What is talent? How do you know you're musically talented?

[dima_76557]

I beg to disagree.  The average person can achieve that, and more, if s/he had exceptional instruction.  This is why actors who have to play a role that requires playing piano take a crash course on it.  E.g. Saoirse Ronan in the film, Byzantium (2012), plays Beethoven's Op.2 No.3 Adagio movement on screen.  She plays it quite nicely.  It took her 12 weeks of lessons to do that.

Here in Russia, we have a saying: "A truly talented person is talented in everything". If you take the more than average talented Irish/American actress Saoirse Ronan as a representative of all mankind, then that's your responsibility.

[j_menz]

Here in Russia we have a saying: "A truly talented person is talented in everything".

Suddenly some of Vladimir Putin's more eccentric (to me) pursuits/staged-photo-ops make much more sense.

[senanserat]

I concur with zeal with what has been said here, passion and dedication are the real talents, talent could be best defined as a state one achieves.

In the other hand that could be me trying to convince myself starting late isn't the end of the world....C'mon Volodos lets prove them wrong.

[dima_76557]

I think this quote by the great Artur Rubinstein says it all:

One must be born with talent, that is the most important thing. You must be born with talent, and then you can only develop it. But there's nothing to learn, you can't learn talent.

This is, however, not an excuse to stop progressing at something you really want to achieve. At the same time, knowing and recognizing your limits is also a blessing.

[maitea]

@senaserat

I think passion and decication are very important! And starting late is not the end of the world! But I don't think Volodos is the right example.. Firstly, even when his first piano studies weren't serious they still were with Galina Egiazarova, who is an excellent teacher. Also, in that "not so serious" moment with the piano, he was studying voice and thinking about conducting. This is not the usual "nonchalant" approach...

Anyhow, when he moved to Madrid to focus seriously at the piano, he did prove more than once or twice his exceptional talent an ability. I had lessons with a former flatmate of Volodos in the Escuela Reina Sofia and the partner of this person, who also study there. Amongs other jewels, he played Rachmaninov 3 to Galina by heart without having put played it before. Only from learning the score at home and having listen to it.

Passion alone doesn't makes this possible.



 

[maitea]

I think this quote by the great Artur Rubinstein says it all:

This is, however, not an excuse to stop progressing at something you really want to achieve. At the same time, knowing and recognizing your limits is also a blessing.

Brilliant!!!!

[dima_76557]

Passion alone doesn't makes this possible.

Certainly not. When talking about "skills", for example, to participate in some classes for gifted musicians, you need SUPERSKILLS and a healthy portion of sado-masochistic love (you are the "receiving" party, of course) for what you do. While a Teacher with the character of György Sebők will help you, comfort you, support you, etc., and get good results, some others simply grind you, break you, kill you, humiliate you before your classmates if you can't react immediately to their requirements the way they want you to. It is nothing like preparing a piece fluently and with a ready "interpretation", you know. You have to be able to do ANYTHING with the music in ANY spot, with EITHER hand and instantly, otherwise you will get a "lesson" you will never forget. This paralizes many a youngster with otherwise good prospects. I sincerely wonder sometimes if you can still call that "hard work" and "skills", and if "passion" is enough to help you through such experiences. It seems more like a pact with the Devil sometimes.

[ranniks]

I think this quote by the great Artur Rubinstein says it all:

This is, however, not an excuse to stop progressing at something you really want to achieve. At the same time, knowing and recognizing your limits is also a blessing.

I strongly disagree with what Artur Rubinstein says in that quote.

To keep a long post short:

Person A grows up in the ghetto, never learns the piano, suddenly at age 40 decides to learn the piano and in 10 years is almost concert level. In those 10 years he's played for at least 2 hours a day, topping at 10 hours a few times. E.g. hard work.

Person B grows up in a fancy neighborhood and has had lessons from the moment he could speak, at age 15-20 he is almost concert level. In those 10-15 years he plays the piano variously, with one hour a day, to 30 minutes a day, to 5 hours a day. E.g. hard work.

Hard work = most important factor = talent.

I know, it's hard to realise that everyone could potentially rise to one owns level, but that is a fate we have to acccept.

If you want to call it talent fine, I call it adaption to the environment. When your environment changes, you change too (brain wise).

Perhaps talent is the thing that people who are lazy lack. Perhaps being lazy is something that kills the talent in you. So in that sense, talent does exist.

[dima_76557]

Person A grows up in the ghetto, never learns the piano, suddenly at age 40 decides to learn the piano and in 10 years is almost concert level. In those 10 years he's played for at least 2 hours a day, topping at 10 hours a few times. E.g. hard work.

There is a flaw in your assumptions: Does your premise (the unfavorable conditions you indicate) for the argument to be true mean that this person was born WITHOUT talent? If that person were not talented at all, he simply couldn't even have fulfilled the motoric requirements for "almost concert level", let alone the rest of what it takes. Hard work in itself means NOTHING. As Rubinstein said: there must be something present to develop; something you can't learn.

[outin]

Hard work in itself means NOTHING.

But lets all do it anyway! 

[dima_76557]

But lets all do it anyway! 

If it's healthy hard work, sure! The more talented you are, the harder you have to work. But the reverse is NOT true: the harder you work, the more talented you become.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

How do you know if you're musically talented?

You can just tell.

[lostinidlewonder]

There is a difference between being talented and being a genius or master, what have you. Talent is relative, the others are all encompassing.

I teach students with special needs and some I would have to say are talented compared to others with their same condition. Many students are not mentally or physically talented at playing the piano but are talented with their time management and practice consistency thus may appear to be musically talented but this is just a result of their disciplined work ethic.

I believe the harder you work the more talented you will appear to others. Maybe not 10000 points of talent but 50! But with work you can push that to 100 and so on. A good teacher can sell you talent points in lessons lol

[dima_76557]

There is a difference between being talented and being a genius or master, what have you. Talent is relative, the others are all encompassing.

I teach students with special needs and some I would have to say are talented compared to others with their same condition. Many students are not mentally or physically talented at playing the piano but are talented with their time management and practice consistency thus may appear to be musically talented but this is just a result of their disciplined work ethic.

I believe the harder you work the more talented you will appear to others. Maybe not 10000 points of talent but 50! But with work you can push that to 100 and so on. A good teacher can sell you talent points in lessons lol

A person may also be a Late bloomer - a person whose talents or capabilities are not visible to others until later than usual. The term is used metaphorically to describe a child or adolescent who develops more slowly than others in their age group, but eventually catches up and in some cases overtakes their peers, or an adult whose talent or genius in a particular field only appears later in life than is normal – in some cases only in old age.

[iancollett6]

I beg to disagree.  The average person can achieve that, and more, if s/he had exceptional instruction.  This is why actors who have to play a role that requires playing piano take a crash course on it.  E.g. Saoirse Ronan in the film, Byzantium (2012), plays Beethoven's Op.2 No.3 Adagio movement on screen.  She plays it quite nicely.  It took her 12 weeks of lessons to do that.

I just saw that movie "Byzantium", I watched it especially for the piano scene. Very well played.
I understand that some media reported it inaccurately by saying " Saoirse Ronan masters Beethoven Sonata op.2 no.3 in 12 weeks having never played the piano before. " Now that WOULD be real talent!!

[dima_76557]

I just saw that movie "Byzantium", I watched it especially for the piano scene. Very well played.
I understand that some media reported it inaccurately by saying " Saoirse Ronan masters Beethoven Sonata op.2 no.3 in 12 weeks having never played the piano before. " Now that WOULD be real talent!!

The way she played "only" that part of that sonata and not the whole sonata, I still say: "An amazing talent", because many who have been playing for years and years can't do it so beautifully. As a rule, actors are only trained to synchronize their fingers with a soundtrack of somebody else playing, but she did it herself, without soundtrack. The very limited time frame in which she managed to learn that (12 weeks from scratch, 2 hours a day) makes it an even greater feat. This is NOT something [quote faulty_damper] "the average person can achieve" (Good deeds never remain unpunished?), even if we forget about the incredibly short time frame and the rest of the physical, emotional, and intellectual workload actors and actresses have in preparation for this or that movie project. Making such generalisations is severely devaluating certain special achievements only certain special people are capable of.

[awesom_o]

The way she played "only" that part of that sonata and not the whole sonata, I still say: "An amazing talent", because many who have been playing for years and years can't do it so beautifully........................... The very limited time frame in which she managed to learn that (12 weeks from scratch, 2 hours a day) makes it an even greater feat. This is NOT something [quote faulty_damper] "the average person can achieve" (Good deeds never remain unpunished?), even if we forget about the incredibly short time frame and the rest of the physical, emotional, and intellectual workload actors and actresses have in preparation for this or that movie project. Making such generalisations is severely devaluating certain special achievements only certain special people are capable of.

I think we need to remember just how much money was on the table for the actor in question here. A pianist friend of mine recently taught a professional actor who needed a crash-course in piano for a role in a TV show or film.

He was amazed how quickly the fellow 'progressed'.

This is my point. If I had to look good riding a horse, 12 weeks from today, for a movie role I am getting paid BIG money for...... you bet I would spend those 12 weeks getting into the best equestrian shape of my life!

Surely this doesn't mean I'm a talented equestrian. Any focused adult who has 12 weeks to dedicate to horsemanship with professional coaching and a ton of money on the line could have achieved the same result......

Are Hillary Swank and Will Smith actually talented boxers?

[dima_76557]

I think we need to remember just how much money was on the table for the actor in question here.

She would have received the same amount of money for simply synchronizing her fingers to a soundtrack of somebody else playing (that's how her training initially started), so I don't think the money aspect is valid here. I also did not say that the girl is a "talented" and "accomplished" pianist. She's just amazing for what she accomplished: that one part of that sonata from scratch. I know nothing about her other accomplishments on the piano and I highly doubt she would make it on a concert platform.

This is my point. If I had to look good riding a horse, 12 weeks from today, for a movie role I am getting paid BIG money for...... you bet I would spend those 12 weeks getting into the best equestrian shape of my life!

Surely this doesn't mean I'm a talented equestrian. Any focused adult who has 12 weeks to dedicate to horsemanship with professional coaching and a ton of money on the line could have achieved the same result......

Surely, looking good on a riding horse for a movie role that is usually produced with stand-ins and a million try shots of which the best are chosen and the rest discarded is not the same as playing part of a Beethoven sonata yourself without faking anything? (From scratch is what impresses me, not so much the playing itself.)

Are Hillary Swank and Will Smith actually talented boxers?

While I don't want to diminish their qualities and abilities to learn a new skill within a very short time, fighting scenes are often done with stand-ins and a million takes, of which a lot are cut and only the best are chosen, everything in a cut-and-paste fashion. Summer Glau in the Terminator series was a lot better because she really did the fighting scenes herself with minimum takes and try-outs, and she's a dancer. While she is talented in what she does (making it look very convincing), she is not a talented wu-shu adept, of course. Still, this is not the same as playing part of a Beethoven sonata well under the given circumstances and without cuts.

[awesom_o]

She's just amazing for what she accomplished

So are talented people amazing for what they accomplished? Or are they amazing because they have some special "gift" that is separate from anything anyone can gain through 'accomplishment'?

[dima_76557]

So are talented people amazing for what they accomplished? Or are they amazing because they have some special "gift" that is separate from anything anyone can gain through 'accomplishment'?

Actually, I am rather surprised that a pianist of your standard asks such a question. Makes me think that you really believe that just any non-pianist with zero background in piano playing could do that after her.

[awesom_o]

What does my standard of playing have to do with my question?

Seriously.... Are talented people considered talented because they learned and accomplished much?

Or are talented people considered talented because they are in possession of some special gift or knowledge that CANNOT be achieved by people who are not already considered to be talented?

As in, could a person study their whole life, and learn everything that a talented person learned, but simply fall short of the mark because they lacked the talent?

Show me someone who is truly talented who has zero accomplishment. They do not exist. Likewise, nobody exists who is truly accomplished but has zero talent.


Do you see what I mean?

[dima_76557]

What does my standard of playing have to do with my question?

Hard work alone does not bring a person to such heights. There are simply too many people with good guidance who work perhaps harder and perhaps even longer than you, but did not reach that level of quality.

Seriously.... Are talented people considered talented because they learned and accomplished much?

Not necessarily. There are people who clearly have aptitude for this and that, but who squander what they have and prefer socializing, etc. The talents they have/had can still be recognized at early age. The fact that they did nothing with their talents is an entirely different problem.

Or are talented people considered talented because they are in possession of some special gift or knowledge that CANNOT be achieved by people who are not already considered to be talented?

Very much so, unless the latter turn out to be late bloomers, which you can only find out when it is virtually too late within the crazy career system we have.

As in, could a person study their whole life, and learn everything that a talented person learned, but simply fall short of the mark because they lacked the talent?

Very much so. People may even study their whole lives and learn or achieve nothing special because they are not able to learn from their experience. They have no survival instinct, so to speak. Not enough talent.

Show me someone who is truly talented who has zero accomplishment. They do not exist. Likewise, nobody exists who is truly accomplished but has zero talent.

I think that question is not exactly a fair one, because "zero" is an extreme. I think you cannot find healthy living people with zero accomplishments, and neither can you find people with "zero" talents. There is always some kind of aptitude present for biological survival. Besides, some talents may be discovered or recognized only late in life. I already said that in my post about "late bloomers".

[awesom_o]

I agree with with most of what you have said, but I enjoy playing devil's advocate at times, particularly on this topic. My own personal views on the subject of talent, what it is, how it works, etc, are needless to say constantly changing and evolving.

There is nothing I know how to do that you couldn't go out and learn by yourself if you really want it badly enough.

Absolute pitch would be the closest thing I can think of.

[lostinidlewonder]

Looks like dima_p2u knows everything to do with talent lol.

[dima_76557]

There is nothing I know how to do that you couldn't go out and learn by yourself if you really want it badly enough.

That is the general opinion of those who already have the skills, yes. At the same time, everybody knows that you can put a certain type of people through as many experiences as you want, they still won't be able to learn the right lessons from them, and you have to keep repeating what they should actually be learning. Knowing what you have to do and actually doing it or being able to do it are different things. In the jungle, those people would have little chance of survival.

[outin]

Seriously.... Are talented people considered talented because they learned and accomplished much?

Or are talented people considered talented because they are in possession of some special gift or knowledge that CANNOT be achieved by people who are not already considered to be talented?

No to both...if you look back a few pages ago, I defined talents as personal charachteristics which enable someone to learn faster, with less stress and consequently learn deeper/further than someone else. I still wait for someone else to actually give a sound definition of what they mean with talent instead of simply arguing about whether it exists or not...

[j_menz]

I defined talents as personal charachteristics which enable someone to learn faster, with less stress and consequently learn deeper/further than someone else. I still wait for someone else to actually give a sound definition of what they mean with talent instead of simply arguing about whether it exists or not...

Not going to go for the definition, but going to muddy yours.

People learn in different ways. Some learn processes, some learn frameworks, some learn by rote, some by conceptualising. You learn faster if you are trying to learn in the right way for you (or are being taught in the right way for you). Someone being taught in the wrong way will appear slow, someone the best way for them will appear much more "talented" in your schema.

[outin]

Not going to go for the definition, but going to muddy yours.

People learn in different ways. Some learn processes, some learn frameworks, some learn by rote, some by conceptualising. You learn faster if you are trying to learn in the right way for you (or are being taught in the right way for you). Someone being taught in the wrong way will appear slow, someone the best way for them will appear much more "talented" in your schema.

That's just the catch in this issue: Talents are not something we can just spot or evaluate by looking at an individual. When talents have resulted into a very skillfull individual, it's impossible to separate the effect of talents from the work and tutoring (environment) anymore. They exists (I am pretty certain most people who have studied biology of mammals accepts that certain individuals have a more adaptable and/or efficient system), but any practical application to education will have serious flaws...

BTW. Figuring out the fastest way to learn without tutoring may be a talent in itself and the inability to do so even with good tutoring may be a lack on one
But of course talents are more complex than that, consisting of a combination of factors...

[dima_76557]

I am pretty certain most people who have studied biology of mammals accepts that certain individuals have a more adaptable and/or efficient system

Here lies the key to the riddle, I think: some people are simply better equipped naturally for the game of "Survival of the fittest" than are others. Science, education, medicine, and other artificial institutions have disturbed that balance with certain benefits for us all (more or less forced "help", "compensation" of all kinds), but the essence remains the same: take them away, and we get the same old mess we had before it all started - the naturally best equipped (not necessarily the strongest) survives/wins. Some will be "leaders", some will be "hunters", and still others "farmers". "Leaders" will need someone to entertain them, so the ones that do that best will serve them, etc.

[ranniks]

Here lies the key to the riddle, I think: some people are simply better equipped naturally for the game of "Survival of the fittest" than are others.

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest right now; everyone survives. Natural selection with humans hasn't happened in a long time. I know that you meant it differently btw, so instead of survival you meant who is better or not in regards to the piano for example. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also, speaking about evolution; we are the best evolutionary status that we can be right now. Our mind has evolved to a point that it doesn't evolve further. If it did, you would see different braintypes (not sizes/regional sizes) on mri/cat scans.

So that being said, we humans with our beautifully evolved brains can achieve a lot. To what extent has yet to be found out.

What I do still find puzzling though; if Einstein was a genius among geniuses, what did he experience before coming to the point of being a genius among geniuses?

I think that it's because he experienced things that made his own brain function very well. He found what made everything fall into place for his own brain and did wonderfull things. If we call that experience the 'key factor', then maybe one ought to find their own key factor.

[dima_76557]

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest right now; everyone survives. Natural selection with humans hasn't happened in a long time. I know that you meant it differently btw, so instead of survival you meant who is better or not in regards to the piano for example. Correct me if I am wrong.

Not to "correct you" but what do you think the process of birth does to each individual? That is very much part of the "survival of the fittest" reality. It is a severely traumatic event that has physical, emotional, and intellectual consequences, and not everyone goes through that process equally well. Contrary to what scientists had always assumed, babies are extremely sensitive to the environment. The only form of self-defense they have, however, is to "freeze". "Untalented" people also "freeze" when they have to perform. I think the saying that talent is "what you get at birth" could very much be taken litterally; 1% genes, 99 % how you survive the consequences of the birth trauma as a baby.

I really think people who are born "talented" can be talented in EVERYTHING. Piano is more of a coincidence.

[j_menz]

what do you think the process of birth does to each individual? That is very much part of the "survival of the fittest" reality. It is a severely traumatic event that has physical, emotional, and intellectual consequences, and not everyone goes through that process equally well.

I slept through mine. Asked for coffee after. Oh, and for a lawyer to sue the guy who slapped me.

[senanserat]

I wish to believe that talent is more of a mindset rather than something you're just born with it, granted every individual has mind wired differently so I don't say some people get somethings easier than others.

j_menz you're like my hero =|

[outin]

Also, speaking about evolution; we are the best evolutionary status that we can be right now. Our mind has evolved to a point that it doesn't evolve further.

What a strange idea

If it did, you would see different braintypes (not sizes/regional sizes) on mri/cat scans.

There are differences in brain that are visible on mri, we just don't know that much about brain yet and have not created any workable typology. But differences on how much the different areas of the brain work have been assessed, especially when deviant behavior has been studied. There's no reason to think that none of these differences have genetic basis.

Biological evolution is such a slow process that it makes it invisible to the present observer. So thinking that evolution has stopped because you don't see it is very short sided. Selection will still work, even if it's not about surviving in the wild. Just to give one example: Social standing and educational level has a clear negative effect on the amount of children people have in the modern Western societies. What will be the effects of that remains to be seen...  

[dima_76557]

There are differences in brain that are visible on mri, we just don't know that much about brain yet and have not created any workable typology. But differences on how much the different areas of the brain work have been assessed, especially when deviant behavior has been studied. There's no reason to think that none of these differences have genetic basis.

Right. Scanning brains of great people, analyzing body parts of great people, etc. cannot give an answer to why these people were so great. Neither can it give us a clue as to why individuals are so individual. At the same time, it is also rather short-sighted to conclude therefore that since our brains look very much the same, we are all the same in our innate capabilities. That is just so UNSCIENTIFIC.
P.S.: I am certainly not a fatalistic person. Talent is innate capabilities + mindset. The latter helps growth, but the first will determine how far you can go.

[chopin2015]

Right. Scanning brains of great people, analyzing body parts of great people, etc. cannot give an answer to why these people were so great. Neither can it give us a clue as to why individuals are so individual. At the same time, it is also rather short-sighted to conclude therefore that since our brains look very much the same, we are all the same in our innate capabilities. That is just so UNSCIENTIFIC.
P.S.: I am certainly not a fatalistic person. Talent is innate capabilities + mindset. The latter helps growth, but the first will determine how far you can go.

Still, people have a choice...The power of belief can be so strong! It can brainwash people, it can hypnotize you and bring you to a point where everything aligns, sometimes as sudden as a miracle (so sudden that it cannot be explained by science).  Talent could be a reflection of the type of person you are! A person who thinks they do not need to work harder and improve mistakes, a person that does not know how to manage time...those are usually flexible things. Now, if you take someone who is extreme!!! Extremely capable of managing time, that is the type of person they are. They learn how to play piano, and naturally, they advance regularly because they are extremely good at managing time. Those things complement each other!...I also see it as something that happens naturally. A person picks something intellectual up, goes with it, many other things happen or they don't. If they do, more things happen...a sum of things can deem the person successful (I think, usually due to talent. Not necessarily rewarded with money or fortune, but in personal accomplishment, even if it is moral... A talented person is able to accomplish great things, whether in size or significance or uniqueness or peace of mind...).

[dima_76557]

The power of belief can be so strong!

Oh, sure! But I think that is something scientists prefer to stay far away from because they can't analyze it, they can't measure it, they can't manage it, they can't control it.

Talent could be a reflection of the type of person you are! A person who thinks they do not need to work harder and improve mistakes, a person that does not know how to manage time...those are usually flexible things.

Yes and no. I think that parent pressure in childhood plays a very significant role here, not so much personal choice. But parent pressure does not always end very well. You cannot beat/pressure weaknesses out of somebody, and neither can you beat/pressure strengths into somebody. You can try to instill love only, but if you start putting too much pressure onto somebody, the result will be either hate or indifference, very bad motivators.

[lostinidlewonder]

Oh, sure! But I think that is something scientists prefer to stay far away from because they can't analyze it, they can't measure it, they can't manage it, they can't control it.

Yeah the self motivation industry is just a multi-billion dollar industry. lol. I wonder why all successful businessmen/women all admit that their belief and mindset was pivotal to their success.

Yes and no.

What about a maybe option too?

I think that parent pressure in childhood plays a very significant role here, not so much personal choice.

Unfortunately we do not stay at the age of a child forever. We grow up and make our own choices. So the pressures in childhood can become zero if the teen/adult makes that choice.

But parent pressure does not always end very well. You cannot beat/pressure weaknesses out of somebody, and neither can you beat/pressure strengths into somebody.

So it's not that significant then is it as you grow older.

[dima_76557]

Yeah the self motivation industry is just a multi-billion dollar industry. lol. I wonder why all successful businessmen/women all admit that their belief and mindset was pivotal to their success.

Yes, because we all prefer to hear a sweet lie rather than the bitter truth. Those who have read all that self motivation stuff, tried it and failed (mostly because they didn't have either the money, the "right" looks, or were not ready to be treated like prostitutes) are much larger in number than are those who succeeded. It's all those "losers" that made the self-motivation guys stinking rich by believing their fairy tales and buying their materials.

Unfortunately we do not stay at the age of a child forever. We grow up and make our own choices. So the pressures in childhood can become zero if the teen/adult makes that choice.
So it's not that significant then is it as you grow older.

A good psycho-analyst/therapist will tell you that this is only partly true. Many, many people simply cannot make that choice and stay that same child within. After crying about it, they clear the channels temporarily and become the talented, bright people they could be, but after a while, the old, conditioned pain starts again and again. Any disappointment at this point in life is subconsciously related to "old pain".

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes, because we all prefer to hear a sweet lie rather than the bitter truth. Those who have read all that self motivation stuff, tried it and failed (mostly because they didn't have either the money, the "right" looks, or were not ready to be treated like prostitutes) are much larger in number than are those who succeeded.

Self motivation is not about a lie if you have ever studied it seriously. Setting goals, dreaming, thinking big, self motivation techniques, positive thinking etc, all of these go hand in hand with successful people.

A good psycho-analyst/therapist will tell you that this is only partly true. Many, many people simply cannot make that choice and stay that same child within.

Many many people?? I highly doubt it. Most of us who are adults are normal functioning adults, not all of us have a repressed childhood full of terror and evil experiences.

[dima_76557]

Self motivation is not about a lie if you have ever studied it seriously. Setting goals, dreaming, thinking big, self motivation techniques, positive thinking etc, all of these go hand in hand with successful people.

I know the idea itself is not about a lie, but the idea itself is only good enough if you already have the right mindset and are already in the position where you want to be. It doesn't help much to get where you want to be if other conditions are not right. That is the part they prefer not to talk about.

Many many people?? I highly doubt it. Most of us who are adults are normal functioning adults, not all of us have a repressed childhood full of terror and evil experiences.

Most of us don't have to perform at the maximum levels of human accomplishment either. If they had to, they would meet themselves in the process so to speak.

[j_menz]

Yes, because we all prefer to hear a sweet lie rather than the bitter truth.

Why need the truth be bitter? There are some sweet truths (and some bitter lies) out there.

[chopin2015]

1)Oh, sure! But I think that is something scientists prefer to stay far away from because they can't analyze it, they can't measure it, they can't manage it, they can't control it.

2)Yes and no. I think that parent pressure in childhood plays a very significant role here, not so much personal choice. But parent pressure does not always end very well. You cannot beat/pressure weaknesses out of somebody, and neither can you beat/pressure strengths into somebody. You can try to instill love only, but if you start putting too much pressure onto somebody, the result will be either hate or indifference, very bad motivators.

1) Yes, but scientists have gut! A good one does, at least! That is an extreme, to trust your gut instead of a calculator. That is when taking a chance may put you in the arms of fate, you are either a scientist or you are not! What if you had no other choice, but to take that risk? If you don't take risks in performance, if you don't experiment, how will you discover your new "invention"? You see...Or a scientists that doesn't EVER take risks. He is completely methodical/consistent. He is the best at proving many wrong, has all the answers, etc.. 
I suppose you could have a medium extreme person, that would be ideal in piano. But that must be rare case when being in the middle can be good, and only in that instance middle=good when middle becomes rare.
Oh, I love to babble.

2) yes, many quit piano as soon as they could to spite their parents. Later they would come back and play for fun, to enjoy the music. But not everyone wants to spend all day and all night working. Piano takes a lot of energy, a lot of life. It takes a piece of your SOUL!!! 

[dima_76557]

Yes, but scientists have gut! A good one does, at least! That is an extreme, to trust your gut instead of a calculator.

I am all for measuring and analyzing, but I would like the scientists to be less radical in their "gut" assumptions, because sometimes, this has severe consequences.

Example:
Do you know what the "science-based" methods of delivery protocols and procedures in hospitals actually do to a baby? The instrumentation used prevents mother and child from bonding, and the procedures to speed up the process to releave the pain for the mother cause the baby unbearable pain for the whole process of delivery. Nature determined that intervals of 20 seconds of pain-relaxation is doable for a baby on its way into this world, but the "scientific" methods cause the pain for the baby to last (without pause!) for the whole process of delivery. These methods were installed because the scientists had always assumed that babies are not sensitive to the environment, which turns out to be a mistaken assumption. Although they don't have a picture memory yet, their nervous system and cortex do remember the torture forever and ever, without being able to determine the threat itself. Is it any wonder then that many contemporary children behave the way they do and have troubles simply adapting to the learning process?

[chopin2015]

I am all for measuring and analyzing, but I would like the scientists to be less radical in their "gut" assumtions, because sometimes, this has severe consequences.

Example:
Do you know what the "science-based" methods of delivery protocols and procedures in hospitals actually do to a baby? The instrumentation used prevents mother and child from bonding, and the procedures to speed up the process to releave the pain for the mother cause the baby unbearable pain for the whole process of delivery. Nature determined that intervals of 20 seconds of pain-relaxation is doable for a baby on its way into this world, but the "scientific" methods cause the pain for the baby to last (without pause!) for the whole process of delivery. These methods were installed because the scientists had always assumed that babies are not sensitive to the environment, which turns out to be a mistaken assumption. Although they don't have a picture memory yet, their nervous system and cortex do remember the torture forever and ever, without being able to determine the threat itself. Is it any wonder then that many contemporary children behave the way they do and have troubles simply adapting to the learning process?

That is very interesting, and you have a strong point. I would have to read more about this, because I have not heard much about this...

We cannot help what others do unto us or how we are born...or what method was used to bear a person! That is the mother's choice! You can make a choice for yourself (or your baby momma, because it takes 2 to make a baby). Although, in this case-the only choice you have is to deal with life as it comes. We have good days and we have bad days, cholesteatoma or not! (I had a cholestatoma removed from my ear..). It is what it is. You can live a sweet lie or you can live a bitter truth, or visa versa...But one thing for sure. What brings us down is fear! Fear is the one thing we all could and should refuse to waste any energy on. There are psychological reasons as to why fear is unnecessary! Fear has little to do with choices...

[j_menz]

What brings us down is fear! Fear is the one thing we all could and should refuse to waste any energy on. There are psychological reasons as to why fear is unnecessary! Fear has little to do with choices...

Not all fears are useless:



They are only a problem when they are irrational and unfounded.

[dima_76557]

They are only a problem when they are irrational and unfounded.

But is a "program for survival" (fear is such a mechanism) necessarily irrational and unfounded? Nature gives us senses to determine threats. We then have an analyzer and picture memory to draw conclusions and avoid similarly-looking threats in the future. In the case of the traumatized baby, however, it doesn't have the picture memory yet, so it is basically left with memory of an unidentified threat - unbearable torture. Is this unidentified threat really "irrational" and "unfounded"?

[j_menz]

But is a "program for survival" (fear is such a mechanism) necessarily irrational and unfounded? Nature gives us senses to determine threats. We then have an analyzer and picture memory to draw conclusions and avoid similarly-looking threats in the future. In the case of the baby, however, it doesn't have the picture memory yet, so it is basically left with memory of an unidentified threat - unbearable torture. Is this unidentified threat really "irrational" and "unfounded"?

Sometimes, we get a bit carried away, and fear things that are not a threat.

Also, I don't accept your analysis of what happens at birth as being evidence based. I'm happy to be pointed in the appropriate direction.

[dima_76557]

Sometimes, we get a bit carried away, and fear things that are not a threat.

Also, I don't accept your analysis of what happens at birth as being evidence based. I'm happy to be pointed in the appropriate direction.

This is not my analysis. It is very much based on scientific evidence and clinical experience.
A Google search for "Birth trauma - a baby's view" will help you on your way to a better understanding.

EDIT: The understanding we get should not lead to apathy, to simply "accepting what cannot be changed", but instead to more effective methodology to help people use their natural abilities that may simply be blocked.

[ranniks]

This is not my analysis. It is very much based on scientific evidence and clinical experience.
A Google search for "Birth trauma - a baby's view" will help you on your way to a better understanding.

EDIT: The understanding we get should not lead to apathy, to simply "accepting what cannot be changed", but instead to more effective methodology to help people use their natural abilities that may simply be blocked.

Well, how do you know someone's potential has been blocked?

I don't believe in all that, I believe in guts and hard work. Dattebayo.