Natural talent opinion by Dr K.A. Erisson

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
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?

Not a head start no, but a skill. Visualization is a good tool and it is taught
in many schools. I use it myself all the time. And it's not something you need
to be "born with", it's a technique that anyone can learn to use, if they want
to. Some people find no interest in utilizing this technique since they have no
interest in benefitting from it.

As an example, my eldest kid had real problems with maths, it was too abstract
for him. He couldn't wrap his head around these abstract numbers.

So I showed him how I visualized the numbers, how to make them represent more
concrete objects and see the addition and subtraction inside your head. This
helped him a lot and while he still thinks math is hard, he is better at
visualizing the problems now.

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.

You are free to believe that "visualization" is something people are born with.
I disagree, for obvious reasons.

When using a camera, visualization is actually less of a problem,since cameras
have a finder and it's "WYSIWYG", what you see is what you get. So the
resulting photo will not look a lot different from what you saw in the finder.
Camera settings to expose as you want has nothing to do with visualization,
only knowledge about the camera.

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?

Not if you ask me. You had a lack of interest in drawing, so you've never
practiced. While visualization is more important when drawing than when taking
photos, it's still a learned technique.

Someone interested in drawing (like me) will be forced to visualize the
subjects. You could even say that a early interest in drawing and painting will
add "visualization" to your skills as a bonus feature, because your eagerness
to draw better will force your inner visualization to become better as well.

To pick up a pen and draw a more or less perfect portrait of someone requires
years of practice, regardless of how much you've practiced visualization
before. I can't do it, and I'm fairly good at drawing and visualization.

So when your mother and sister draws perfect portraits of people from memory,
they have spent years and years practicing a number of techniques, where
visualization is but one of them.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

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

I gotta laugh at someone who says the other person argues, but
responds to every post with an argument.

It's the "about anything" part that is your problem.

Arguments are good, and a natural part of a discussion forum. You, on the other
hand, rarely argue about the topic, you will find some small detail, some
spelling mistake, some grammar flame and focus on that. The reason is of course
because you're not knowledgable enough to argue that actual topic, but you just
can't help yourself, you have to have the attention.

--
Sandman

On 3 Jun 2015 05:49:46 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
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?

Not a head start no, but a skill.

So you agree that he was born with that skill, and that others have to
work for it? Is that not, then, an innate ability?

Visualization is a good tool and it is taught
in many schools. I use it myself all the time. And it's not something you need
to be "born with", it's a technique that anyone can learn to use, if they want
to. Some people find no interest in utilizing this technique since they have no
interest in benefitting from it.

But again, some people are born with it?

As an example, my eldest kid had real problems with maths, it was too abstract
for him. He couldn't wrap his head around these abstract numbers.

So I showed him how I visualized the numbers, how to make them represent more
concrete objects and see the addition and subtraction inside your head. This
helped him a lot and while he still thinks math is hard, he is better at
visualizing the problems now.

Sure, but trust me, some people cannot visualize no matter how much
effort they put into it. Why you think otherwise is beyond me. I can
generally multiply a couple of 2 digit numbers in my head, but only by
using "tricks". I cannot see the numbers no matter how hard I try, so
I can't carry numbers over. All I get is a blank screen. There is
absolutely nothing there when I close my eyes and try to picture
anything.

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?

Not if you ask me. You had a lack of interest in drawing, so you've never
practiced. While visualization is more important when drawing than when taking
photos, it's still a learned technique.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about me, and you're wrong.

So when your mother and sister draws perfect portraits of people from memory,
they have spent years and years practicing a number of techniques, where
visualization is but one of them.

Again, sorry, but I was there, and you are simply wrong.

Are you familiar with the term "solipsism"? I think that would explain
a lot, in your case. It's not meant as an insult, just as the only
explanation I can come up with.

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
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.

Bill W:
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?

Sandman:
Not a head start no, but a skill.

So you agree that he was born with that skill, and that others have
to work for it?

No one is born with a skill, so no.

Skills are taught, the idea of "talent" is that some people have it easier to
learn some things than other, and studies have shown that this might not be the
case.

Sandman:
Visualization is a good tool and it is taught in many schools. I
use it myself all the time. And it's not something you need to be
"born with", it's a technique that anyone can learn to use, if
they want to. Some people find no interest in utilizing this
technique since they have no interest in benefitting from it.

But again, some people are born with it?

No, sorry

Sandman:
As an example, my eldest kid had real problems with maths, it was
too abstract for him. He couldn't wrap his head around these
abstract numbers.

So I showed him how I visualized the numbers, how to make them
represent more concrete objects and see the addition and
subtraction inside your head. This helped him a lot and while he
still thinks math is hard, he is better at visualizing the
problems now.

Sure, but trust me, some people cannot visualize no matter how much
effort they put into it.

How do you know? I mean, what do you base that claim upon?

Why you think otherwise is beyond me. I can
generally multiply a couple of 2 digit numbers in my head, but only
by using "tricks". I cannot see the numbers no matter how hard I
try, so I can't carry numbers over. All I get is a blank screen.
There is absolutely nothing there when I close my eyes and try to
picture anything.

No need to "close your eyes". I suggest that you're just doing it wrong, hasn't
been taught the right techniques or don't have that much interest in learning
to visualize the numbers. Maybe you don't have much use for it in your daily
life, so you've never felt a need to learn it to a higher degree than you
already can.

Bill W:
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?

Sandman:
Not if you ask me. You had a lack of interest in drawing, so
you've never practiced. While visualization is more important
when drawing than when taking photos, it's still a learned
technique.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about me, and you're wrong.

So, you HAD a burning interest for drawing portraits without reference, and you
practiced for years and years and still didn't got better? Because that's what
me being wrong would mean.

Sandman:
So when your mother and sister draws perfect portraits of people
from memory, they have spent years and years practicing a number
of techniques, where visualization is but one of them.

Again, sorry, but I was there, and you are simply wrong.

Sure, anecdotal references aren't all that useful, and since I can't make any
claims about your or your family, I'll leave it at that. I just said what was
more likely than your account.

Are you familiar with the term "solipsism"? I think that would
explain a lot, in your case. It's not meant as an insult, just as
the only explanation I can come up with.

I'll take it as in insult nonetheless and a sign that you are unable to discuss
the topic any further than this.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
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] ? 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.

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

That's not what he has said at all.

It's still quoted above.

--
Sandman