/sci/ - Science & Math

>Are people good at things "naturally" because of some innate ability?
yes

>>12236510
Do you teach a bird how to swim, or a bird how to fly?
Sure. Everyone has natural talents. The problem is finding a use for them, or dropping them to learn something less intuitive.

On another side of things, I have sucked at sports my whole life. It always seemed like peers were just naturally good at sports. But now as I think about it, what happened was that since I never played much sports due to being discouraged initially, I didn't develop a lot of basic skills like handeye coordination, etc. My peers however did develop these skills, and since they played other sports, picking up new sports was easy, as there is a transfer of some concepts.

A few years ago, I started learning how to juggle and that improved my hand-eye coordination immensly. Afterwards I started developing a lot more interest in sports, and got into playing basketball. I found I was much better at basketball then when I was younger, and now I play pretty frequently with a group. Consequentially, I've also gotten much better at sports overall and have developed an interest in them, whereas before, this didn't happen no matter how hard I tried.

>>12236518
Ok, but many animals learn how to use their talents by virtue of their parents/group showing them how to do. They don't learn these things in a vaccum.

When these animals are raised in isolation (in a zoo) are they as effective?

>>12236510
and furthermore, is it that someone innately sucks at something? Or is it that they may just require a different approach to developing talent/skill then others.

Look at people life Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk. yes they are smart people, but they also started learning how to program from a young age. How many children had that opportunity in the 70's-80's?

Not to mention, when you learn things as a child there is severely less mental stress associated with failure. By having this opportunity, you also develop a lot more confidence in your abilities. Is that much different from most pro-athletes who have trained in their sport of choice since they were a young child?

I don't think you are any less capable as an adult. Its just that you have less time, and the consequences of failure are much higher as failure can mean being homeless. There is no leeway to try a new approach as the amount of time you can devote is severely limited. You may also have accumulated a lot of mental baggage from past failures (which your brain examines more critically as an adult).

>>12236510
Yes, natural talent is real. Despite what Malcolm Gladwell claims, you can have two people put in the same time and effort into the same activities, and end up with two very different outcomes.

>>12236597
How can you make this statement, when it'd be impossible to actually measure this objectively? You'd have to account for every factor being the exact same for both individuals. They'd each have to have parents who are of the same disposition (e.g exact same approach to parenting, exact same perspective on how they view the child, exact same socioeconomic background, etc). And this would have to be the same for pretty much factor thing in their lives. Exact same group of friends, school, mentors, society, cultural values, etc. Pretty much the exact same influences on both people.

>>12236518
Are some birds better at flying than others of their species?

>>12236546
No, it's weaker in isolation (albeit still marginally there) but then again, the latent things some genetics might remember, the breeze, the visual stimuli of a field or open meadow, might activate some innate instincts, they way dragonflies are attracted to grass clippings, meaning that when in natural habitats, their nature acts up.

>many animals learn how to use their talents by virtue of their parents/group showing them how to do
Not all animals, like birds and fish. Some birds literally throw their chicks off a cliff, hoping their instincts will kick in before they hit the ground.
This same instinct is present in all animals to lesser degrees. It's why some soldiers have disposition to wielding weapons, or even something as simple as favoring a right or left hand, or some families have a natural talent for abstract thinking, maths, or even just artistry.

>>12236628
Yes. Some birds will have the nature so ingrained into their disposition, they kick their chicks off of cliffs to activate their flying.
Other birds have them practice flapping or practice lower to the ground, or branch to branch to ensure they don't mess up.

In short: The more a genetic lineage practices something, the more ingrained it is in their genetic predisposition. It can be unlearned, sure, but it depends on usefulness too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxGuNJ-nEYg

A lot of ‘talent’ is down to transferable skills, experience or because of how newly learned concepts register as intuitive due to them resonating with a person’s model of the world and their perception. I would say that people underestimate how important fundamentals are in any subject, skill or field. If you have good underlying knowledge, you grasp the higher level concepts far more intuitively. You need the branches for the leaves.

>>12236510
i was born with natural music talent. i could always drum and sing like the best of them with no training.

>>12236510
No, I don't think so. What you may precieve as 'natural talent' or 'gifted' may actually be the type of upbringing a child recieved, a patterned series of suttle events thoughout early life may simply lead the person to be precieved to be naturally good because they made the right synapse connections when their brains were mostly clean slates. It is why elderly find computers completely alien, yet younger generations who grew up with this tech can use them with little to no difficulty. Think of it as like a the native language, being able to think, rationalise and plan in that language is only possible because you learned it from birth, try to do it with your secondary language without falling back into your native and you may feel a bit worn out by the end.

>>12236629
>or some families have a natural talent for abstract thinking, maths, or even just artistry.

But is it really a natural talent? Maybe the family has just been able to determine an effective means to grow talents in their children at a young age. Someone who is born in that family will have the virtue of being exposed to this form of thinking much more in their life, as opposed to someone who isnt.

>>12236646
>an effective means
And where do you think those "effective teaching means" were born?
You can also pick up tricks from other creatures and people, however the first one to write that book, from which you picked up those skills, probably wrote it, because it was within his and his families nature.

it's really just extreme speed learning, you don't come out of the womb knowing math

>>12236665
Tell that to Thoth. That bird bastard.

>>12236639
>>12236636

Yeah these are my thoughts exactly. Someone who is good at something "naturally" may have just received the the ideal sequence of experiences/pre-req concepts that give rise to their talent. This same sequence may not result in the same outcome for someone else, but maybe its because their brain requires a different sequence/combination of experiences to give rise to the same talent. Or maybe this exact same talent manifests in some different form for the person.

>>12236638
What if you were born in a society/culture where there was no music. How do you think this talent would manifest itself? Would it manifest at all?

>>12236655
But that "effective teaching means" would ultimately be influenced by the experiences that person had. Those experiences may help bring out those talents of people in that family, but not for everyone else.

>>12236679
>Those experiences may help bring out those talents of people in that family
And yet people use books to learn, all the time.

>>12236683
And those who can learn from those books the best?
Those who experienced the events that increased their natural abstract thinking/other talent.

>>12236683
Sure, but people often have different opinions on how effective a particular learning material is for them.

Someone who may have not found a particular book effective at all, may find success with some other book. They may also find success through learning some other topic first, and then coming back to the original topic they intended to learn.

>>12236692
Yes, but generally, if it resonates with someone, it is because they have had a similar experience.

>>12236597
Totally and completely missing the point being made by the OP.

I get what you're saying OP, and I agree with you about 85%. I still think that there is some kind of innate ability in certain people depending on whatever, genetic makeup etc

>>12236612
First of all, are we talking about physical or mental skills? For physical skills, you're never ever going to be on the same playing field as everyone else. Athleticism can be improved through training, but some people are simply better at developing motor skills. In terms of mental acuity, I see no reason why our brains wouldn't also differ just as much.

>>12236699
Different people will have vastly different learning curves for all kinds of things. It's innate.

anything other than natural ability is just luck
hard work can only improve what is already there

>>12236510
it's not talent, it's not intelligence, it's not even demeanor.

it's drive

>>12236510
>Are people good at things "naturally" because of some innate ability?
Yes, this is why they clamp. To attenuate natural talents. It's about equality, perhaps.

>>12236858
There’s truth to physical proficiencies having parallels with mental proficiencies, but the comparison has it’s limits— it is an incredibly reductive and shallow interpretation of the complexity of learning and cognition

>>12236904
>it is an incredibly reductive and shallow interpretation of the complexity of learning and cognition
I'm not saying the processes are exactly the same, I'm saying that if there's such severe differences in the physical domain, then why would there not be significant differences in the mental domain? I don't disagree that upbringing and prior experience affects our ability to learn new things, but it seems pretty obvious to me that some people are incredibly gifted and others are not.

>>12236882
>drive
Trying hard is also a natural talent.

>>12236510
>Are people good at things "naturally" because of some innate ability?
Absolutely for example in any physical activity there are very clearly defined genetic differences that can account for "talent" and in cognitive skills for example pattern recognition is a trait that some are born with a greater ease of use and this translates into innumerable skills and there are many other examples

>>12236510
It's called IQ and genetics. Women are naturally better at being caregivers. Men are naturally better inventors but they also are more likely to commit violent crimes. Blacks are more emotional and they are low iq which explains why they commit the most violent crimes and are the poorest. Talk to some biologists and clinical psychologists. Avoid sociologists because it's not a real science.

>>12236518
That's like saying a "natural talent" of a human is walking. Also, bird's literally have to learn how to fly.

>>12237027
Well it is. It's enabled by genetics.

Of course it's real. People will readily admit it's true for athleticism, but not for mentally-loaded tasks.

>>12237004
According to that chart there are electrical engineers with IQs below 100. How is that even possible?

>>12236510
>>12236515
>>12236530
>>12236546
>>12236518

You can have some innate ability like if you have a longer torso you naturally will be a better swimmer but it only makes up about 10-20% of the skill the rest is practice and brain training. However there is some people that have a jack of all trades type bodies and brains and I think they just have more synapse connections in general naturally which allows them to be good in athletics, social and academics. Think Adolf Hitler,Dolph Lundgren, Julius Caesar, Attlia the Hun, Rocky Marciano, all geniuses and were all very athletic. I mean Hitler was a war hero who fought in the worst battles, while also being a rather good artist and managed to be the most charismatic man of his time then he brought a entire country out of ruin and made it the most powerful country in Europe in less than 2 decades.

There was some studies that showed talent is just adolescent reinforcement like for music it showed that it had far to do with a parent teaching them early on. Potential means nothing if not fostered.

>>12236510
Consider that you come from a lineage that has survive developing certain traits relative to environmental context.
Most humans have a balance, but everyone has an inclination this or that way.
No stone unturned.

>>12237111
ee isnt very hard, its just diagram chasing

>>12236510
>Is Natural Talent Real?
yes, some people are born more fundamentally capable than others. tall people really are better at playing basketball than manlets are.

>>12236510
>Is Natural Talent Real?
Yes, whoever affirms the opposite is a marxist

>>12237159
Yeah hitler did such a good job. Because of him jews can do no wrong anymore

>>12236510
Competetive balance is what they teach the white boys so they don't shoot up the schools because the Mexican kid is smarter than them

>>12236573
Almost every child in the developed/developing world right now has the ability to learn how to program at a young age. Yet I don't see them learning. The cost isn't a barrier, the information isn't a barrier. You can buy a $10 used smartphone on ebay or a $10 raspberry pizero/clone or a $40 used i3 laptop on ebay. Why isn't every child as smart as Gates/Bezos/Musk? If you can afford a single lunch @ mcdonalds, you can afford to get the tools to learn programming.

Talent is a real thing. But talent isn't alone. The biggest driver for success isn't talent. Its learning perseverance. You must dedicate yourself to the task you want to learn. Whatever you are doing, whether its Judo/running/driving cars/programming/math/etc, you need to keep going. Our whole economy is built on specializations that can only be achieved if you focused on a single subject of your choice. Regardlesss of natural talent, you'll get to somewhere comfortable. With talent, you'll get far and wide.

>>12236612
Twins reared apart.

>>12238903
Retard. Your contradicting yourself. The issue is fundamentally interest. The majority of people aren't interested in productive activities.

>>12236510
All talent is natural because you don’t have free will

>>12236510
how retarded do you have to be to even ask this question?
yeah dude, all the greatest mathematicians displayed prodigious abilities in their very young childhood completely for no reason
neumann could divide two 8 digit numbers in his head when he was 6
erdos by the age of four, given a person's age, he could calculate in his head how many seconds they had lived
literally pick any great mathematician and you will see they've been intelectually extraordinary in some way since birth

>>12239641
sounds like autism

>>12239641
>all the greatest mathematicians displayed prodigious abilities in their very young childhood
[citation needed]

>>12236510
Of course, some people are just born smater or stronger or faster or more creative than others

>>12236510
Yes, it is real. But not like "he has talent for sports" but "he has a natural hand-eye cordination" or "he is good with understanding causalities"!

>>12239641

None of these anecdotes can be verified. In my personal experience learning Japanese as a young adult the critical period for language acquisition is a meme, talent is another meme.

What the fuck is with left leaning individuals and hating any kind of talent or self-improvement? Uncle Ted is right on the money I swear to christ

>>12240628
Dude.

They
fucking
clamp.

What don't people get? They clamp. If you can't (and don't want to) make everyone the same by improvement of the lesser members, you have to do so by coercion, disruption, and reduction, of the greater members of the society.

These people like being clamped. They want to clamp you. They want to clamp you again and as completely as possible. They won't be satisfied until everything goes, and everything is clamped. They think they're ushering ina new world, but it's actually oldworld principles in disguise. They're not smart enough to engineer a b eter future.

>>12240642
Clamppill me, I'm not sure what you mean

>>12236510
>Are people good at things "naturally" because of some innate ability? Or is it by virtue of their life experiences? And it doesn't have to be a direct life experience either.
What the fuck kind of question is this? The answer to this is obvious to anyone who isn't a total idiot. It's just a debate over proportions.

>>12240628
>What the fuck is with left leaning individuals and hating any kind of talent or self-improvement? Uncle Ted is right on the money I swear to christ
I'd say that's "not even wrong". Very right-leaning people tend to believe you're endowed with certain natural abilities that are "baked in" and frozen and you're just stuck with what you get. Very left-leaning people tend to believe in the "blank slate" hypothesis where everyone starts out with equal ability and all that matters is experience and how you fill in the blank slate. And obviously people who aren't idiots don't believe either of those childish reductionist memes or strong political dichotomies.

And just as an anecdote, I'm left-leaning and into self-improvement and obviously respect natural talent as well, and I don't know any left-leaning people who aren't. It's mostly the the woke activists and far-right /pol/tards who have pathological and insane relationships with the Rawlsian veil and locus of control, because that's how they approach everything.

>>12240668
Right wing people tend to be more predisposed to activities that improve them be it physically or mentally. Left wingers try to lower the bar to make everyone "good."
There is a significant portion of the population that thinks exercise makes you evil. I had one girl at my uni tell me that my being fit was a privilege

>>12240679

>>12240683
What asinine point is this trying to make?

>>12240679
>Right wing people tend to be more predisposed to activities that improve them be it physically or mentally.
I could maybe see physically, but I think you're just pulling that out of your ass. What's your source? It could be true but that would have to actually be studied. And it would depend exactly how you're drawing the political divisions.

>Left wingers try to lower the bar to make everyone "good."
Not really. They try to lower the entry threshold for minority groups, but the actual thing itself generally stays the same. Maybe in some cases they persistently lower the overall bar for minority groups, but probably not for "privileged people".

>I had one girl at my uni tell me that my being fit was a privilege
Political identity is increasingly fragmented in the US and doesn't really fall so much into red vs. blue anymore (yet at the same time it kind of does when it comes to conflict and controversy). The "body weight/fitness is genetic and out of your control" / health at every size / healthy fatness crowd are the "woke left", like how QAnon isn't the "right" but rather the far-right/schizo right. Places like 4chan just indoctrinated a sizable chunk of a generation of dumb teenagers that the only alternative to the former is the latter. Sadly it's a very effective technique (see: Hitler)

>>12236573
It isn't about the opportunity to program, virtually every child had that opportunity now.
The real privilege is capital. These people could start a major company straight from the college, if they even finished it.
The average joe with a Bc title won't be given that opportunity.

>>12236573
It isn't about the opportunity to program, virtually every child had that opportunity now.
The real privilege is capital. These people could start a major company straight from the college, if they even finished it.
The average joe with a BSc degree won't be given that opportunity.

>>12240628
>>12240642

Your opinion on this isn't gonna be objective at all because you obviously have some bias against left leaning individuals.

And I can just as easily say the same for right wing people who tend to beleive in the natural order of things. Most right wingers I know are boring fucks who do fuck all after they get married.

>>12240668
>believe
When you believe, you be the lie you live.
Science and Math were designed to weed out lies. It is Logia Materia. Material Logic. Truth and wisdom condensate.

>>12240679
And yet red states have the highest obesity rates in the country. Have you based your entire view of left-wingers on SJW compilations and college campuses?

>>12236510
Yes, it's obviously real. The fact that some morons believe that it is the ONLY thing that matters doesn't change that.

Yes, I mean you'll get good at anything if you've spent a good part of your life doing a specific task.

The system tried to break me, but I rose up stronger, smarter. My IQ is extremely high, my working memory incalculable.

Your premise that talent is learned is laughable. The ranks of confusion when I preside over all... gratifying to my godly senses.

>>12236510 >>12236515 >>12236518 >>12236530
>>12236546 >>12236557 >>12236573 >>12236597
>>12236612 >>12236628 >>12236629 >>12236635
>>12236636 >>12236638 >>12236639 >>12236646
>>12236655 >>12236665 >>12236671 >>12236672
>>12236679 >>12236683 >>12236685 >>12236692
>>12236695 >>12236699 >>12236704 >>12236858
>>12236872 >>12236882 >>12236883 >>12236904
>>12236922 >>12236938 >>12236992 >>12237004
>>12237027 >>12237063 >>12237076 >>12237111
>>12237159 >>12237171 >>12237178 >>12237204
>>12238210 >>12238612 >>12238710 >>12238903
>>12238919 >>12238950 >>12238992 >>12239641
>>12239649 >>12239748 >>12239769 >>12240296
>>12240619 >>12240628 >>12240642 >>12240649
>>12240653 >>12240668 >>12240679 >>12240683
>>12240688 >>12240699 >>12241380 >>12242115
>>12242138 >>12242213

>>12242115
Right wing, left wing, CHICKEN WING. It's built on find an easier way, through.

Two wings connected to the same beast, though. I don't organize things internally as left and right, I break it down to underlying elements, and the real world long term organizational features they entail.

>>12240679
>Left wingers try to lower the bar to make everyone "good."
Yes, the idea is that relying on a few brilliant individuals is retarded and that a large, educated collective is required in order to advance society.

>>12242270
the contrasting idea to this is that only a few individuals *can* be brilliant, and that attempting to make a "large educated collective" isn't possible because even if you offer education to people, unless they're willing to become part of the "few brilliant individuals" then the education is useless.
Basically, what you're saying is true, but not possible because even if everyone's educated, only the few brilliant super-educated people will make a difference. The higher the average education is, the super-geniuses will be better to compensate. Maybe by that way of thinking, it does work.

>>12236510
i remember i read somwhere a long time ago that children of swiss watchmakers have a natural aptitude for that profession. Im not an expert but it seems to me for know as a self evident truth that genes can store a whole lot of information, more than we thought before. Not only intelligence but emotions, memories..

>>12242270
Lmao Imagine being this deluded.

Society is educated and we're not advancing shit other than mixing random chemicals together like monkeys.

>>12236510
chaos theory

>>12242232
>The system tried to break me, but I rose up stronger, smarter. My IQ is extremely high, my working memory incalculable.
>Your premise that talent is learned is laughable. The ranks of confusion when I preside over all... gratifying to my godly senses.
>>>12236510 (OP) >>12236515 >>12236518 >>12236530
>>>12236546 >>12236557 >>12236573 >>12236597 (You)
>>>12236612 >>12236628 >>12236629 >>12236635
>>>12236636 >>12236638 >>12236639 >>12236646
>>>12236655 >>12236665 >>12236671 >>12236672
>>>12236679 >>12236683 >>12236685 >>12236692
>>>12236695 >>12236699 >>12236704 >>12236858 (You)
>>>12236872 >>12236882 >>12236883 >>12236904
>>>12236922 (You) >>12236938 >>12236992 >>12237004
>>>12237027 >>12237063 >>12237076 >>12237111
>>>12237159 >>12237171 >>12237178 >>12237204
>>>12238210 >>12238612 >>12238710 >>12238903
>>>12238919 >>12238950 >>12238992 >>12239641
>>>12239649 >>12239748 >>12239769 >>12240296
>>>12240619 >>12240628 >>12240642 >>12240649
>>>12240653 >>12240668 >>12240679 >>12240683
>>>12240688 >>12240699 >>12241380 >>12242115
>>>12242138 >>12242213
Kudos on clicking on all of those messages.

>>12245920

regex (?<!>)122[0-9]{5}

>>12236510
You will understand at least how much actions can happen on computer compared to person who just copied files. Your mind should be event full from PC games, and you probably used to collect things you use later, which is useful.

>>12236510
cope

>>12236510
yea man, euler was just way more dedicated than his peers. he worked super hard, all there is to it.

not...

>>12236510
>When I really think about it, the reason why I found the course easy was because I spent most of my adolescent years on computers and playing video games.
isnt that just a different way of saying talent? even if it is nurture, unless it was deliberate practice, it might as well be innate talent.

if you have high iq because your parents bought you the right kind of toys and had a suitable environment between the ages of 0-12 (assuming iq can be improved by nurture), can you really feel proud of it? you never had any hand in that, would it really make sense for you to tell a low iq brainlet "it isnt innate you dummy, you should have had your parents buy you the right kind of toys as a little kid"

for all intents and purposes, it is "innate", as in you had no deliberate contribution in it

>>12246766
But if it's innate, then his contribution is his mere existence, so he does have a hand in it.

>>12236510
I had the same experience with the discrete math class on my first semester, i almost couldn't understand how others didn't get things as fast as me