense.

I think what you and Natalia are getting hung up on is the term, "born with." As in static or unchanging. But it doesn't mean that talent is born in a vacuum or will always remain the same. We're each born quite small but grow over time and in much the same way, talent can be nurtured to grow and expand beyond what it originally once was. It need only be given the proper attention.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
What a strange quote. I wonder, of all the people who have ever looked into all the work and effort that Einstein put into his studies such as the mass-energy equivalence equation, special relativity and general relativity, the photoelectric effect, wave/particle duality and so on, how many of those people would be foolish enough not to consider Einstein a genius?

"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
- Albert Einstein

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
I think what you and Natalia are getting hung up on is the term, "born with." As in static or unchanging. But it doesn't mean that talent is born in a vacuum or will always remain the same. We're each born quite small but grow over time and in much the same way, talent can be nurtured to grow and expand beyond what it originally once was. It need only be given the proper attention.

No what I say is that talent too often gets credited where credit belongs to other attributes.

How can you know how much of it was "talent" and how much  of it was the right circumstances + right choices that have nothing to do with with any innate favorable ability. You can't, since there are so many factory that you would have to put a child from it's infancy under a microscope and monitor everything before you can say how much was innate and how much can be replicated? And even if you could create "The Truman Show" to do that, you would effect the development simply by your presence and monitoring. The problem is linking the results to innate ability versus linking it to the choices that we all can make combined with favorable or distinct circumstances.

Magnus Carlsen. The worlds highest rated player ever with an incredible rating of 2868. (2.April 2013)

At the age of 13, Magnus Carlsen was the world's youngest Chess Grand Master. The Carlsen family sublet their house for a year in order to travel around with Magnus and help him fulfill his potential as a world class chess player. From Iceland to Libya, he has sought battle with chess icons such as Kasparov, Karpov and Shirov.

Carlsen showed an aptitude for intellectual challenges at a young age: at two years, he could solve 50-piece jigsaw puzzles; and at four, enjoyed assembling lego sets with instructions intended for children aged 10–14. His father taught him to play chess at the age of five, although he initially showed little interest in the game. The first-ever chess book he read was Bent Larsen's Find the Plan. Carlsen developed his early chess skills by playing alone for hours at a time—moving the pieces around the chessboard, searching for combinations, and replaying games and positions shown to him by his father. He participated in his first tournament—the youngest division of the 1999 Norwegian Chess Championship—at the age of eight years and seven months, scoring 61/11 Carlsen was later coached at the Norwegian College of Elite Sport by the country's top player, Grandmaster (GM) Simen Agdestein.

In 2000, Agdestein introduced Torbjorn Ringdal Hansen, an International Master (IM) and former Norwegian junior champion, to Carlsen, and they started weekly training sessions in March. Carlsen made remarkable progress with Hansen, gaining over a thousand rating points in little more than a year. His "breakthrough" tournament occurred in the Norwegian junior teams championship in September of 2000, where Carlsen scored 31/5 against the top junior players of the country, and a tournament performance rating (TPR) of about 2000. Apart from chess, which Carlsen studied about three to four hours a day, his favorite pastimes included football, skiing, and reading Donald Duck comics.

...it seems obvious at first that a kid has a talent and that is what he is today. But I wonder, if instead he head an abusive parents and was born in Africa in some war torn region instead,  had to work for living by selling shoes made out of old tires etc. Would he be the Prince of Chess today. I doubt it. So how much does talent vs favorable circumstances early and later in life vs choices make up for the success a person has? Hard work, dedication and supreme focus on one thing backed up by amazing logistics. How do you measure it? How many "talented" individuals are out there you never heard off because they had low self esteem issues from wrong childhood experiences, wrong century, simply bad luck, like illness or accident etc. Or simply became to arrogant and did not work hard enough. Got out competed by those that did. We see that in Sports all the time. Could it be that we are all talented but are not considered talented. Could it be that there is much more at work here than "I'm special".

If you look at many that left a mark in the history and are often considered talented what you will find is that somebody helped them and provided by accident or by choice logistics needed to succeed. But many are not that lucky. And many will tell you I am not talented since I had to work for it.

Michael Jordan 'Maybe It's My Fault' Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSVu76AX3I

How about persistence factor?
Michael Jordan "Failure" Nike Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc

Michael Jordan's work ethic and competitiveness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peibLmDfOeE

And did you hear where his competitiveness came from. Did you hear the story about how he grew up in a supper competitive home where you had to compete. He had to develop that mindset early on. What would happen if he was an only child and rich right from the start. Would he had to compete with the same vigor and wire his brain in that way. Don't you think that played a part. Oh and let's not forget that he was not born in the time of slavery. With his "genetic advantages" his "talent" might have been used in a different way and you would never know of him.

So how exactly do you measure talent to give you the right to call a person successful because they are talented. What about all the rest of it. I'm sure many who are called that might resent the fact the the hard work don't get the credit it deserves. Remember: what we do in private, we get rewarded in public. But we are not watched in private we are judged by what they see in public. Most talented people will tell you talent is overrated. Besides, isn't Natalia called talented all the time?

Zorka wrote:
Rome ne s'est pas faite en un jour.

+1

Gulag wrote:
Not necessarily.

Art history is littered with dusts of many failed artists in their own time but now considered art geniuses. Vincent van Gogh, and Paul Cezanne were stupid, lazy and undedicated?

Have you heard about Van Gogh syndrome. Innovation but no marketing. His brother Theo was no better marketer despite ironically being an art dealer that supported Vincent. It was lack of focus on marketing that made Vincent be a business failure not a failure as an artist. Being a starving artist is a choice.

Gulag wrote:
Some may be able to develop their skill set well enough to make comfortable living but that doesn't mean they have become "talented" in the classical sense. What sets geniuses apart is pure talent. How about examples, such as Caravaggio , and Johannes Vermeer?

For example Caravaggio defied Status quo just as any memorable artist did. He was a rebel, but it cost him his life. His arrogance meant that he lost his fortune, freedom (multiple times incarnadined) and finally dies and buried in an unmarked grave out of malaria or some such disease. Died at 38. While he was a live in Napoli many artists copied him and made technically speaking better image then him. His vision as an artist can be explained by simply being born at the right time and also by his rebellious nature that by miracle of circumstances gets' rewarded. Catholic Church was in need of art, lot's of art for their Churches in 16th and 17th century Rome. They were in the battle of "the souls" with the Protestants. So unlike Protestants they decided, we will take another approach. We will not only let pilgrims read the Bible, after all many can't read we will use advertising. And we need fresh paintings that are more provocative than others. That is where Caravaggio comes in. But he would have never gotten the chance and you would never know of hims, probably be dead in some bar.

Himself being from a violent streets of Milan and Rome at the time, he had an unique perspective to paint images common pilgrims can relate better.  But before Caravaggio can have a chance to use his perspective from the street to paint different paining he realized that you can't just innovate in business you have to market as well. And his marketing was to network. Here is how he gets commissioned. How you know about him in the first place. Without this choice and set of circumstances he would be dead before he can paint his masterpieces.

Andrew Graham-Dixon: Caravaggio, Mad Marketing Genius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XVw1yiRWU

Circumstances, plus right choices is why we know of him. And don't know about many others. His rebellious nature ultimately killed him but it also made him paint in a way that challenges Status quo. Unlike when Rembrandt was ostracised for it he was in the right place at the right time.

Oh, BTW he was largely unknown for much of the history after his death, he became known after Rembrandt I believe and even more so in 20th century when they started teaching about him.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
- Albert Einstein

That didn't answer the question.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
No what I say is that talent too often gets credited where credit belongs to other attributes.

No one is arguing that training, study and other such factors aren't important. As I've already shown, talent is synonymous with expertise. You don't get expertise without study, training and experience. Talent is synonymous with proficiency. You don't get proficient without practice and experience. Talent is synonymous with skill, aptitude, competency, etc. With higher levels of said skill/aptitude/competency/expertise/talent comes repeatability (within a certain degree). No one here is arguing that talent can't be learned or nurtured we've all argued the opposite. Indeed, your examples of Magnus Carlsen and Micheal Jordan only illustrate that point. After all, you're not arguing that simply because someone was fortunate enough to be born in certain location or with certain people around them that they were just lucky are you? Of course not. What you're over looking is that talent is just another way of saying skill. Don't believe me, grab a thesaurus and have a look for yourself.

Hard work and effort doesn't negate skill, it improves it.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:

That didn't answer the question.

I thought it did. It is their perspective about calling him Genius. That is the label for result not the road he took to get there. But he did it so he know what he did or did not do. And according to him, it was not talent that made him Genius it was passionate curiosity to keep learning and exploring. Things we all poses.

And if you replace all that with the word talent, than how can someone have or not have talent? Its' no longer something you either have or don't have, it becomes and is a matter of personal choice. Will you do the things you need to or will you choose not to do them. We either all have choice or non of us don't. I don't think word talent implies exactly the same thing.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
What you're over looking is that talent is just another way of saying skill. Don't believe me, grab a thesaurus and have a look for yourself.

Not sure that is the case.

tal·ent  - Noun

1.   Natural aptitude or skill.
2.   A person or people possessing such aptitude or skill: "the talent in their Toledo clubhouse".

Synonyms
gift - aptitude - ability - faculty - genius - capability

An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained.

It is way to often refereed to in the context of having natural advantage. But yet we label hard work, focus and dedication as "talent".  And we call successful people often talented. That is the misconception I'm arguing against. We don't say he or she is a hard working and focused (you know the things I can do as well), we say he or she is talented. Almost as if to imply that they have a God given right to be so skillful at their field beyond what we can do.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
No one is arguing that training, study and other such factors aren't important.

Really? I get that sense every time somebody replaces such factor with the familiar label.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
As I've already shown, talent is synonymous with expertise.

I don't have that experience. I know plenty of individuals who don't get the "talented" label but they do get "expert" label.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
After all, you're not arguing that simply because someone was fortunate enough to be born in certain location or with certain people around them that they were just lucky are you? Of course not.

It is more often than not the favorable circumstances that gave them the advantage rather than innate nature of aptitude that gave them that advantage - something you can't even measure that is what I'm arguing. So when you have both individuals with same focus and hard work and dedication but they have different starting points (circumstances), guess who will win? And guess who will be labeled talented.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
What you're over looking is that talent is just another way of saying skill.

Yes and no. It is true we often label skillful people talented but it is not the same thing as skill. Result and the component that made the result possible is where you and I deffer in opinion. The road to the required skill level is where the use of word talent gives another implication. That is the part I'm making an argument against. Not the result. The road to result has different implications when the word talent is used.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
And according to him, it was not talent that made him Genius it was passionate curiosity to keep learning and exploring. Things we all poses.

He didn't say he had no talent, he said he had no special talent - an important distinction because it implies that others too, can achieve the same thing (or at least something similar). 

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Not sure that is the case.

tal·ent  - Noun

1.   Natural aptitude or skill.
2.   A person or people possessing such aptitude or skill: "the talent in their Toledo clubhouse".

What do you mean you're not sure that's the case? You just defined talent as natural aptitude or skill and even went on to expand upon that.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Really? I get that sense every time somebody replaces such factor with the familiar label.

You're confusing a legitimate word or phrase with a lousy excuse.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
It is more often than not the favorable circumstances that gave them the advantage rather than innate nature of aptitude that gave them that advantage - something you can't even measure that is what I'm arguing. So when you have both individuals with same focus and hard work and dedication but they have different starting points (circumstances), guess who will win? And guess who will be labeled talented.

Possibly both. How often have we heard the story of the under dog coming from the slums to rise up and defeat an opponent that had seemingly more favorable conditions? Regardless of the outcome though, talent isn't a black and white term. There are many different levels of talent so yes, some will be considered to have a high degree of talent while others may have very little talent but they still have some degree of talent nevertheless. The talent you find in a high school basketball team likely isn't as high as the talent you find in the NBA, but those kids still have talent. 

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Yes and no. It is true we often label skillful people talented but it is not the same thing as skill.

Even though you previously defined it as such.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Result and the component that made the result possible is where you and I deffer in opinion. The road to the required skill level is where the use of word talent gives another implication. That is the part I'm making an argument against. Not the result. The road to result has different implications when the word talent is used.

Do you realize you're contradicting yourself. You defined talent as skill and even went on to support that definition and now you're trying to argue otherwise? I don't think you thought this through very well...

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
No what I say is that talent too often gets credited where credit belongs to other attributes.

How can you know how much of it was "talent" and how much  of it was the right circumstances + right choices that have nothing to do with with any innate favorable ability. You can't, since there are so many factory that you would have to put a child from it's infancy under a microscope and monitor everything before you can say how much was innate and how much can be replicated? And even if you could create "The Truman Show" to do that, you would effect the development simply by your presence and monitoring. The problem is linking the results to innate ability versus linking it to the choices that we all can make combined with favorable or distinct circumstances.

Magnus Carlsen. The worlds highest rated player ever with an incredible rating of 2868. (2.April 2013)

At the age of 13, Magnus Carlsen was the world's youngest Chess Grand Master. The Carlsen family sublet their house for a year in order to travel around with Magnus and help him fulfill his potential as a world class chess player. From Iceland to Libya, he has sought battle with chess icons such as Kasparov, Karpov and Shirov.

Carlsen showed an aptitude for intellectual challenges at a young age: at two years, he could solve 50-piece jigsaw puzzles; and at four, enjoyed assembling lego sets with instructions intended for children aged 10–14. His father taught him to play chess at the age of five, although he initially showed little interest in the game. The first-ever chess book he read was Bent Larsen's Find the Plan. Carlsen developed his early chess skills by playing alone for hours at a time—moving the pieces around the chessboard, searching for combinations, and replaying games and positions shown to him by his father. He participated in his first tournament—the youngest division of the 1999 Norwegian Chess Championship—at the age of eight years and seven months, scoring 61/11 Carlsen was later coached at the Norwegian College of Elite Sport by the country's top player, Grandmaster (GM) Simen Agdestein.

In 2000, Agdestein introduced Torbjorn Ringdal Hansen, an International Master (IM) and former Norwegian junior champion, to Carlsen, and they started weekly training sessions in March. Carlsen made remarkable progress with Hansen, gaining over a thousand rating points in little more than a year. His "breakthrough" tournament occurred in the Norwegian junior teams championship in September of 2000, where Carlsen scored 31/5 against the top junior players of the country, and a tournament performance rating (TPR) of about 2000. Apart from chess, which Carlsen studied about three to four hours a day, his favorite pastimes included football, skiing, and reading Donald Duck comics.

...it seems obvious at first that a kid has a talent and that is what he is today. But I wonder, if instead he head an abusive parents and was born in Africa in some war torn region instead,  had to work for living by selling shoes made out of old tires etc. Would he be the Prince of Chess today. I doubt it. So how much does talent vs favorable circumstances early and later in life vs choices make up for the success a person has? Hard work, dedication and supreme focus on one thing backed up by amazing logistics. How do you measure it? How many "talented" individuals are out there you never heard off because they had low self esteem issues from wrong childhood experiences, wrong century, simply bad luck, like illness or accident etc. Or simply became to arrogant and did not work hard enough. Got out competed by those that did. We see that in Sports all the time. Could it be that we are all talented but are not considered talented. Could it be that there is much more at work here than "I'm special".

If you look at many that left a mark in the history and are often considered talented what you will find is that somebody helped them and provided by accident or by choice logistics needed to succeed. But many are not that lucky. And many will tell you I am not talented since I had to work for it.

Michael Jordan 'Maybe It's My Fault' Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSVu76AX3I

How about persistence factor?
Michael Jordan "Failure" Nike Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc

Michael Jordan's work ethic and competitiveness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peibLmDfOeE

And did you hear where his competitiveness came from. Did you hear the story about how he grew up in a supper competitive home where you had to compete. He had to develop that mindset early on. What would happen if he was an only child and rich right from the start. Would he had to compete with the same vigor and wire his brain in that way. Don't you think that played a part. Oh and let's not forget that he was not born in the time of slavery. With his "genetic advantages" his "talent" might have been used in a different way and you would never know of him.

So how exactly do you measure talent to give you the right to call a person successful because they are talented. What about all the rest of it. I'm sure many who are called that might resent the fact the the hard work don't get the credit it deserves. Remember: what we do in private, we get rewarded in public. But we are not watched in private we are judged by what they see in public. Most talented people will tell you talent is overrated. Besides, isn't Natalia called talented all the time?

Talent is innate. Whether it's fostered or not is another issue. Had those people not had as much talent, they would not have gone as far. More talent does not always equal more success. And more successful people don't always have more talent. So yes, hard work does play a role in it. But all other things being equal as far as hard work, desire, drive, etc. talent will allow a person to go farther in a given field. It's scientifically verified. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different processing. If one part develops quicker and stronger, the types of processing that area is responsible for will also be allowed to develop quicker and stronger. Physiology plays a role in this. If blood circulation is better in certain regions of the brain, those areas will develop more than others. That isn't something that can be controlled by anyone.

Some people can see a 3-D object and know how it will look from every angle. Some can't. No matter how much they work at it, they just can't. That's fact.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
He didn't say he had no talent, he said he had no special talent - an important distinction because it implies that others too, can achieve the same thing (or at least something similar).

Well, isn't that my argument?

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
You're confusing a legitimate word or phrase with a lousy excuse.

That was my whole point. You rarely hear "talent" people talk about how talented they are, it's usually from those who use it as an excuse. The "talented" ones know what they did to get to where they are.

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Even though you previously defined it as such.

Actually I searched for talent definition on Google, gave me aptitude or skill, but than I wrote what aptitude is in more details and there is a distinct difference. Read the bold. So yes it would seem I am contradicted myself, but probably because the definition is not as accurate or comprehensive enough in Google search. Should have stated that, my bad. 

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Do you realize you're contradicting yourself. You defined talent as skill and even went on to support that definition and now you're trying to argue otherwise? I don't think you thought this through very well...

I just explain that. But skill is not. It is a component that would help you become more skillful. Although we often in common language label skillful people as talented. That could be the reason why they use skill in the definition I would imagine. Further reading expands the meaning in more detail. And you can see the lines I made in bold for that.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Talent is innate. Whether it's fostered or not is another issue. Had those people not had as much talent, they would not have gone as far. More talent does not always equal more success. And more successful people don't always have more talent. So yes, hard work does play a role in it. But all other things being equal as far as hard work, desire, drive, etc. talent will allow a person to go farther in a given field.

The question that I'm asking is how can you measure how much was talent in the success formula.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
It's scientifically verified. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different processing. If one part develops quicker and stronger, the types of processing that area is responsible for will also be allowed to develop quicker and stronger. Physiology plays a role in this. If blood circulation is better in certain regions of the brain, those areas will develop more than others. That isn't something that can be controlled by anyone.

But if there is a crucial period in a child or infant even when it will wire it's brain in a certain way after it came out of it's mother womb, being exposed to certain circumstances will influence the brain. Would it not? If at a young age right from the start you are exposed to certain kind of music wouldn't that give you an advantage how you brain develops. And could that be what we refeard to as talent so often. If it's not how can you tell how much is or isn't?

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Some people can see a 3-D object and know how it will look from every angle. Some can't. No matter how much they work at it, they just can't. That's fact.

Could be, although if by the time they try to master that skill they have already done some many other things that their brain is simply not conditioned enough to do it. I would think we all have power of visualization, especially if we practice it.

When I started retouching I could not understand color correction. Would make horrible choices at first. But after enough practice I have trained my eyes. I assure you it was no talent involved for that and any other thing I attempted. Simple principles that we all can do if we believe we can that is, what brought me the results. Its the self esteem deficiencies and limiting beliefs that more clearly separate people than talent. In other words those that believe they can and those that believe they can+t are both right. So when someone don't make it or can't do something I contribute that to their beliefs, not talent.

A-M-P wrote:
I guess talent/Vision can be taught if you study it enough and are smart enough to grasp it.

I disagree. Technique can be taught. Vision is something that comes from within.

A-M-P wrote:
For example if you like a photo if you study it enough and are intelligent in your execution it should be no problem replicating it.

That depends on the photo.

If it's a shot of packet of chips or maybe a landscape or a house interior, then yes, if you study it hard enough and learn enough technique you will be able to replicate it.

If, however, you're talking about a photo of a model that has a lot of emotional impact - then no. You need talent to do that and even then you will never replicate it exactly. You might get close - your image might even have more appeal to a proportion of people - but you'll never replicate it exactly because the image you are trying to copy is a unique moment between that model and that photographer that will never be repeated, ever.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

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

I think your talented.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Thank you

So far ONE showed how their "talent" started!

Don't be shy!

x

Looking at Playboy.

AKMac wrote:
I have a challenge for you Natalia. Can you give a definition of 'talent' and, at the same time maintain that it doesn't exist.

Sure:

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

In fact, cognitive neuroscience data gathered from research doesn't support individuals being "innately good at something" since the neurological paths for general intelligence (awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment - knowing WHAT and WHERE) are share with the neural cognitive pathways for music, general language, emotions and visual/motor skills.

Meaning... if you're intelligent you can pretty much do anything that YOU WANT to do.

The rest would be nurture (surrounding, culture, parental pressure, etc)

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Do you realize you're contradicting yourself. You defined talent as skill and even went on to support that definition and now you're trying to argue otherwise? I don't think you thought this through very well...

Do you understand the difference between innate skill and skill?

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
It's scientifically verified. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different processing. If one part develops quicker and stronger, the types of processing that area is responsible for will also be allowed to develop quicker and stronger.

Where did you get that from?  Yes, different parts of the brain responsible for different processing. Such as MEMORY or EMPATHY - Not cognitive development. Cognitive neurological pathways are shared within different socially defined "talents"

More so, between mediocre people, the "different intelligences" theory and the disconnection between "creativity" and IQ are very popular, that doesn't mean is more than BS.

There's no evidence for "different intelligences"

IQ is IN FACT very much related to creativity.
The only thing they showed is that not everyone with a high IQ was creative. Everyone started stating: There's no connection between Creativity and IQ - Implying you can be dumb and creative, yet this isn't true
YOU NEED a high IQ to be creative
Talk about using information to fit your world view.

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

Unfortunately, to make this case by example, one has to show that one still doesn't suck. So I'll pass on posting any of my own retouching work.

But to the discussion at hand...

What's the usefulness of the concept of innate talent? Does the absence of apparent innate talent mean anyone should stop trying to get better? If so, why and under what circumstances?

In Balance Photography wrote:
Unfortunately, to make this case by example, one has to show that one still doesn't suck. So I'll pass on posting any of my own retouching work.

But to the discussion at hand...

What's the usefulness of the concept of innate talent? Does the absence of apparent innate talent mean anyone should stop trying to get better? If so, why and under what circumstances?

Your talented.

In Balance Photography wrote:
Unfortunately, to make this case by example, one has to show that one still doesn't suck. So I'll pass on posting any of my own retouching work.

But to the discussion at hand...

What's the usefulness of the concept of innate talent? Does the absence of apparent innate talent mean anyone should stop trying to get better? If so, why and under what circumstances?

Your very talented.

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

I understand your sentiment but I disagree with you. I think talent, intelligence and skill go hand in hand. (Skill being the attainment of knowledge through hard work and dedication and intelligence quotient being the marker for how well you absorb knowledge of course.)

I believe the more natural talent one has the faster one picks up new skill sets in life. The less talent the slower. But with or without talent one can eventually get there. AND without talent or skill a "hack" can get to the "top" of the heap with the right "bullshit" skill sets... (Note: the "hacks" work will likely be seen as garbage by most with said talent and or skill but adorned by the masses said hack was able to bullshit...)

That said here is something I started doing last year. Updating the same image to see if I can apply any "new" skills to it to improve upon it. The upper left is the out of camera raw UN-edited version the other 3 panels are 3 years worth of acquired skill and OR new vision... I guess you could say.



I recommend this to anyone as a way to track what you do/learn see/feel...

Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
...

So, it took you N years to effect that change in output. Does 'N' constitute talent? If not, would N/100 constitute talent?

Is talent a measure of speed of progression? Or final success?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
IQ is IN FACT very much related to creativity.

IQ measures academic abilities not creative. Creativity sometimes does not follow logic and that is very much a part of IQ.
Creativity breaks rules which is against logic.

Being able to arrange shapes in a IQ test does not automatically mean you can create them.

Terrell Gates wrote:
Would you say Mozart learned his,"talent?"  I have a feeling hard work and persistence would not a Mozart make...

Of the whole worlds population, how many people do you think *would* become Mozart like with hard work and persistence?

Who are these people?

In Balance Photography wrote:
Unfortunately, to make this case by example, one has to show that one still doesn't suck. So I'll pass on posting any of my own retouching work.

But to the discussion at hand...

What's the usefulness of the concept of innate talent? Does the absence of apparent innate talent mean anyone should stop trying to get better? If so, why and under what circumstances?

The discussion is not about getting better, because of innate talent.

The discussion is about its existence.

In Balance Photography wrote:
...Is talent a measure of speed of progression? Or final success?

Neither. Talent is a measure of your natural aptitude to "do" it (anything) in the first place talent does not grow and cannot be measured only compared to others which can pose difficult as skill can make up for lack of talent.

Final success is always a combination of talent and skill and unfortunately sometimes ability to bullshit well.

It's not a case of either you have it or you don't its a matter of how much talent AND skill you have which is why there are varying degrees of quality of work out there.

My opinion/observations/education speaking here as always of course and anyone can believe whatever they chose as well.

Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
Neither. Talent is a measure of your natural aptitude to "do" it (anything) in the first place talent does not grow and cannot be measured only compared to others which can pose difficult as skill can make up for lack of talent.

Final success is always a combination of talent and skill and unfortunately sometimes ability to bullshit well.

It's not a case of either you have it or you don't its a matter of how much talent AND skill you have which is why there are varying degrees of quality of work out there.

My opinion/observations/education speaking here as always of course and anyone can believe whatever they chose as well.

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?

Terrell Gates wrote:
Would you say Mozart learned his,"talent?"  I have a feeling hard work and persistence would not a Mozart make...

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

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

Exactly. Those who can't fully make it in an specific area use it to describe others who did.

But nobody big will tell you: I was born talented.

" thirty-seven years I've practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius!!"

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Exactly. Those who can't fully make it in an specific area use it to describe others who did.


" thirty-seven years I've practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius!!"

Not sure if Photoshop was around thirty seven years ago...... Genius or a lot if time on your hands.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Not sure if Photoshop was around thirty seven years ago...... Genius or a lot if time on your hands.

“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)