God given gift or just practice?

[analoguey]

Since we're discussing Einstein...

'God does not play dice with the Universe'


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[moose10101]

I think you're being quite facile to say Einstein's work isnt a lifetime of work in a field but just 'brilliance'.

Einstein developed the theory of special relativity when he was 25 years old. He obviously wasn't working in a vacuum, but I'd say that's a lot closer to brilliance than "a lifetime of work in a field".

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

While there are differences, most humans are remarkably average in biological, physical, and mental capacities.

Because you and I and most people sit squarely in the middle of the bell curve, that is indeed how it appears to us. From our vantage point we can see almost everyone in the entire population within just a few ticks to the left and right on the x-coordinate line. Product marketers are keenly aware of this as well, since for any given age group financial capacity is on the whole directly proportional to mental capacity.

I've said before that capitalism is but a thin legal veneer papering over the modern day principle of survival of the fittest. Today it's the abstract value represented by money that determines survivability and station in life. As such, capitalism can be a ruthless sieve through which we must all pass and be sorted. Like it or not. And in a population the size of the entire country, it's also a remarkably accurate filtering mechanism. Like it or not.

Consider (and Clive, I can see your eyes)...

In the academic world beyond the legally mandated primary school years, meaning the university level in the US, grades are determined almost universally by dividing the class sections along random distribution breakpoints. Meaning percentiles broken down to a granularity of tenths.

They don't do this because it results in inaccurate grades. They do it because it is accurately predictive of the intelligence distribution of student population as a whole.

If one's graded work falls into the top 90th percentile, one receives an 'A' grade. The 80th percentile receives a 'B', and so on. The absolute merit of the work is not relevant. Only its relative merit counts. The larger the class sections population-wise, the more accurate this method becomes.

When I was attending at the university level everyone in our major knew very well who the smarter students were, meaning those whose natural intelligence at birth placed them higher on the distribution curve. We didn't resent that fact. But we weren't foolish enough to dismiss that fact either.

If we knew that we might need to take a particular class to satisfy a requirement, but it wasn't critical to take that class immediately, it was common practice to sign up for the class, show up on the first day, then take a long hard look at who else also walked through the door, and if too many people higher on the curve than you walked in behind you, simply drop the class and try again later.

This assumption of the accuracy of the random distribution of skill sets (an indirect measure of mental capacity) is also used by industry to grade employee performance.

For decades Microsoft, just to give one example, has maintained a particularly egregious form of this employee grading system. They have routinely dismissed employees whose performance falls within arbitrary lower levels of the bell curve, regardless of their actual levels of contribution to the company's overall goals.* This approach has had the effect of pitting employees against each other in a most brutal survival-of-the-fittest fashion.

Probably the most important single piece of information one can have at one's disposal is a correct sense of where one falls on the curve for whatever ability is in play in a given situation. Most people recognize this, even if only subconsciously. We all try to judge it. Especially when it comes to others.

But he real trick is to be able to step back far enough to be able to correctly judge it for ourselves...

Ken

* Don't you MS'ers beat me up too much on this. I know specific individuals who refused to play the game and arbitrarily dismiss intelligent members of their own groups, who were then dismissed themselves due to their "poor performance" for not doing so. Obviously I'm not going to give specific names, but there are specific names attached to this observation.

 

[BrianShaw]

So what does this have to do with the ethics and philosophy of photography... I've lost track.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Everybody's posts here are remarkably on point. A relatively rare occurrence for a APUG thread.

But I fear it can't last...



Ken

 

[Dinesh]

Also, he did not theorize in a vacuum.

Srinivasa Ramanujan

 

[pdeeh]

1729 is a very interesting number

 

[cliveh]

Because you and I and most people sit squarely in the middle of the bell curve, that is indeed how it appears to us. From our vantage point we can see almost everyone in the entire population within just a few ticks to the left and right on the x-coordinate line. Product marketers are keenly aware of this as well, since for any given age group financial capacity is on the whole directly proportional to mental capacity.

I've said before that capitalism is but a thin legal veneer papering over the modern day principle of survival of the fittest. Today it's the abstract value represented by money that determines survivability and station in life. As such, capitalism can be a ruthless sieve through which we must all pass and be sorted. Like it or not. And in a population the size of the entire country, it's also a remarkably accurate filtering mechanism. Like it or not.

Consider (and Clive, I can see your eyes)...

In the academic world beyond the legally mandated primary school years, meaning the university level in the US, grades are determined almost universally by dividing the class sections along random distribution breakpoints. Meaning percentiles broken down to a granularity of tenths.

They don't do this because it results in inaccurate grades. They do it because it is accurately predictive of the intelligence distribution of student population as a whole.

If one's graded work falls into the top 90th percentile, one receives an 'A' grade. The 80th percentile receives a 'B', and so on. The absolute merit of the work is not relevant. Only its relative merit counts. The larger the class sections population-wise, the more accurate this method becomes.

When I was attending at the university level everyone in our major knew very well who the smarter students were, meaning those whose natural intelligence at birth placed them higher on the distribution curve. We didn't resent that fact. But we weren't foolish enough to dismiss that fact either.

If we knew that we might need to take a particular class to satisfy a requirement, but it wasn't critical to take that class immediately, it was common practice to sign up for the class, show up on the first day, then take a long hard look at who else also walked through the door, and if too many people higher on the curve than you walked in behind you, simply drop the class and try again later.

This assumption of the accuracy of the random distribution of skill sets (an indirect measure of mental capacity) is also used by industry to grade employee performance.

For decades Microsoft, just to give one example, has maintained a particularly egregious form of this employee grading system. They have routinely dismissed employees whose performance falls within arbitrary lower levels of the bell curve, regardless of their actual levels of contribution to the company's overall goals.* This approach has had the effect of pitting employees against each other in a most brutal survival-of-the-fittest fashion.

Probably the most important single piece of information one can have at one's disposal is a correct sense of where one falls on the curve for whatever ability is in play in a given situation. Most people recognize this, even if only subconsciously. We all try to judge it. Especially when it comes to others.

But he real trick is to be able to step back far enough to be able to correctly judge it for ourselves...

Ken

* Don't you MS'ers beat me up too much on this. I know specific individuals who refused to play the game and arbitrarily dismiss intelligent members of their own groups, who were then dismissed themselves due to their "poor performance" for not doing so. Obviously I'm not going to give specific names, but there are specific names attached to this observation.

Ken, thanks for such an interesting post, but my OP was about skill, not intellect or intelligence.

 

[frank]

Ken, thanks for such an interesting post, but my OP was about skill, not intellect or intelligence.

It was about artistic ability to draw, which is a form of intelligence.

Article about multiple intelligences: http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html

 

[moose10101]

It was about artistic ability to draw, which is a form of intelligence.

Article about multiple intelligences: http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html

I see no reference to artistic ability in that link. It appears to primarily address how people learn, not how they execute. It says Visual-Spatial individuals LIKE to draw, but doesn't claim they're necessarily good at it.

 

[frank]

Come on, make the leap from a literal interpretation!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken, thanks for such an interesting post, but my OP was about skill, not intellect or intelligence.

Clive, apologies, but I am not so easily and conveniently dismissed...

Skill derives from, and is a subclass of, intellect and intelligence. Essentially a skill is a value-added application of intelligence.

How so?

Because a skill (essentially education by a different name) is a learned trait and intelligence is a genetic trait. The fundamental trait of intelligence is required to allow for the learning required to master the skill. The greater the fundamental intelligence, the greater the ability to learn and master the skill. Or anything else.

You can continue to learn more skill up until the point you exhaust your intelligence, but you cannot learn more intelligence. To achieve mastery of a skill without the application of intelligence would be to achieve it accidentally. Which is, of course, possible. But not something a master wants to have to rely upon because it would be unpredictable, and therefore at odds with the very definition of "master".

Further, have you ever considered the converse side of your argument? That if all men are created equal and therefore differentiate themselves only through desire and effort, then any one man's failure to achieve a desired differentiation (goal) can only be as a direct result of his lack of sufficient dedication and effort. In other words, laziness on his part.

Do you believe that to be true as well? Logic dictates that if you believe the former, then the latter must follow. Is the root cause of all failure therefore laziness and lack of dedication?

I always wanted to be a world-class gymnast. But I'm 6-feet 6-inchs tall and weigh 220-pounds. At that size and mass distribution I could have dedicated and spent my entire life training as a gymnast and would never ever have been selected to an Olympic team. Or won a world championship.

Would the root problem have been that I was simply lazy?

Or more likely that I didn't possess enough of the fundamental genetic traits necessary to achieve that goal, regardless of my level of dedication and effort? What then if one substitutes intelligence for size, and world-class photographer for world-class gymnast?

Or to bring it full circle, drawing for photography?

Ken

 

[cliveh]

I think that two people with a similar level of intelligence would not gain the same level of skill in something like the ability to draw, if one of them were to practice that skill more than the other.

 

[frank]

. .

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think that two people with a similar level of intelligence would not gain the same level of skill in something like the ability to draw, if one of them were to practice that skill more than the other.

Now that I agree with completely. It logically follows. But it skirts the original assertion that ALL levels of drawing skill are learnable by ALL individuals, given sufficient dedication and effort, and where native intelligence is factored out.

In other words, the point of contention here is that in the case of dissimilar intelligence levels, who would you predict might progress further in the mastery of drawing skills, given maximum dedication and effort by both individuals?

Ken

 

[pdeeh]

The curse of the "self-help" movements ... "You can do it! Just GO for it!" however unrealistic the aspiration ...

 

[cliveh]

Now that I agree with completely. It logically follows. But it skirts the original assertion that ALL levels of drawing skill are learnable by ALL individuals, given sufficient dedication and effort, and where native intelligence is factored out.

In other words, the point of contention here is that in the case of dissimilar intelligence levels, who would you predict might progress further in the mastery of drawing skills, given maximum dedication and effort by both individuals?

Ken

So would you say the most skilful football players are the ones with greater intelligence? Also would you say that history records show no highly skilled people with average or below average intelligence?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I have to say I'm surprised at how many here seem unable to accept this. Perhaps it is just a hard pill to swallow - ie it is easier to tell yourself you could master anything you wanted to if you tried hard enough. Sorry folks, no dice.

For extremely valuable societal and cultural reasons we are taught from the cradle that "all men are created equal".

In fact, it says so right in the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence. No one wants to, or should, mess with that. It defines the fundamental right of equality for all of our citizens, regardless of their size or intelligence levels. And it's rightfully and continually reinforced to the grave, so it's no surprise that's what people believe in general. And no biologist or demographer will say otherwise into the public microphone.

But in the evolutionary and statistical sense, it is not, and cannot possibly be, true. Our species could not have evolved were it so. Neither could the racehorses or hybrid corn. And all it takes is a few moments of genuine reflection to see that. But it does cut against most people's grain...



Ken

 

[analoguey]

BTW, It is easier on yourself to say "no, I cant do this, its beyond me" than it is to say "I can do this, it's within me".

anyhow, certain things are best experienced than talked about - or argued! :munch:

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

So would you say the most skilful football players are the ones with greater intelligence? Also would you say that history records show no highly skilled people with average or below average intelligence?

No. I'm saying that the elite physiological traits required to become the most skillful football players (think fast-twitch muscles, natural speed and quickness, and yes, intelligence sufficient to memorize a playbook* the size of a dictionary) are either present at birth, or not.

The skills of the game can be taught and mastered to varying degrees based on intelligence. But you can't teach or learn fast-twitch muscles any more than you can teach or learn raw intelligence. And if all of the other elite players are born with those elite traits and you weren't, you can't ever become one of the them. No matter how dedicated you are or how much effort you apply. You're simply missing the tools to compete at that level. No insult intended. It just is what it is. Or isn't.

Drawing, painting, photographing, writing, and every other learned skill that requires an elite level of mental or physical gift to implement at an elite level, are exactly the same. We can all practice them as far as our natural talents will allow. And enjoy the hell of the experience. But to believe that we can all become natural elites in them simply by trying harder violates every law of nature in the books. You are where you fall on the distribution curve. Like it or not.

And in a small off-topic extrapolation by me, I personally believe that the measure of a society derives in large part from how many members of that society can accept the fact that not everyone was lucky enough born into that 90th percentile of elites, and that some at the other end, through no fault of their own, may require the assistance of that society to live their lives in as acceptable a manner as those who were fortunate enough to be born into the 90th.

That to me is what the phrase "all men are created equal" in the preamble is really all about...

Ken

* In American football, don't know if those are used in the other kind...

 

[cliveh]

No. I'm saying that the elite physiological traits required to become the most skillful football players (think fast-twitch muscles, natural speed and quickness, and yes, intelligence sufficient to memorize a playbook* the size of a dictionary) are either present at birth, or not.

The skills of the game can be taught and mastered to varying degrees based on intelligence. But you can't teach or learn fast-twitch muscles any more than you can teach or learn raw intelligence. And if all of the other elite players are born with those elite traits and you weren't, you can't ever become one of the them. No matter how dedicated you are or how much effort you apply. You're simply missing the tools to compete at that level. No insult intended. It just is what it is. Or isn't.

Drawing, painting, photographing, writing, and every other learned skill that requires an elite level of mental or physical gift to implement at an elite level, are exactly the same. We can all practice them as far as our natural talents will allow. And enjoy the hell of the experience. But to believe that we can all become natural elites in them simply by trying harder violates every law of nature in the books. You are where you fall on the distribution curve. Like it or not.

And in a small off-topic extrapolation by me, I personally believe that the measure of a society derives in large part from how many members of that society can accept the fact that not everyone was lucky enough born into that 90th percentile of elites, and that some at the other end, through no fault of their own, may require the assistance of that society to live their lives in as acceptable a manner as those who were fortunate enough to be born into the 90th.

That to me is what the phrase "all men are created equal" in the preamble is really all about...

Ken

* In American football, don't know if those are used in the other kind...

Then in relation to my OP we beg to differ.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Then in relation to my OP we beg to differ.

In what specific ways, Clive? Short one sentence responses give us little insight into the whys of your assertions. It gives us nothing with which to judge what you are saying.

So then do you believe that fast-twitch muscles, and native intelligence, and elite-level fine motor control skills can all be taught to anyone? Regardless of the muscles, mind, and tendons they were born with? And that at my size and mass distribution the only thing that kept me from a world gymnastics championship was my laziness and lack of dedication?

Really?

Ken

 

[cliveh]

In what specific ways, Clive? Short one sentence responses give us little insight into the whys of your assertions. It gives us nothing with which to judge what you are saying.

So then do you believe that fast-twitch muscles, and native intelligence, and elite-level fine motor control skills can all be taught to anyone? Regardless of the muscles, mind, and tendons they were born with? And that at my size and mass distribution the only thing that kept me from a world gymnastics championship was my laziness and lack of dedication?

Really?

Ken

No, they were developed with dedication of practice.

 

[MattKing]

yes, without a doubt, a gifted storyteller, poet, musician, composer, and singer
and he is not shy to belt one out using a megaphone or push he abilities to be even better.
like all gifted people he is not resting on his laurels but makinghimself better than he was the last time.

maybe the gift is perseverance and being relentless and never giving up or giving in to people telling you to stop when they've had enough ?

I too would agree that Tom Waits is gifted.

But I also understand the neighbours of a friend of mine who, several years ago, was threatened with eviction if he didn't stop playing his Tom Waits albums loud and into all hours of the night.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

No, they were developed with dedication of practice.

Dedication of practice would have sliced 12-inches off my height?

Have you ever attended a course in biology?

Ken