Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

Sandman wrote:

You shouldn't base anything on *my* opinion.

I'm hardly likely to do that, ever.

So why did you even offer that up as an alternative in your post?

I didn't, I offered your opinion as one that only a fool would agree with.

And again, it's not like I had an opinion, and then sought up the
information that agreed with me. I had an experience, and hadn't thought
much about it other than I disliked the idea of "talent" since it
undermines the sheer amount of time I've spent practicing.

So I was right earlier on in the thread, it is jealousy. You dislike the
idea that someone can more easily be better than you, of all people, at
something in particular.

Then I read studies about this and it just so happened to correlate to my
own feelings and experiences, so it was easy to agree with it.

Studies carried out by mediocre people, such as yourself, hardly surprising
you agreed with them.

This is psychology, there are no hard facts either way.

So stop discussing it as though there are then.


You've just agreed entirely with me, you consider it unfair that
someone should have a natural ability that enables them to easily
out perform an average person given the same practice.

But, since "talent" *DOESN'T* exist, it *ISN'T* unfair, it is fair. YOU
are the one advocating an unfair scenario, not me. My view of skill is
perfectly fair.

Nobody is interested in your views of skill, no one cares. Get over
yourself.

--
sid

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
You shouldn't base anything on *my* opinion.

sid:
I'm hardly likely to do that, ever.

Sandman:
So why did you even offer that up as an alternative in your post?

I didn't, I offered your opinion as one that only a fool would agree
with.

Exactly.

Sandman:
And again, it's not like I had an opinion, and then sought up the
information that agreed with me. I had an experience, and hadn't
thought much about it other than I disliked the idea of "talent"
since it undermines the sheer amount of time I've spent
practicing.

So I was right earlier on in the thread, it is jealousy.

Still the other way around. You don't get it no matter how many times I tell
you. If someone has magical "talent", then that's something you can be jealous
of. If they've worked hard for their skill, there is nothing to be jealous of,
since you can do that too.

As an example. You have two persons you've known all your life:

1. Person A has worked super hard his entire life to build a small company that
has grown, over time he has suffered, worked way too much for way too little
benefit, but over time he has managed to turn it around and make a profit and
now his company has grown to become one of the biggest in his business, and he
is very successful and wealthy.

2. Person B is a bit of a slacker, never held a real job for any longer time,
but a while ago, he was fortunate enough to win twenty million dollars from a
lottery ticket.

If you're a normal person, you're not "jealous" of person A, you have the
utmost respect of the sheer amount of work he's put into his business, and he
deserves every single thing that is coming to him.

In the same vain, you can be a bit jealous towards person B, since he hasn't
worked hard for his fortune, it was all chance and it *could* have happened to
you, but it happened to him instead.

If you hadn't understood it, person A is "trained skill" and person B is
"talent". And if you remove talent (or the lottery), no one can achieve "skill"
or money by happenstance, and there is nothing to be jealous of. Everyones
skill and everyones money is a direct result of their respectful hard work.

And it is my view that in the scenario of "talent", there exists no "person B"
to be jealous of. Everyone is "Person A" and deserves my (and yours) respect
for their skills.

You dislike the idea that someone can more easily be better than
you, of all people, at something in particular.

Since it is my opinion that no one can do things "more easily" than me, this is
a Non Sequitur. The scenario you describe is something you believe in, not me.

Sandman:
Then I read studies about this and it just so happened to
correlate to my own feelings and experiences, so it was easy to
agree with it.

Studies carried out by mediocre people, such as yourself, hardly
surprising you agreed with them.

Now you're just flailing wildly.

Sandman:
This is psychology, there are no hard facts either way.

So stop discussing it as though there are then.

I feel that the data available to me makes it as factual as god's non-
existence, which is another thing that can't be "proven" yet which I know is a
fact.

sid:
You've just agreed entirely with me, you consider it unfair that
someone should have a natural ability that enables them to
easily out perform an average person given the same practice.

Sandman:
But, since "talent" *DOESN'T* exist, it *ISN'T* unfair, it is
fair. YOU are the one advocating an unfair scenario, not me. My
view of skill is perfectly fair.

Nobody is interested in your views of skill, no one cares. Get over
yourself.

So why are you even replying? If you're not interested, go away, you won't be
missed.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Sandman:
Still the other way around. You don't get it no matter how many
times I tell you. If someone has magical "talent", then that's
something you can be jealous of. If they've worked hard for their
skill, there is nothing to be jealous of, since you can do that
too.

As an example. You have two persons you've known all your life:

1. Person A has worked super hard his entire life to build a small
company that has grown, over time he has suffered, worked way too
much for way too little benefit, but over time he has managed to
turn it around and make a profit and now his company has grown to
become one of the biggest in his business, and he is very
successful and wealthy.

2. Person B is a bit of a slacker, never held a real job for any
longer time, but a while ago, he was fortunate enough to win
twenty million dollars from a lottery ticket.

If you're a normal person, you're not "jealous" of person A, you
have the utmost respect of the sheer amount of work he's put into
his business, and he deserves every single thing that is coming
to him.

In the same vain, you can be a bit jealous towards person B, since
he hasn't worked hard for his fortune, it was all chance and it
*could* have happened to you, but it happened to him instead.

If you hadn't understood it, person A is "trained skill" and
person B is "talent". And if you remove talent (or the lottery),
no one can achieve "skill" or money by happenstance, and there is
nothing to be jealous of. Everyones skill and everyones money is
a direct result of their respectful hard work.

And it is my view that in the scenario of "talent", there exists
no "person B" to be jealous of. Everyone is "Person A" and
deserves my (and yours) respect for their skills.

More chaff. Neither example above has anything to with "natural
talent". There is nothing in those paragraphs that relates to
talent.

For obvious reasons.

Natural talent is an ability to take to something easily.

That's what the word means, yes. My claim is that no such thing exists.

An example is two children who sit down at a piano for the first
time. One has a natural talent and quickly picks up simple
instructions to plink out a basic tune. The other just bangs on the
keys and has no sense of what he's doing.

I.e. one quickly develops an interest for the piano, finds it fascinating
instantly and listens intently to the instructions. The other kid didn't.

Either child may progress to being an excellent pianist with lessons
and practice. Either child may abandon the piano due to lack of
interest in committing time and effort to lessons.

With the same amount of time and interest, they will be equally good.

However, the one with the natural talent may develop a strong
interest in progressing because the first experiences come easily to
him. The one without the natural talent may persevere and become an
excellent pianist, but it may be because he is influenced by his
parents to continue to take lessons and practice and not because his
interest was spiked by early success.

I've seen this many times, with children who quickly finds something
interesting and quickly get good at it. No "talent" required, only interest.

Sandman has this bizarre notion that natural talent is something
undeserved and should not be acknowledged.

No, I have this "notion" that natural talent doesn't exist. Quite a difference.

It's apparent by this post that Sandman doesn't even understand what
"talent" is if he thinks that his example of a businessman and a
lottery winner is pertinent.

It's an analogy of things given for free and things you work for. I am not at
all surprised that you didn't understand it. The post I replied to concerned
"jealousy".

"Talent" is simply a word that means the ability to do something
well. "Natural talent" is a term means an innate ability to do
something well.

Yes, and for the first usage - "skill" is a better word to avoid confusion. For
the second usage, it shouldn't be used since it doesn't exist.

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
And again, it's not like I had an opinion, and then sought up the
information that agreed with me. I had an experience, and hadn't
thought much about it other than I disliked the idea of "talent"
since it undermines the sheer amount of time I've spent
practicing.

So I was right earlier on in the thread, it is jealousy.

Still the other way around. You don't get it no matter how many times I
tell you. If someone has magical "talent", then that's something you can
be jealous of. If they've worked hard for their skill, there is nothing to
be jealous of, since you can do that too.

So, you agree with me then.


You dislike the idea that someone can more easily be better than
you, of all people, at something in particular.

Since it is my opinion that no one can do things "more easily" than me,
this is a Non Sequitur. The scenario you describe is something you believe
in, not me.

Yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that, they do say that if you keep
repeating an untruth you will eventually start to believe it.

Sandman:
Then I read studies about this and it just so happened to
correlate to my own feelings and experiences, so it was easy to
agree with it.

Studies carried out by mediocre people, such as yourself, hardly
surprising you agreed with them.

Now you're just flailing wildly.

Now you're just talking ****e to try and deflect away from the fact you know
I'm right.

Sandman:
This is psychology, there are no hard facts either way.

So stop discussing it as though there are then.

I feel that the data available to me makes it as factual as god's non-
existence, which is another thing that can't be "proven" yet which I know
is a fact.

You know it for a fact even though there are no hard facts either way?
You're amazing!

sid:
You've just agreed entirely with me, you consider it unfair that
someone should have a natural ability that enables them to
easily out perform an average person given the same practice.

Sandman:
But, since "talent" *DOESN'T* exist, it *ISN'T* unfair, it is
fair. YOU are the one advocating an unfair scenario, not me. My
view of skill is perfectly fair.

Nobody is interested in your views of skill, no one cares. Get over
yourself.

So why are you even replying? If you're not interested, go away, you won't
be missed.

Your like a spoilt brat, you really think you'd be missed any more?

--
sid

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
And again, it's not like I had an opinion, and then
sought up the information that agreed with me. I had an
experience, and hadn't thought much about it other than I
disliked the idea of "talent" since it undermines the sheer
amount of time I've spent practicing.

sid:
So I was right earlier on in the thread, it is jealousy.

Sandman:
Still the other way around. You don't get it no matter how many
times I tell you. If someone has magical "talent", then that's
something you can be jealous of. If they've worked hard for their
skill, there is nothing to be jealous of, since you can do that
too.

So, you agree with me then.

That I can't be jealous of something that doesn't exist? Absolutely.

sid:
You dislike the idea that someone can more easily be better
than you, of all people, at something in particular.

Sandman:
Since it is my opinion that no one can do things "more easily"
than me, this is a Non Sequitur. The scenario you describe is
something you believe in, not me.

Yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that,

No need. I am trying to tell YOU that. It's not really working, you're not
really in a "listening" mode. You have your mindset and anyone that thinks
differently is either deluding themselves or are "jealous" in spite of what
they're telling you.

they do say that if you keep
repeating an untruth you will eventually start to believe it.

It seems to have worked for you.

Sandman:
Then I read studies about this and it just so
happened to correlate to my own feelings and experiences, so
it was easy to agree with it.

sid:
Studies carried out by mediocre people, such as yourself, hardly
surprising you agreed with them.

Sandman:
Now you're just flailing wildly.

Now you're just talking ****e to try and deflect away from the fact
you know I'm right.

In all the time I've seen you here in this group, you haven't been right about
any single thing that I can recall.

Sandman:
This is psychology, there are no hard facts either
way.

sid:
So stop discussing it as though there are then.

Sandman:
I feel that the data available to me makes it as factual as god's
non- existence, which is another thing that can't be "proven" yet
which I know is a fact.

You know it for a fact even though there are no hard facts either
way? You're amazing!

Thanks. You're pretty underwhelming yourself.

sid:
You've just agreed entirely with me, you consider it
unfair that someone should have a natural ability that
enables them to easily out perform an average person given
the same practice.

Sandman:
But, since "talent" *DOESN'T* exist, it *ISN'T*
unfair, it is fair. YOU are the one advocating an unfair
scenario, not me. My view of skill is perfectly fair.

sid:
Nobody is interested in your views of skill, no one cares. Get
over yourself.

Sandman:
So why are you even replying? If you're not interested, go away,
you won't be missed.

Your like a spoilt brat, you really think you'd be missed any more?

Never claimed I would, nor do I care. But I don't post in threads talking to
people and then tell them that no one is interested in their views. That would
be you.

I see you kept posting without adding any form of material to the topic.
Interesting.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
I see you kept posting without adding any form of material to the
topic. Interesting.

As you have done. All you've done is made statement about your
personal opinion and repeated an iteration of that statement in each
subsequent post.

Incorrect. I have stated my opinion along with references to studies in the area
to support those opinions.

Sure, many replies have been to trolls like yourself, and there's not much
"discussion" possible with you guys, but I've been forthcoming regardless. Not
that it has helped, but still.

--
Sandman