Natural talent opinion by Dr K.A. Erisson

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

I have been reading one of Dr Ericsson's papers, but it's
slow-going. His writing style is rather typical of academics who use
multiple embedded references to other academics and other papers.

One section in his 2013 paper entitled "Why expert performance is
special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in
the general population: A response to criticisms" says:

[begin quote]

“A common misconception of the expert performance framework is that
this approach denies the possibility that differences in innate
talent could ever be able to explain individual differences in
attainable performance. The expert performance framework merely
requires that valid evidence for innate talents must be presented
and reviewed before it is accepted. This framework has long
acknowledged the possibility that individual genetic differences
might causally explain individual differences in elite achievement."

[end quote]

Break that down and what he says is that for his type of study that
he needs demonstrable proof that innate talent is a causal factor in
achieving expert performance. That would seem to be a requirement
that is impossible to fulfil because innate talent cannot be
determined. By the time a talent in a particular area is observed,
other factors like extensive practice or training have been
introduced. Extensive practice and/or training can be documented,
but whatever innate talent was present before the training or
practice cannot be documented.

Exactly. It cannot be documented, proven, pointed at or even shown. It's just
"there". Just like god.

However, he does not deny innate or natural talent, let alone call
it a "myth". He simply says he can't include it until someone
provides proof of it.

Exactly.

What is germane to this discussion is Dr Ericsson's acknowledgement
that there are common misconceptions that his studies seem to deny
the possibility of innate or natural talent.

Guess who, in this discussion, has been hooked like a fish on a
misconception. A deductive fallacy.

That would be you. Unsurprisingly.

--
Sandman

On 6/1/2015 12:42 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

Nor can it be disproved. If you give a 9 year-old boy who has never
before thrown darts three darts and tell him to throw them at the
target, and all three are in the bullseye area, you don't know if the
9 year-old scored well by luck or by some natural ability to sense a
proper throwing motion. You can't discount either reason.

If that boy then practices dart throwing for 10,000 hours and becomes
an expert dart-thrower, you can document his practice time. What you
will never know is if his motivation to put in the practice time was
prompted by his early success as a result of natural ability. You can
bring up "interest", but you can't rule out that the interest was
founded on early success based on natural ability.


Your example reminded me of an uncle, who had never bowled in his life.
Some of his friends talked him into trying it.
He threw twelve consecutive strikes, and declared that he was bored,
because there was nothing to bowling. He never picked up a bowling ball
again.


--
PeterN

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Sandman:
Exactly. It cannot be documented, proven, pointed at or even
shown. It's just "there". Just like god.

Nor can it be disproved.

I've never said it can. Just as god can't be disproven, yet it is my opinion -
based on the data available to me, that he doesn't exist. To me, this is a
fact, not just a mere guess or hope. God doesn't exist, period. In the same
way, talent doesn't exist, period.

There are many such things, like superstition. A lot of superstitious things
that are ingrained into people are there because most - or at least many - had
a practical reason to exist at one time, without the need for supernatural "bad
luck" or whatnot.

If you give a 9 year-old boy who has never
before thrown darts three darts and tell him to throw them at the
target, and all three are in the bullseye area, you don't know if
the 9 year-old scored well by luck or by some natural ability to
sense a proper throwing motion. You can't discount either reason.

Of course I can. The day "talent" is documented and its existence is proven,
then that's a possible reason. Until that day, it's not. Then it's either luck
or a result of training since the boy may have been throwing other things for a
long time, practicing motor skills, learning how the weight of the item affects
its trajectory and so on.

If that boy then practices dart throwing for 10,000 hours and
becomes an expert dart-thrower, you can document his practice time.
What you will never know is if his motivation to put in the practice
time was prompted by his early success as a result of natural
ability. You can bring up "interest", but you can't rule out that
the interest was founded on early success based on natural ability.

In that vain, nor can I rule out that magic made him good at darts, or god.
Right? It's equally possible in this made up scenario. He may have a dart-
loving guardian angel that helps him.

To declare something a myth, you must be able to disprove it just as
you must prove it to be able to declare it a fact.

False logic. The non-existence of something is hard or impossible to prove.
There are many things that people call myths that can't be proven to not exist,
with the examples I've already stated many times. Add things like unicorns or
Nessie to the mix. Both myths that (some) people still want to believe in even
though they can't prove their existence, and just because no one can disprove
their existence either. They're still myth's though.

Without proof or the ability to disprove, all you have is opinion.

Nor have I claimed to have anything else. At least my opinion is based on
information, studies and people that have tested these things. The people that
believe in myths are the ones that do so without data.

That's the path that many superior athletes follow. Early success
creates an interest level that is solidified with extensive practice
time. And, "natural talent" can be the reason for the early
successes.

"natural talent" that can't be shown by anyone that believes in its existence.

And my opinion isn't only based on what other's have concluded, it's also based
on experience, since I'm pretty creative myself. I know for a fact that I don't
have any "natural ability" to draw or paint, and I'd wager that most of the
people you know that are really skillful are really reluctant to ascribe that
skill to anything but the sheer amount of time they've spent getting good at
it. Every skilled person I know started out from the same point and were as bad
as everyone else when they first picked up a camera or a pen or a brush.

--
Sandman

On 1 Jun 2015 17:42:40 GMT, Sandman wrote:

I've never said it can. Just as god can't be disproven, yet it is my opinion -
based on the data available to me, that he doesn't exist. To me, this is a
fact, not just a mere guess or hope. God doesn't exist, period. In the same
way, talent doesn't exist, period.

Do you understand that this is the root of this entire argument? You
are stating above that, to you, your opinion = fact. So this entire
thread is revolves around the fact that most people do not consider
anyone's opinion to be a fact, unless it coincidentally is a provable
fact, of course. If you would stop interchanging the words "opinions"
with "facts", in your mind, and in print, these things could be
avoided, and these threads would not go on for 10,000 hours..

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Exactly. It cannot be documented, proven, pointed at
or even shown. It's just "there". Just like god.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Nor can it be disproved.

Sandman:
I've never said it can. Just as god can't be disproven, yet it is
my opinion - based on the data available to me, that he doesn't
exist. To me, this is a fact, not just a mere guess or hope. God
doesn't exist, period. In the same way, talent doesn't exist,
period.

There are many such things, like superstition. A lot of
superstitious things that are ingrained into people are there
because most - or at least many - had a practical reason to exist
at one time, without the need for supernatural "bad luck" or
whatnot.

Your argument style reminds me of the WWII practice of dumping chaff
in the form of aluminum foil strips from airplanes to provide false
echoes to avoid radar detection. This post, the attempted
distraction is the existence of God argument.

It's called an analogy, where the reasoning concerning X can be likened to the
reasoning concerning Y. You may or may not believe in a god, as you believe in
talent, and the two beliefs are very similar. Believing in something you can't
prove or show. I'm just a bit more rational than that.

Andreas Skitsnack:
If you give a 9 year-old boy who has never before thrown darts
three darts and tell him to throw them at the target, and all
three are in the bullseye area, you don't know if the 9 year-old
scored well by luck or by some natural ability to sense a proper
throwing motion. You can't discount either reason.

Sandman:
Of course I can. The day "talent" is documented and its existence
is proven, then that's a possible reason. Until that day, it's
not. Then it's either luck or a result of training since the boy
may have been throwing other things for a long time, practicing
motor skills, learning how the weight of the item affects its
trajectory and so on.

Oh, don't stop there. Give the 9 year-old credit for 10,000 hours
of practice starting with how he waved his rattle in his crib and
thus developed an expert throwing motion.

Hitting the bullseye three times in a row doesn't make you an expert, Andreas.

Andreas Skitsnack:
If that boy then practices dart throwing for 10,000 hours and
becomes an expert dart-thrower, you can document his practice
time. What you will never know is if his motivation to put in
the practice time was prompted by his early success as a result
of natural ability. You can bring up "interest", but you can't
rule out that the interest was founded on early success based on
natural ability.

Sandman:
In that vain, nor can I rule out that magic made him good at
darts, or god. Right? It's equally possible in this made up
scenario. He may have a dart- loving guardian angel that helps
him.

It's "vein", not "vain", but we'll let that go.

Troll tactic #7, point out a spelling mistake instead of responding to the
meaning of the sentence.

Andreas Skitsnack:
To declare something a myth, you must be able to disprove it
just as you must prove it to be able to declare it a fact.

Sandman:
False logic. The non-existence of something is hard or impossible
to prove.

And yet, at the beginning of this post, one of your first comments
is "talent doesn't exist, period".

Just as god doesn't exist, period. I have been very clear on the fact that this
is my opinion, and my conclusion based on the data available. I am 100% certain
that neither magic, god or talent exists.

There are many things that people call myths that can't be proven to not exist,
with the examples I've already stated many times. Add things like unicorns or
Nessie to the mix. Both myths that (some) people still want to believe in even
though they can't prove their existence, and just because no one can disprove
their existence either. They're still myth's though.

Without proof or the ability to disprove, all you have is opinion.

Nor have I claimed to have anything else. At least my opinion is based on
information, studies and people that have tested these things. The people that
believe in myths are the ones that do so without data.

That's the path that many superior athletes follow. Early success
creates an interest level that is solidified with extensive practice
time. And, "natural talent" can be the reason for the early
successes.

"natural talent" that can't be shown by anyone that believes in its existence.

And my opinion isn't only based on what other's have concluded, it's also based
on experience, since I'm pretty creative myself. I know for a fact that I don't
have any "natural ability" to draw or paint, and I'd wager that most of the
people you know that are really skillful are really reluctant to ascribe that
skill to anything but the sheer amount of time they've spent getting good at
it. Every skilled person I know started out from the same point and were as bad
as everyone else when they first picked up a camera or a pen or a brush.

--
Sandman

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
I've never said it can. Just as god can't be disproven, yet it is
my opinion - based on the data available to me, that he doesn't
exist. To me, this is a fact, not just a mere guess or hope. God
doesn't exist, period. In the same way, talent doesn't exist,
period.

Do you understand that this is the root of this entire argument? You
are stating above that, to you, your opinion = fact. So this entire
thread is revolves around the fact that most people do not consider
anyone's opinion to be a fact, unless it coincidentally is a
provable fact, of course. If you would stop interchanging the words
"opinions" with "facts", in your mind, and in print, these things
could be avoided, and these threads would not go on for 10,000
hours..

Not at all. I have been clear from the start that this is my opinion, but that my
opinion is based on studies that has been made on this topic. It's just not some
wild thought in my head.

Studies has shown that superior skill is the result of interest and practice.

That, combined with how my own skills have evolved, as well as the very skilled
people I know of, plus the fact that this supposed "talent" thing is just a word
connected to something that can't be shown or displayed in any way, makes it a
fact to me.

I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as a fact, but I do encourage others to
look at the studies and think for themselves. So far, no one proposing the
existence of "talent" has shown any actual reason for them to believe in it.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Sandman:
It's called an analogy, where the reasoning concerning X can be
likened to the reasoning concerning Y.

You seem to have a natural talent for ignoring the obvious. I used
an analogy, and then you proceed to explain to me what an analogy
is.

You mistook the analogy for a "distraction", which was incorrect. Just
explaining the obvious.

Sandman:
In that vain, nor can I rule out that magic made him
good at darts, or god. Right? It's equally possible in this
made up scenario. He may have a dart- loving guardian angel
that helps him.

Andreas Skitsnack:
It's "vein", not "vain", but we'll let that go.

Sandman:
Troll tactic #7, point out a spelling mistake instead of
responding to the meaning of the sentence.

The mistake was the only interesting part of the sentence.

Of course, since you can't debate the topic, you attack some small detail and
snip the rest.

Sandman:
They're still myth's though.
And my opinion isn't only based on what other's have concluded,
it's also based on experience, since I'm pretty creative myself.

Especially creative with the truth.

No need, the truth is pretty awesome as it, no need for your misdirections at
all.

And yet, at the beginning of this post, one of your first comments
is "talent doesn't exist, period".

Just as god doesn't exist, period. I have been very clear on the fact that this
is my opinion, and my conclusion based on the data available. I am 100% certain
that neither magic, god or talent exists.

There are many things that people call myths that can't be proven to not exist,
with the examples I've already stated many times. Add things like unicorns or
Nessie to the mix. Both myths that (some) people still want to believe in even
though they can't prove their existence, and just because no one can disprove
their existence either. They're still myth's though.

Without proof or the ability to disprove, all you have is opinion.

Nor have I claimed to have anything else. At least my opinion is based on
information, studies and people that have tested these things. The people that
believe in myths are the ones that do so without data.

That's the path that many superior athletes follow. Early success
creates an interest level that is solidified with extensive practice
time. And, "natural talent" can be the reason for the early
successes.

"natural talent" that can't be shown by anyone that believes in its existence.

And my opinion isn't only based on what other's have concluded, it's also based
on experience, since I'm pretty creative myself. I know for a fact that I don't
have any "natural ability" to draw or paint, and I'd wager that most of the
people you know that are really skillful are really reluctant to ascribe that
skill to anything but the sheer amount of time they've spent getting good at
it. Every skilled person I know started out from the same point and were as bad
as everyone else when they first picked up a camera or a pen or a brush.

--
Sandman

On 2 Jun 2015 16:18:51 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:
Without proof or the ability to disprove, all you have is opinion.

Nor have I claimed to have anything else.

But you keep using the word "fact", and making statements with
"period" following those statements, such as, "Just as god doesn't
exist, period", from earlier in this post. So of course you are
claiming to have something else. Do you really not see the problem
with that?

You could stop most of this argument by simply ceasing to call your
opinions, "facts".

On 2 Jun 2015 05:48:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

Studies has shown that superior skill is the result of interest and practice.

That, combined with how my own skills have evolved, as well as the very skilled
people I know of, plus the fact that this supposed "talent" thing is just a word
connected to something that can't be shown or displayed in any way, makes it a
fact to me.

I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as a fact, but I do encourage others to
look at the studies and think for themselves. So far, no one proposing the
existence of "talent" has shown any actual reason for them to believe in it.

Let's get back to the original subject. I'm sure you are aware that
Nikola Tesla claimed that he would build machines in his mind, let
them run a couple of weeks, and then disassemble them to check for
wear. All in his mind, again. Are you also aware that some people
cannot visualize anything at all? And that includes a *lot* of people?
Would you not agree that Tesla had a pretty good head start on those
people who cannot visualize?

And it can't get any more relevant to the subject at hand. When you
see something to photograph, I am going to assume that you know what
the photo is going to look like, correct? What about someone who can't
visualize? All they can do is fire away, and then pick the lucky shots
out of the batch. even if you want to argue that visualization can be
learned, and I disagree, the person who was born with an exceptional
ability to visualize could reasonably be described as having an innate
ability, or talent, for certain tasks that either require, or are
greatly aided by visualization.

I bring this up because I'm one of those people who can't visualize at
all. (Yes, photography is an odd choice for a hobby.) Both my mother
and sister were artists, so one day when I was much younger, I decided
to sit down and draw someone I knew very well. The problem was that I
quickly realized that I had no idea what this person looked like, and
I never made a mark on the paper. Can't I reasonable argue that my
sister an mother both had a talent that I was totally lacking?

In article , Bill W wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Without proof or the ability to disprove, all you have is
opinion.

Sandman:
Nor have I claimed to have anything else.

But you keep using the word "fact", and making statements with
"period" following those statements, such as, "Just as god doesn't
exist, period", from earlier in this post.

Here is the sentence:

"To me, this is a fact, not just a mere guess or hope."

Clearly labelling the subjectiveness of this fact. I'm sure there are many
"facts" in your life you know for sure but can't prove.

So of course you are claiming to have something else.

Nope.

Do you really not see the problem with that?

I really don't. I have an opinion, based on data. That has lead me to the
conclusion.

You could stop most of this argument by simply ceasing to call your
opinions, "facts".

No I couldn't, Andreas is a troll and will argue about anything for weeks
regardless.

--
Sandman