/lit/ - Literature

who cares
it's just arranging words
it doesn't matter
jesus

I don't believe there is a thing as talent. Everyone can learn something and eventually be good at it.

Prove me wrong.

>>3210179

http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/ahunga.htm

>>3210221
good at it, not god

>>3210221
>I don't believe there is a thing as talent
>mvq weak self-help bullshit

I guess bitches like Galois and Ramanujan just spent their entire childhood practicing abstract algebra and shit.

Of course, Some people have a born talent for doing things and will improve at certain fields with much more ease and speed than others. Other people would need to practice a lot more to reach certain level, but it won't be so much a natural process.

>>3210233
god is just other people thinking you were really good in retrospect, so it doesn't really mean anything.

>>3210221

>>3210233
>>3210239
>>3210254

when i was young, i was read to often by my parents. i was constantly surrounded by books. i ended up learning how to read before kindergarten. my family was the only one in the neighborhood without cable tv. it was too cold to play outside for a good portion of the year. as such, i spent much of my time inside reading. i would read for hours a day. once i got to school, i was always better than the other students at english. in high school (and later, in college) i would put half an hour and no thought into a paper and have it turn out better than what anyone else had written. was it because i was talented at english?

>>3210277
>this is my experience therefore all experiences must conform to it EVERYONE IS ME

i see all those books never beat the pleb out of you or taught you any logic

>>3210277
>implying that because people can learn there is no such thing as innate talent

>>3210277
you "practised", you just didn't know it.

>>3210361

I think that's what he's saying, dumbass.

>>3210179

The way I see it, "skill" in any discipline (but for the sake of argument, let's use writing) is a summative function of one's inborn "talent" and one's acquired "experience", or practice in applying said skill.

Some people are born with a huge head start: see the advent of the prodigy, which has occurred in almost every field of art, science, and mechanics. Does this mean that they are destined to be incredibly skilled later in life? Of course not. This "head start" of talent can be squandered or, even more tragically, go undiscovered.

>>3210179
Talent gives you the ideas and the ease. Practice makes the story flow better.

In everyone's mind, their story is the most beautiful, greatest, and most perfect story ever. Bad writers just immediately translate these thoughts into words onto the page rapidly. Good writers take their time and think about the person who will be reading the text, and choose words that will actually recreate the exact thought they had in the mind of the reader.

It's all about being aware of the fact that other people will read your book.

>>3210287
the idea of some vague, generizable logic is a fallacy
>>3210298
how can talent exist separate from practice?

Writing an interesting story is absolutely something you can learn. Given enough complexity to a computer and it could probably write one (but not necessarily enough to give it consciousness). With that said, what you want to write about and the motivation to write something tend to differ greatly between people, of course this doesn't necessarily mean it's inherent either.

I don't argue that talent (defined as genetic makeup) may be a great factor in how good you are, but it's not something essential to every great writer.

>>3210221
I disagree.

>>3210221
Stephen Hawking confirmed for shit tier rock climber.

>>3210415
wrong. some people are wired differently and therefore are more interesting. dull people can write and rewrite and they will still be dull.
you have it or you don't.

>>3210785
imo the difference between dull and interesting people is how much real life you are willing to endure.

>>3210221

You don't really believe this do you? Sure I can practice something and get better at it but there is a limit.

I think that minority who could write and rewrite and still be bad due to some chronic deficiency of "talent" is so infinitesimal as to be practically nonexistent.

>>3211801
All you have to do is arrange the words in a way that people like. There's no mechanical ability you need to train and perform on the spot. That's all you have to do.

>>3211853
But still, many fail to do event this.
Surely there must be something more to it.

Diverse vocabulary, moderate grasp of how to construct a sentence, an entertaining idea, and you're done

I personally belief that talent is a sum of genetic advantage, and skill which develops early on. In many skill sets, the younger one learns the skill, the faster and more thoroughly they do so if there is no resistance. At a young age with an open mind, the child exposed to positive stimuli can outshine one who works all their life. Likewise, genetic advantage can overpower years of practicing.
>>3210411
Skill, as is said, is the product not just of genetic/ cognitive ability alone and practice, but of genetic ability, practice, and the age at which one begins receiving positive stimuli. Of course, the early stimuli does not necessarily make the subject more skilled in that specific area, but perhaps in multiple.
Anyway, this is simply how I see skill.

this is already a solved matter op

hard and devoted practice trumps talent. you should know this.

talent is the magic like quality, the rare diamond, the lightning bolt that hits the mark. it appears of itself and can outshine the mundanity of practice. but it's murky and shadowy, practice will always make it stronger.

so practice is the stone, the groundwork. if you're lucky you'll have 'talent' too

>>3211887
trollololol

being a neurosurgeon is just cutting the brainpan open, twiddling with things, and making sure you put things back where you found me.

I'm pretty sure the quote is Thomas Edison, and I think he is right on this matter. Genius is 1 percent inspiration and ninety nine percept perspiration. This has always been borne out by reality.

Everyone who love you for being good at something just tried harder than almost anyone else. Inspiration is always a part but as long as you are not seriously deficient, hard work will suffice to be successful at anything.

The best way to look at it is this: the real "talent" that we should treasure is that ability to work hard at something, through all setbacks and whatnot, until you get from it what you want. That is actually an incredibly rare trait in people.

>>3211882
There's you ending up expressing something other people are interested in reading 10-20 years down the line (which is pretty much up to chance) and you being able to put words together in a pleasing manner (which is from you reading a lot). What am I missing?

>>3211934
But medicine is a field that is more or less dominated by repetition and rote learning.You can't just have a "talent" for neurosurgery from age 13 or whatever.