[x] I can improve on/learn to do anything given the training and chance to work on it, but some things I'm naturally bad at so the effects of this will be significantly more limited.
I can learn to do anything if given the training and time to work on it except that I have an inordinate lack of willpower so would also need a few whippings.
I answered the best I could for the question, but it's more nuanced than that: I have terrible motor co-ordination. A large amount of practice has made me a competent rhythm guitarist, but I will never be able to play like [insert name of fast shredding guitarist here]. Likewise I had twenty driving lessons and two separate instructors quit on me - it's possible that with many more lessons I could get to the point where I wasn't in immediate mortal danger when behind the wheel of a car, but I'll never be a good driver. I'm a terrible singer. With practice, I could become much better - I already know from things like SingStar that my pitching can improve with feedback - but I'll never have a pleasant-sounding voice, so that improvement can only go so far.
Everyone has natural abilities and things they're not very good at. Everyone can improve at anything, but there are natural physical limits to all improvements, which are at different levels for different people. Had I spent as long as my brother has learning how to be a plasterer and general handyman, I'd still be at best semi-competent, rather than incompetent like now. And if he'd spent as long as me learning perl, sql, php and so on, he'd still be utterly lost trying to do my job, but might at least understand what a programming language or an operating system *are*...
'Can' is turning in to 'could have' for some things as time passes and I don't have enough years before normal retirement age. So frinstance there is no realistic way I am going to be a really top-flight surgeon - it takes about thirty years and by that time I fervently hope I'll be of pensionanle age.
Oh, just thought, there's loads of physical things that applies to - I'm already too old to be a Premiership footballer and the time I could've been a gymnast has long flown. And some languages would be a real struggle havimg not heardthem until now, but do-able with the time and motivation. Hmm.
But I still feel I fall on the 'can learn anything' side of the radiobutton.
I voted for the second, but with some provisos. I have to WANT to learn it, and be prepared to put in a lot of effort. Even then, there are things I will be good at and things I will never be able to excel at.
If you'd think of it as a race, talent is the amount of head start you get. The amount of work you put determines how fast you're going. I might not finish anywhere near the top, but eventually I'll finish. In other words: you'll be able to learn to do almost anything. That doesn't mean you'll be good at it, but that's a different story.
There are more studies than the one quoted in that article (sorry, don't have the refs) that imply that viewpoint #2 is more conducive to education than #1.
Obviously, for some instances 'the training and time' required could near infinity, but there is always room for improvement.
If I ever pass my driving test, I shall be proved right :)
Other people have brought up the (somewhat obvious, I think) issue of competency. But I kind of wish we didn't feel so compelled to provide the competency caveat. I wonder if it holds us back in some ways. I mean, yeah, sure, the reality is that some people have more or less capability in basic things like motor skills/manual dexterity. But then there are things for which I really OUGHT to have no affinity but which I love and excel at anyway, in direct contradiction to all of the other related skillsets at which I am bad.
And, after all, natural talent still requires practice to refine.
catch / throw (could maybe improve a bit given time and if I could be arsed) juggle swim on my back (due to weird vertigo wiring) rollerskate / skate board / ride a unicycle
Scientific American had some good articles on learning. It seems that to be great at something requires devotion and practice, more then natural talent. Natural talent simply gives you a boost.
The example they investigated was chess. There is seemed that the main controlling factor on your rating was how much you studied and devotion. Had nothing to do with spatial recognition as when the chess board piece layout was randomized chess masters and novices remembered the board to the same level. When it was in a valid chess scenario, chess masters far outstripped the novice. Think there was a comparison on IQ as well, but cant remember the details.
I have specific defects that mean I'm never going to have reliable-and-swift hand-and-eye co-ordination with my left hand and the left side of my visual field.
There are things I am naturally bad at and could improve, but the reward to effort ratio is such that I'd rather concentrate on things I am naturally better at.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I have terrible motor co-ordination. A large amount of practice has made me a competent rhythm guitarist, but I will never be able to play like [insert name of fast shredding guitarist here]. Likewise I had twenty driving lessons and two separate instructors quit on me - it's possible that with many more lessons I could get to the point where I wasn't in immediate mortal danger when behind the wheel of a car, but I'll never be a good driver.
I'm a terrible singer. With practice, I could become much better - I already know from things like SingStar that my pitching can improve with feedback - but I'll never have a pleasant-sounding voice, so that improvement can only go so far.
Everyone has natural abilities and things they're not very good at. Everyone can improve at anything, but there are natural physical limits to all improvements, which are at different levels for different people. Had I spent as long as my brother has learning how to be a plasterer and general handyman, I'd still be at best semi-competent, rather than incompetent like now. And if he'd spent as long as me learning perl, sql, php and so on, he'd still be utterly lost trying to do my job, but might at least understand what a programming language or an operating system *are*...
no subject
Oh, just thought, there's loads of physical things that applies to - I'm already too old to be a Premiership footballer and the time I could've been a gymnast has long flown. And some languages would be a real struggle havimg not heardthem until now, but do-able with the time and motivation. Hmm.
But I still feel I fall on the 'can learn anything' side of the radiobutton.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Obviously, for some instances 'the training and time' required could near infinity, but there is always room for improvement.
If I ever pass my driving test, I shall be proved right :)
no subject
And, after all, natural talent still requires practice to refine.
no subject
catch / throw (could maybe improve a bit given time and if I could be arsed)
juggle
swim on my back (due to weird vertigo wiring)
rollerskate / skate board / ride a unicycle
Lots of other things I know I can learn.
no subject
no subject
The example they investigated was chess. There is seemed that the main controlling factor on your rating was how much you studied and devotion. Had nothing to do with spatial recognition as when the chess board piece layout was randomized chess masters and novices remembered the board to the same level. When it was in a valid chess scenario, chess masters far outstripped the novice. Think there was a comparison on IQ as well, but cant remember the details.
no subject
no subject
There are things I am naturally bad at and could improve, but the reward to effort ratio is such that I'd rather concentrate on things I am naturally better at.