Here's a tip: if you want me to feel bad about the fact you're not going to take your pants off for me, you would do well to not post about how much weight you're trying to lose. Or, as the French would say, "je vous jure, les juifs sont au sous-sol! Ne me touchez pas!"
You pointing out why you wouldn't want a woman to take her pants off for you is like a hobo pointing out why he wouldn't live in a house. "No windows that let in light from the west? Fuck that, back to my cardboard box I go."
Hmmm... 1. Wood carving and finishing. This is something I'm already learning (making gunstocks from scratch), but I want to absolutely master it so I could make other stuff like furniture, instruments, etc. just as well. 2. Metal Engraving. Seems to me it's becoming a dying art, and one of those "impossible 'til I try it" things. 3. Running a machine shop. Operating machinery like a lathe, milling machine, welders, grinders, etc. If I can work with wood and metal, there's no limits to what I can design and create. 4. Photography. I enjoy trying to take "good" pictures today but don't have a clue as to what I'm doing. 5. Entrepreneurship. Starting and running a business from the ground up, managing employees, and having the balls to depend on my own venture. I don't know if this means starting one business and being very successful with that venture or being a serial starter (inevitably with varied results), but bottom line it is a real talent. 6. Brewing It was either making beer or wine, and I've already helped my dad make a bunch of wine and prefer beer anyways. 7. Canoe and paddle making. It would be awesome to fish and hunt out of a boat I made myself. 8. Marksmanship. If it has a trigger, I want to be an expert at using it. I'm proficient with about anything today (especially rifles) but want to be way above and beyond just proficiency with all rifles, shotguns, and pistols. 9. Selling. Listening, understanding, persuading, and negotiating. The benefit to mastering those collective skills goes way beyond business. 10. Investing. Learn how to make my money work for me. Why the hell not? 11. Cooking. Especially preparing meats, if this can include grilling and smoking. You gotta eat, might as well enjoy it and be good at it.
I'm going to call bullshit on your bullshit. From what I've seen and done in my short life, talent is nothing more than an eagerness to learn a particular skill. Outside of ridiculous, almost biblical prodigies (think Mozart), everybody who's great at anything has put in a huge amount of work to get to their level, and writing off any part of it, even a small bit, as "talent" is a disservice to them and to yourself. If you want to become a great piano player, then fucking start practicing. It has so little to do with "innate ability" and so much to do with work ethic.
Completely disagree. I am a complete student of ice hockey goalie and study it bc it's my hobby. But all the study and practice in the world won't turn me into a low level pro. Bc of my lack of innate talent I'll have to be content playing beer leagues. Whereas many pros are pros bc of raw talent. Trust me many pro athletes kind of fall into it. God gave them a gift and they ran with it.
In the same vein, I remember listening to an interview with the conductor and the first chair violinist of the DSO and the question of innate talent was asked. Both agreed no amount of practice would make any difference without that talent in order to make it to concert-level. But I don't think this cuts across all areas. Does gourmet cooking require an innate ability to build upon? Or carpentry? Perhaps, if one considers the creative aspect (creating a dish never made before or crafting a unique piece of furniture), but the mechanics of either don't require any inherent abilities.
I'd be interested in listening to that. Coming from a top level performer, that seems either insincere or douchbaggily-esoteric. And that's especially for something like a concert violinist- much of what it takes is purely mechanical and can be learned quickly.
I like the subtle implication here that you are a completely untalented top level vioinist and can speak with greater authority on the subject.
You can search the KERA archives (Dallas NPR). I think it aired summer of 2011. I think the program was Fresh Air, but I could be wrong. Neither musician came across as you suspect, at least not to me.
I don't understand this way of thinking. "Yeah, if I practiced the same amount I could totally rock it out like Yo-Yo." When realistically most people can, at best, make it to a 4th of July-pro bono-community orchestra. To me, THAT comes across as ignorant and douchbaggily-esoteric. Practicing since age 6 with the top coaches in the world isn't going to turn me into a pro basketball player. It's not self-defeating or pessimistic. It's a fact of life. Or, you can spend some time with kids. From an early age you can see their individual talents and gifts (or lack thereof). There are some things that can't be taught. Your last sentence illustrates how ignorant you are about the subject.
8. Cops & Robbers- I'm always telling Billy "bang bang" I shot him, but Billy says he killed me first! I need to know how to finger-shoot better. 9. Funnelling- I wish binge-drink for the rest of my life. Nothing bad will come of it. 10. Fake I.D. Crafting- Sometimes I get booze by "dressing older" with a shirt and tie, but it will be kegs all night once we got I.D's! 11. Skillz that Killz- I want to get with the ladies. She will wear my "going steady" pin and we will hand-hold each other's brains out. COME ON, dude. You think you'll still want Beirut skills in a couple years? Not billiards or Bocce or even fucking lawn darts? There has to be something more long-term for you.
I'm just going to address this. I said much of learning of an instrument is purely mechanical and can be learned quickly. Apparently I'm ignorant. Let's see what it takes to learn an instrument from the ground up, say violin. Learn where the names of notes and where they are on each string-> How to hold the violin with your left hand-> how to play notes cleanly and with correct form while plucking them-> the various positions on the violin neck that are the basis for a lot of learning-> how to hold a bow-> how to actually use the bow on a string to produce a note with proper form-> begin to play easy compositions-> continue playing compositions that get more difficult-> and then when you can play those songs learn to play them better with more techniques that you've been accumulating (vibrato, staccato, legato, etc.) The entire time you're learning to read music and are building up calluses to enable you to play for longer periods of time. No part of doing that requires any special talent. Sure, you might have an easier time if say you have hands that aren't too big/small, you've done things in the past that require finger dexterity so you have decent control, etc. Everything else just comes down to time spent practicing, and with dedication and a schedule you can learn how to play the violin rather quickly.
Yeah, that's the general process to learn how to play, neglecting things like phrasing and other aspects of artistry. If you want to become proficient at playing an instrument, that's the process. Proficiency does not = mastery. The level of a concert musician goes far, far beyond proficiency. I think that when it gets beyond an amateur level, there are probably dozens of genetic components that we probably don't fully understand yet. I think you're unknowledgeable because you're assuming several things: 1. That there's an even level everybody's starting from. 2. That everybody has the same potential capacity for greatness. 3. That everybody progresses and hits their peak at the same rate. 4. That everybody reaches their potential. Your thought process is like my saying that if I follow Heidi Klum's diet and workout plan to a T for the rest of my life, I will have Heidi Klum's body. I might look damn good and be in the best shape of my life, but I will never come close to looking like her.
A lot of these I had when I was 19 or so, I have already ticked off the list, but my remainders: 1. Build my own house from scratch, including the design. My father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather built their own houses out of brick, stone and logs. I know how to lay block and brick, so it just requires the summer off, the money and the location. 2. Earn an advanced degree. My knowledge is broad, I want it to be deep on at least one subject, most likely developmental economics. 3. Train a bird of prey (preferably an eagle or owl). 4. Raise pets well. I want a wallaby, but I have terrible luck with animals and it's one of my (and my parents') few regrets: I've never had a pet that I considered important to my life. My solution is an expensive, exotic pet so that I can't rely on anyone else to train it, and it's too expensive to just give up on. Once I have one of those, I'll move on the number 3 on this list. 5. Fully learn and 'master' how to shoot, clean, and care for an HK G-36. I want to be an expert in my rifle and to be able to differentiate between what will make me an effective shooter and what is pretentious bullshit. I don't know why this rifle in particular, but it's high-quality, and seems like a good all-around gun for me that'll be fun to shoot and again, too expensive of an investment to get tired of and piss away. 6. Write something that's worth sharing, be it a story, stand-up comedy or erotic Sesame Street fan fiction. I like to write, but I'm not good at it yet. 7. Become a decent archer. I know I don't have the genetic gifts necessary to compete, but I am a remarkable shot and I'd like to develop that into something a bit more substantial. I'm also fascinated with the idea of making my own bow. 8. To meditate effectively. I try to do this 20 minutes a day, to add clarity and depth of analysis to my life. I'm not good at it, and plenty of times, I just go to sleep. I'd like to learn how to use this to think much more effectively about my life. 9. Motorcycle mechanics fascinate the fuck out of me. I WILL have a stable, I'd love to know how to care for them myself and have all of the tools, knowledge and gadgets to do so easily. 10. I'd love to know how to teach yoga, massage and meditation to other novices. Yoga might be a stretch (yay puns!), but teaching some of the Asian practices for wellness would be rewarding I think. Also, I think that would lead to a remarkable sex life. 11. Be charismatic. I truly envy those people who can "turn it on" and work a room filled with people. I don't have that casual ability and I know now that it's not because I'm shy. I want to learn how to deal with people effectively, being an expert in charisma is priceless in my book.
Nope. Two completely different things. Heidi's metabolism and body structure was determined by her parents' genes, and then she basically just maintained that. Having a fast metabolism isn't a talent. As for your thought about genetic components moving people from amateur to professional, are you claiming that somewhere in someone's genetic structure is a "you will be very good at cello" gene? It's not that specific. Intelligence, yes, that's something that is born with (and nurtured, but) and has a huge effect on becoming a master at something like concert violin. But intelligence covers many things, it's not the same as this "inborn talent" that keeps being mentioned. I'm assuming none of these things, and I even mentioned that past experiences will help people who want to learn (in this example) violin. But having past experiences=/ inborn talent. Look, I understand that not everybody can be an astronaut, it requires a huge amount of intelligence, but the work ethic involved between two would-bes is the determining factor, not astronaut talent. What I want to know from you is, where does this talent come in? At what point does it take you past the amateur proficiency, as you said? At what point does talent negate work necessary?
ssycko, you failed to understand the point of my post. Your argument is that mastering a skill is a result of purely environmental factors. Mine is that, like most things in life, it's a combination of both environmental and genetic components. You can't master a skill based solely on work or natural talent alone. Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I didn't say there's a "good at cello gene". I said that there are dozens of genetic components. I was alluding to the genes that direct the development and function of neural pathways and systems. Pathways and systems that are essential to learning and performing any skill: unconscious and conscious neurosensory, U and C neuromuscular, vestibular, those involved with organizing, processing and storing new information. The pathways that retrieve that information and pull up a motor plan, error correction, plus many others involved with cognition. The Universe/God/Whatever didn't give all of us the same material to work with, and I don't think we're capable of enough neuroplasticity for a motor moron to become an Olympic athlete. Some people won the genetic lottery and their pathways function more efficiently than others. Training/developing a skill is doing the best one can with the raw material (or pathways and systems) they've been given. I think that at an amateur or high school level, those differences aren't as pronounced, but they're still there. They become much more noticeable and important when discussing the top 0.5-1.0% (or even the top 10%) of a population and the nitty-gritty factors that set them apart from the rest. [/quote]I'm assuming none of these things, and I even mentioned that past experiences will help people who want to learn (in this example) violin. But having past experiences=/ inborn talent. Look, I understand that not everybody can be an astronaut, it requires a huge amount of intelligence, but the work ethic involved between two would-bes is the determining factor, not astronaut talent.[/quote] Past experience is an environmental factor. The ones I listed are genetic and present at birth. If you are saying that genetics bears no weight on the ability to master a skill, you're insinuating that those are all equal or there are only negligible differences between people. We are all clones. When did I say that talent negates work? I just said that mastering a skill is not a result of purely environmental factors or "hard work". Very few things are purely environmental or purely genetic. Having the mindset that something like mastering a high-level skill could be either is rigid and narrow-minded.
There are plenty of examples that are like Klum's metabolism. I can spend every day in the gym forever, but I'm still short, slow, can't jump very high, and have average to below average hand-eye coordination. Other people are tall, fast, can jump very high, and have above average hand-eye coordination. These traits make them inherent more suited to play basketball in a way that in inimitable on my part, and no amount of effort will change that. I can do whatever I want, but I will never be the sort of basketball player than LeBron James is. There is an insurmountable difference in our physical endowments. The same is probably true of most instruments. Good musicians have a level of fine motor control, perfect pitch, and sense of rhythm that exceeds that of all but a very small fraction of the human population. They have traits that are not learned, and that make them superior to someone without these traits, all else being equal. If you think one can become a master at any musical instrument without a sense of rhythm, pitch, and motor control, you're just not being serious. Truly elite performers need these sorts of physical endowments AND the bust-your-ass work ethic. The level that is achieved with only the latter is unavoidably less than when these things are in combination. Yes, sure, if a well-endowed person gets lazy, perhaps a hard worker can surpass them, but that's not becoming a master of something. That's just being pretty damn good. There is a certain level of mastery that, if you do not have the requisite endowments to attain that level, you might as well be doing this:
I can't quote very well on my phone so I won't. But I think we're both talking to each other about different things here, because I don't really disagree with your last post Yes, everybody has different genetics, which leave us all with slightly different capacities for intelligence, which manifest themselves in different ways. MoreCowbell probably would be unsuited to guarding Lebron, due to... I think everything? But it's not because of a lack of talent. Take Beethoven. Musical genius, right? If anybody can be ascribed to having "talent," he's probably up towards the top of the list. But I'd bet quite a bit that if he had been apprenticed to a chemist instead of an organist, he would have become a brilliant chemist, because he was a genius. THAT is what I'm arguing against here- that an intelligent person can be genetically predisposed to being good at one SPECIFIC skill, and not at others. And comparing physical abilities to intellectual (basketball vs violin) is a bit tricky, as people who are born tall and strong will be better than those who were born shorter and less physically capable. But an NBA player can still learn violin well, so that's why I was trying to avoid examples that drifted into bone structure The whole point though is this- if you're interested in ANYTHING, do it. Don't let supposed experts tell you that you can't become good at thing X, when they have no idea and neither do you. Even if you don't become a master, you'll still be extremely good, and then you'll have sex because of it probably.