Personal Growth

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Obviously, the first person needs to grow up and the second person possible wasn't gifted for electronics engineering. With a gifted person things fall into the picture almost naturally; just like that or say, about 20 times easier and faster than with non-gifted contestants.

It would seem that you missed the point, being that both actually were able to become, one a professional bassoon player and the other a successful electronic engineer. In the case of the bassoon player, she actually had small hands but through practice her reach grew beyond her determined size.

My point is that regardless of natural talent the potential may be exposed through hard work. That hard work may end up being more important than raw talent, particularly in fields that require discipline. My friend played better than people that theoretically had more talent than her. My other friend finished his career and became a successful professional while others theoretically more talented dropped out.

Incidentally, I respect those two more than many of the geniuses I met in both fields.

[jjj]

 

That hard work may end up being more important than raw talent, particularly in fields that require discipline.

All depends what one considers to be more important.
It appears you missed my point too, good brother... for a higher level of skill can be achieved through hard work, but one cannot compare it to the ease and pace at which talented people go about the same difficulties. I experienced it and was accused of practicing 25 hours a day... In fact the opposite was true!

My friend played better than people that theoretically had more talent than her. My other friend finished his career and became a successful professional while others theoretically more talented dropped out.

Every talent requires adequate development, but then it knocks on the door and knows no boundaries, whereas non-talented individuals are limited to their acquired skills!
Nature seems pretty very cruel to them, by limiting their reach. It's then, when even the hardest practice simply doesn't allow progress anymore, whilst the talented person overruns all boundaries in flying colors! It's painful to watch! That's when we call them immodest etc.

Incidentally, I respect those two more than many of the geniuses I met in both fields.

Yes, they deserve respect, admiration and mercy for their dedication and tireless efforts, albeit I personally I prefer be dazzled by true 'Mc Coy', i.e. genuinely talented people, because talents are undoubtedly the 'cream of human evolutionary achievements'.Anything less is just that: less. Sorry about that.
All is then left to say: One either has it or not!

[Alpaca]

How can talent in a specific field be genetic, when genes are millions of years in existence and fields change every day?

When our ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup, bassoons did not exist. Yet, you claim that the ability to play the bassoon is a genetically transmitted talent, as you claim for all other talents. How can nucleic acids billions of years old account for very specific, very modern, very human-exclusive niches?

[jjj]

 

How can talent in a specific field be genetic, when genes are millions of years in existence and fields change every day?

They mutate and evolve. Our ancestor's actions consistently amended and reprogrammed/ updated them.

When our ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup, bassoons did not exist. Yet, you claim that the ability to play the bassoon is a genetically transmitted talent, as you claim for all other talents. How can nucleic acids billions of years old account for very specific, very modern, very human-exclusive niches?

It's contained in the genetic coding. The abilities and skills of every generation contributed and so, helped us to enrich our family tree/ genetic pool individually we now enjoy!
In other words, talented people inherited the advanced genetic coding of their ancestors. Generation after generations contributed to your talent. So, praise your ancestors and live up to their expectations by recognizing, developing and applying their precious gift to your benefit and future generations of your clan. Keep up the good work! 

[Alpaca]

To avoid going off on a Lamarckian vs. Darwinian evolution tangent, I'm going to accept your postulate that each generation's new talents get "added on" to one's genes.

What about talent that develops within one generation? I know a guy who grew up in Poland before the personal computer was invented. He studied to be an agricultural engineer - a common career path then, not because it was exciting, but because it made the government nice to you, since agriculture was a "proletariat" thing.

Today, he lives in Tampa, Florida, and is a very talented computer programmer.

How did he acquire this talent?

[jjj]

How did he acquire this talent?

Same thing: he undoubtedly inherited his combination of unique abilities from his  ancestors. Thus, it's highly unlikely that talents develop within one generation and more likely that generation after generation of his clan contributed to his talent to analyze, sort out a write programs, very much better and faster than untalented programmers and so, he benefits from it. If he's lucky his offspring might soon out-program him with 3-5% of head start! 

Disclaimer: Please take into account/ discount that I only had 5 years of public school eduction, I'm philosophically illiterate for having failed to perused works of past philosophers. Thus, feel free to doubt/ discredit my insight, for I have no scientific proof to back up any of my claims other than relying on personal observation, experiences and some practice in amateur reasoning. Chances are, my claims still somehow make sense to you and so, I would feel humbled and delighted to share them with you.

P.S.  Incidentally this, my kind of amateurish reasoning greatly disturbed and upset many members in other so-called 'philosophical forums. They gave me a hard time until it was easy for me deciding to leave. Now they are stuck in academic pursuit for insight of past philosophers, because they got that nasty problem of originating their own insight...

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

The genetic make-up we inherit is derived from our family tree... I.e. not always from our parents. This explains why children often exhibit traits, which non-of the parents possess.

And sometimes they have the traits of the postman or the milkman...

==========================================

Just kidding, anyway, what I wanted to say.

I can agree with jjj that some of the traits and talents we get are based on our genetics. For example, I'm not good at manual work (I'm clumsy, got that from my father). But I have developped something, nobody in my family has. I'm good in foreign languages. No person in my family (I'm looking back a few generations) has developped this "skill" to acquaint languages easily and develop them at the quality of mother tongue.

In my opinion, the traits and "talents" we have are both connected to the genetics and the way we are brought up. I would even dare say that the second is more importent in one's personal development.

[Griffin NoName]

Incidentally this, my kind of amateurish reasoning greatly disturbed and upset many members in other so-called 'philosophical forums. They gave me a hard time until it was easy for me deciding to leave. Now they are stuck in academic pursuit for insight of past philosophers, because they got that nasty problem of originating their own insight...

Now I am totally confused. I thought what you have been saying was that your way of reasoning was originating your own insight? Have I been misunderstanding?

[jjj]

In my opinion, the traits and "talents" we have are both connected to the genetics and the way we are brought up. I would even dare say that the second is more important in one's personal development.

Before we chuck around with talents, I think its helpful to define the difference between (not man & woman , but) unique abilities & talents: Whether a superior ability is a talent or rather a unique ability, I suggest to use the following criteria:
(My personal/ unofficial definition of talent:) A talent is a combination of various (i.e. four or more) unique abilities at divers levels of evolution working in synergy. A substantial talent's degree of quality is considerably superior to a single abilities (or even two to three single unique abilities). A good gauge is, when a talent's quality is such that only very few individuals in the world are able to perform it.
Hence, anything nearer one or the other would be the logically correct definition. Again, feel welcome to verify, criticize, accept or reject my reasoning. 

I thought what you have been saying was that your way of reasoning was originating your own insight? Have I been misunderstanding?

No you understood me right. It's only now it's easier than before for me to explain that I'm not an authority on reasoning and that my claims have been rejected from quite a number of some... so-called  philosophical forums, faithfully following theories of past philosophers and bluntly rejecting my rather (to them) 'primitive approach to reasoning and originating insight. Well, you are the judge!

[ivor]

I'm confused too.  It okay to originate insight as long as it's inherited from your ancestors?

[Griffin NoName]

I think I am beginning to understand.

I thought what you have been saying was that your way of reasoning was originating your own insight? Have I been misunderstanding?

No you understood me right. It's only now it's easier than before for me to explain that I'm not an authority on reasoning and that my claims have been rejected from quite a number of some... so-called  philosophical forums, faithfully following theories of past philosophers and bluntly rejecting my rather (to them) 'primitive approach to reasoning and originating insight. Well, you are the judge!

So, to follow theories of past philosophers is not your interest, jjjj ? When I suggested reading Maslow, this is not helpful?

The problem for other philosophical fora is they are not interested in original insight?

Or, is it the other fora do not understand your method of original insight?

[jjj]

Both of your assumptions are correct, because most of these fora cling to established philosophical ideologies to which I don't subscribe. I am more interested in the pragmatic aspect of philosophical progress on both, the individualistic and social realm.
I don't even dare to allow myself indulging in other philosophies out of fear to forfeit/ corrupt my own reasoning source. I prefer to process  data on my own accord live, then compare it to other people's reasoning, finally amend it by trial & error as well as constructive criticism of others.
Mind you I had to do my homework first to be able to do it in this way.
After decades of practice this process has become much easier to perform.

When I suggested reading Maslow, this is not helpful?
Not really, because I prefer to be confront by the problem/ task in context.

[ivor]

So you've thrown away all philosophy but your own?  What materials do you study when you do your homework?

I've learned a lot here from my other siblings.  There's a lot of smart people here.  Some of them are astonishingly smart.  You'll rarely if ever hear them say so as they are all very humble.

[Alpaca]

I don't even dare to allow myself indulging in other philosophies out of fear to forfeit/ corrupt my own reasoning source. I prefer to process  data on my own accord live, then compare it to other people's reasoning, finally amend it by trial & error as well as constructive criticism of others.

Aren't other philosophies other people's reasoning?

[Opsa]

And didn't Hitler believe in genetic superiority?