Spaz Wrote:(print the numbers from 1 to 100, but if the number is divisible by 3, print "fizz" instead, if the number is divisible by 5, print "buzz" instead, and if it's divisible by both, print "fizzbuzz" instead). Any student that's taken even one year of programming should be able to do that in less than 5 minutes.
Haha, poor graduates.
Anyways, my thought on this subject is that people
can practice a lot and a lot and even more, but there's only so much practice itself can do. Some things come through hard work, while some of it is through natural ability. I think Ben's example of singing sums it up best; some people are absolutely phenomenal at singing without much practice at all, some can have tons of practice and just reach a certain point where they're not good, but not bad either (kinda like me
) and some people just suck with or without practice.
I prefer to believe that everything is limited by our innate psychological barrier
One of my friends broke his right arm (he is right handed) but after a while he can now write rather legibly with his left. Is it because of school? He says that he one tried a long time ago to be "dual-handed" but gave up after awhile. However due to pressure from school he mastered it (I don't know how long he took, but he succeeded)
And some studies show that tongue-rolling can be learnt even by people who weren't born with that natural ability.
Humans can learn to do a lot of things.
Some learn faster than others.
Phisical coordination can be improved, but you won't have a perfect one if you were born with that problem (like me)
You can learn to do anything, the matter is, you will need several years for doing it. That's why we focus on our natural and easy developable skills.
I think it's safe, in the case of physical natural abilities, to say that the "natural" ability is one of "instinct" (simply getting it, and being good at it, without being able to explain why).
For the rest, it's a matter of training that's largely impacted by their mental state, which is what I would say limits it. However, sticking to the physical side, they're ultimately limited by their body's coordination (someone with a physical or mental handicap might quite simply be unable to perform a certain task, such as a sport) and their ability to develop instinct. Going back to the "practice makes perfect" adage, it still applies to those that start off with natural instinct or talent. Professionals in a sport still practice because it reinforces their instinct with a short of buffer. In the case of someone untalented, it helps to develop the instinct that the talented person already started with.
The restriction probably comes past the point where someone is able to "learn" something. It doesn't mean they're good, or even that they're decent, but that they understand what they're doing and how to do it. (I'm having a bit of trouble deciding my exact line on this point, since it would make them better than someone else that sucks, but it would put them short of someone that starts with natural talent.)
As far as the singing example, singing in its simplest form is just being able to reproduce notes. Short of something being wrong with a person's vocal capability, they can still learn to sing. It doesn't mean their voice is pleasant to listen to, but it does mean that they're able to meet the specification of singing by reproducing the notes.
First off, ignoring for a moment that you just want passable, not excellent, people are definitely restricted by their natural abilities. I am naturally inflexible, and no matter how much I work, I will never be able to bend my fingers back far enough to touch my arm (short of snapping something). My hand/wrist/fingers just aren't set up that way. Along those same lines, no matter how hard I work, I will never be an amazing singer. Nor will I be a record-setting sprinter. It's just not possible for me. (I do address your actual question later on, though.)
I'd say that there are definitely people with certain physical limitations that prevent them from being even passable at a given activity. People born with birth defects that affect their legs or arms (or leave them missing limbs altogether) might be completely incapable of, say, running, or throwing a ball. No matter how hard they tried, they'd never be able to overcome these physical limitations on their natural ability. HOWEVER - if you invented a prosthetic arm that could work just as well as a real arm, someone without an arm would be able to become passably good at throwing a ball. You could argue, however, that it's no longer the person themselves throwing the ball - it's a synthetic machine throwing the ball for them. And, therefore, that person is still incapable of throwing a ball due to their own physical limitations.
You really do have to define "passably", though. Is being able to draw something that can generally be recognized as a flower considered drawing passably? Or do you have to be able to draw an anatomically correct person from memory? Do you have to be able to correctly hit multiple notes at will, or is a rough approximation good enough? Does being able to play "Chopsticks" count, or do you at least have to manage "Fur Elise"? Or something even harder? And what about sports? Does an 8-minute mile count as passable, or do you have to get down to 6? Do you have to be able to shoot a free throw, or is a layup good enough?
It seems like if you define "passable" as low enough, anyone would be able to reach it, even if they had to turn to outside aid such as a prosthetic arm or hearing aid. But, if all you do is keep lowering your standards for "passable", aren't you changing your definitions to prove your own theory?
Well my question was rather undeveloped... I definitely should have defined some parts. Disabilities do mean that a person can become completely incapable of doing something.. I was directing my line more along the question of someone who is completely healthy
When I said good, I meant good as in.. someone could say whatever they do is good.. not amazing, not record setting, not a master piece
I believe that anyone (well anyone 'normal' lets say) could do anything they wanted, I believe I could do anything I wanted and maybe be the best at it (if I could figure out what I wanted to do) and if I practiced/trained enough and wanted it enough (other than the fact that someone may have started earlier than me and therefore have had more practice, being better), I believe as humans we can do anything we want to.
Oh, now that you mention that, my answer is completely changed, Silver.
I think people can do whatever they wish, and I would know this because I like to do a little bit of everything (although not so good for some things) including: Drawing (not so good), being a ninja (bad joke, but me = good ninja), breakdancing (so-so), drumming (so-so), martial arts (so-so), and other stuff that I forget off the top of my head.
But if you put lots of effort into something, you should be able to be competent at it.
And after typing that sentence, sports comes to mind. Anyways, I'm rambling or something that lacks a lot of point, so I'll stop.
One interesting thing that does support your idea is the results of memory contests. Assuming no one taking part has some sort of memory or learning disorder, you can fairly accurately predict the winner based on who practices the most. Forget natural ability or innate talent - if you practice four hours a day and practice properly, you'll probably be the best (I'd have to look up the article, but I think most of the top people practice only an hour or two a day).
Food for thought, google "Unskilled and Unaware of it." It's a good read from a philosophical stand point, although how scientific it is can be rather debated.
I only mentioned that due to the repeated mention of defining passable, and the article sprang to mind.
Natural talent isn't, by definition, natural at all. Someone who draws a lot at age two and keeps with it will be good at it when their talents manifest in a social setting. What I'm trying to say is, your environment growing up will predict a lot of what you're "naturally" good and bad at. A lot of it tends to be based on what age you started trying to excel at a particular thing.
Completely contradicting what I just said, how our brains seem to be wired up generally determines a lot as well. Just look at the difference at certain activities between men and women. Keep in mind that one man is wired different then another. Imagine two houses built the exact same, and look identical from the outside. If you walk in, they will be different. Gender may give you a basic blueprint, but it is a blueprint at best.
Some things like common sense, leadership skills, ect, all tend to be a hell of a lot more "natural" then others. The less "natural" skills are easier for everyone to achieve competency at.
Mostly though, it's all about environment. Look at our "terrorists," or more accurately, our Islamic fundamentalists. While it's incredibly obvious that they're quite skilled, they've managed to completely take a different hold on life. They're good with money, they can learn to fly an airplane with, literally, deadly accuracy, yet they seem to lack the common sense that their ways of fighting the west are completely self-destructive. This is a great example of just how unnatural abilities really are. Their attitudes have been bred into them, dare I say, even at a genetic level.
Natural abilities aren't natural at all. They're merely a product of genetics (to a degree), environment, social structure, and time.
How your brain is wired and what age you decide to do something are closely intertwined, this is obvious because the younger you are the easier it is for you to learn something.
Additionally, while physical activities may be kept separate from mental ones, they really are more similar then most would realize. A sport, for example, is all instinct and impulse, but both of those at a base level are controlled by your brain. Reactions are taught, and thus a sport is taught. The more you play a sport, the more your body begins to resemble a perfect condition for it, which is anything but "natural" the way the word is being used in this thread.
As for the amount of craptastic programmers, that's just a metaphor for my/our generation. Just as the economic level gap widens in America, so does the intelligence level. That speaks more to the general attitude of people my age rather then natural abilities in my opinion, unskilled and unaware of it.
If you define "natural" as "from nature", any trait that you are genetically predisposed towards is natural. If your genetics happen to code for a body that is naturally more flexible or more capable of building muscle than the average human, you have a natural ability to do certain athletic things. While genetics certainly aren't everything, not everyone is equal, and some people certainly do have more natural skill in certain areas than others - twin studies have shown that intelligence is roughly 50% inherited, for example.