Achieving Mastery!

[sloar]

I think talent does imply with art. I have always been able to draw and paint. Did I practice? Nope, I hate it, I have never enjoyed drawing but I would do it for favors for people working on projects. Then when my kids were young I would paint characters on their walls in bedrooms. I've always been able to draw whatever and I really don't understand how people cant. I guess I would call that natural talent. Not sure about musical talent because I'm not very good in that aspect.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by JonPR

If they started at the same age as Woods, and had the same passion for it - yes, probably.

.

And all the touring pros that TG completely outclassed - they didn't start early enough? They didn't have the passion?

[rick-slo]

Multifactorial rather than simplistic

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...talent-a-myth/

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

And all the touring pros that TG completely outclassed - they didn't start early enough? They didn't have the passion?

One or the other. Or both.
I'm not saying that the right kind of personality might not be at least partly genetic. Only that a talent for golf isn't. How would that make any kind of sense?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by sloar

I think talent does imply with art. I have always been able to draw and paint. Did I practice? Nope, I hate it, I have never enjoyed drawing but I would do it for favors for people working on projects. Then when my kids were young I would paint characters on their walls in bedrooms. I've always been able to draw whatever and I really don't understand how people cant. I guess I would call that natural talent. Not sure about musical talent because I'm not very good in that aspect.

That reminds me of a nice story I read somewhere about an art professor. His 7-year-old daughter asked him about his job, and he said he taught people how to draw. She was confused and replied "you mean they forget?"

[tbeltrans]

The problem I have with the general use of the term "talent" is that it is often confused with the word "skill". When some folks hear somebody play an instrument well, they will say that person is so "talented". I have also heard people about whom that is said, reply to the effect that what they have is a skill that they worked many years to develop. I have been one of those who had that said about me and have given that response.

I have had people say to me that I am "lucky" to have had a decent paying job as a software engineer. It wasn't luck. I went through college at night while working full time during the day. As far as I am concerned, anybody could do that IF they cared enough about doing it to actually put in the sustained effort.

Rather than arguing about whether there is such as talent, I would much rather focus on whether or not I desire to do the thing enough to put in the time and sustained effort required to achieve it.

Talent is probably a difficult thing to pin down. There are many things about playing guitar that a person could have a natural affinity for, and we probably each have different affinities for different things about playing guitar. In other words, while learning to play guitar, we ALL will find that some aspects come easier than others, and that what comes easier for us, probably does not for somebody else and vice versa. One person might have a "natural" sense of rhythm, while another has a "natural" sense of melody, and another has a "natural" ear, and another a "natural" touch for fingerstyle.

If you read/watch interviews with well known guitar players (or any instrument, for that matter), and especially if you watch DVDs of them teaching, you will often hear them talk about the areas they have had to work extra hard to develop, and those seem to be what they chose to teach. In other words, they don't have the "complete" package, but instead are really good at some things and other things come only with dedicated work.

I do believe in the idea of each of us having our own "personal genius", in that when we find (if we ever do), that pursuit that largely comes at least somewhat easily for us AND is something we deeply are interested in, we will excel at it. I believe that those who never seem to get off the ground, probably never found theirs. Finding that thing seems to be a hit or miss proposition, since we don't come with a user manual.

For me, it turned out to be computer technology. I don't mean to imply that I am a genius in technology, but it just always made perfect sense to me. Certainly there are those who are far better with than I am, as well as those who don't fare as well. However, I did graduate at the top of my class in college and have not had trouble staying employed despite layoffs every few years, and now am able to easily pick up contract engineering work that suits my schedule. Some others that I have worked with have struggled in several of these areas, while still others have become fabulously successful way beyond anything I have accomplished.

Playing guitar, I had my stint playing full time professionally and have had no trouble finding bands to play with when I wanted to. There are folks who play far better than I do, and many who don't play as well.

I think these things can be said for all of us. I would guess that the professional players we might look up to, probably don't play as well as we do with certain aspects of the guitar, and clearly can play far better in others.

When I was on the road, I met a number of hobby players who were really, really good because they just loved the process of learning and were willing to spend all that time in isolation doing just that. They had no desire to be on stage or otherwise do anything with it.

It takes all kinds, as the saying goes, and because of that, it can be very hard to identify what is talent and what is developed skill. It is, however, easy enough to see whether a person is motivated, has the desire to play well.

Tony

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

The problem I have with the general use of the term "talent" is that it is often confused with the word "skill". When some folks hear somebody play an instrument well, they will say that person is so "talented". I have also heard people about whom that is said, reply to the effect that what they have is a skill that they worked many years to develop. I have been one of those who had that said about me and have given that response.

I have had people say to me that I am "lucky" to have had a decent paying job as a software engineer. It wasn't luck. I went through college at night while working full time during the day. As far as I am concerned, anybody could do that IF they cared enough about doing it to actually put in the sustained effort.

Rather than arguing about whether there is such as talent, I would much rather focus on whether or not I desire to do the thing enough to put in the time and sustained effort required to achieve it.

Talent is probably a difficult thing to pin down. There are many things about playing guitar that a person could have a natural affinity for, and we probably each have different affinities for different things about playing guitar. In other words, while learning to play guitar, we ALL will find that some aspects come easier than others, and that what comes easier for us, probably does not for somebody else and vice versa. One person might have a "natural" sense of rhythm, while another has a "natural" sense of melody, and another has a "natural" ear, and another a "natural" touch for fingerstyle.

If you read/watch interviews with well known guitar players (or any instrument, for that matter), and especially if you watch DVDs of them teaching, you will often hear them talk about the areas they have had to work extra hard to develop, and those seem to be what they chose to teach. In other words, they don't have the "complete" package, but instead are really good at some things and other things come only with dedicated work.

I do believe in the idea of each of us having our own "personal genius", in that when we find (if we ever do), that pursuit that largely comes at least somewhat easily for us AND is something we deeply are interested in, we will excel at it. I believe that those who never seem to get off the ground, probably never found theirs. Finding that thing seems to be a hit or miss proposition, since we don't come with a user manual.

For me, it turned out to be computer technology. I don't mean to imply that I am a genius in technology, but it just always made perfect sense to me. Certainly there are those who are far better with than I am, as well as those who don't fare as well. However, I did graduate at the top of my class in college and have not had trouble staying employed despite layoffs every few years, and now am able to easily pick up contract engineering work that suits my schedule. Some others that I have worked with have struggled in several of these areas, while still others have become fabulously successful way beyond anything I have accomplished.

Playing guitar, I had my stint playing full time professionally and have had no trouble finding bands to play with when I wanted to. There are folks who play far better than I do, and many who don't play as well.

I think these things can be said for all of us. I would guess that the professional players we might look up to, probably don't play as well as we do with certain aspects of the guitar, and clearly can play far better in others.

When I was on the road, I met a number of hobby players who were really, really good because they just loved the process of learning and were willing to spend all that time in isolation doing just that. They had no desire to be on stage or otherwise do anything with it.

It takes all kinds, as the saying goes, and because of that, it can be very hard to identify what is talent and what is developed skill. It is, however, easy enough to see whether a person is motivated, has the desire to play well.

Tony

Good stuff. Another Tony who develops software and plays guitar! Cool. I've risen fairly high within my profession and am called talented by others in the company. I agree with the above comments that much of my "talent" is more skills that I've put many hours into honing and developing.

When I first got into software, I saw the applications written by the more senior members of the team and was blown away by them, I envisioned this sort of "black box" where the really mind numbingly brilliant code existed. So I took home listings of the code and pored over them in my spare hours.

I didn't understand some of the more complex code initially and that fed my idea of this "black box". But it didn't take long for me to work through it and guess what, there was no black box. It all made sense and while that didn't diminish my admiration for the senior team members, instead it made me realize I to could aspire to writing such code (and have done so many times in my career).

Same applies to what I've learned and am learning in my guitar playing over the past 7 years. If I compare what I play now to the very simple stuff I started with, I'm amazed at the mastery I've achieved. Heck, I can do all sorts of things I once marveled at. Yet, if you hear me, I'm just your average intermediate guitar player.

Maybe when I've been playing guitar as long as I've been developing software (35+ years), some will call me a talented musician. :-)

[tbeltrans]

Thanks Tony. My software engineering work is at the hardware level (i.e. "engineer"), involving schematics, scopes, etc. while writing what is essentially considered "firmware". My general area is embedded Linux, involving device drivers and even lower level OS code.

I view what I do as swimming along the bottom of the pool, while the applications folks are swimming along the top. I can say, having also worked at the application level, that the closer you get to the hardware, the more "black and white" the world becomes. To me, that level is easier to understand than the application level where there are so many more variables involved. Both are "hardy" skills and are of equal importance. I also consider IT folks to be very skilled and they perform a crucial role in the success of a company, especially in the areas of security. It takes a lot of different skill areas to make the computer world go around, doesn't it?

There are folks who claim that there is a connection between music and writing code. That may be true in some cases, but I know all too many software engineers who don't play an instrument and may have little beyond a passing interest in music. That may be different for applications programmers, but I wouldn't know that.

Your points are well taken. People who are not involved in the skills another may have, will often refer to the person as "talented" rather than "skilled". But those who exhibit the ability, well know the work that goes into developing it.

Tony