This topic title is far too vague and is strongly subject to interpretation.
For example, you could be asking "Does skill come down to talent and not?" In that case, I would answer "No". To be honest, there is no such thing as "Natural Talent"; everyone who ever became good at everything worked damn hard to achieve it. Even Mozart began practicing with much effort at the young age of two years old.
On a second scenario, you could be asking "Are people's brain/body configured to be more artistic/scientific/athletic etc...", which in that case I would have to answer "Yes", simply because it has been proven scientifically to be true.
A third scenario would be, "Are people's contribution to society limited to their natural configuration/limitations?" In that case, I would have to answer "No". Everyone can contribute something to society, regardless of intelligence or skill.
You need to define what you mean by "Natural Ability" and what do you mean by "Restriction".
Quote: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.
Pics or it didn't happen; aka, throw me a link.
It's incredible hard to prove something like this. Environment, social setting, how aggressive the parents were to teach their child, all of these play a (vital) role.
67% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and 90% of the time nobody can prove you're lieing. =P
The internets is funnnnnn!
Quote:You need to define what you mean by "Natural Ability" and what do you mean by "Restriction".
Meh, we all knew what the topic creator meant.
Quote: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.
Actively working towards doing these things at a very young age is far more important then genetics, in my opinion.
nates1984 Wrote:Quote: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.
Pics or it didn't happen; aka, throw me a link.
It's incredible hard to prove something like this. Environment, social setting, how aggressive the parents were to teach their child, all of these play a (vital) role.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/aug/stu...ones-first
There's the link, but if you don't subscribe to Discover magazine, I doubt you'll be able to see it. The part I referred to is:
Quote:Height is said to be 90 percent heritable, which means that the environment, such as childhood nutrition, has only a 10 percent effect on whether you’re going to be shorter or taller. General intelligence is about 50 percent heritable, as are various categories of personality. The risk of developing asthma is somewhat genetic, which may surprise those who look for culprits in the environment. The risk of developing autism, according to one study, is more than 90 percent heritable because the concordance for autism is high in monozygotic twins and low in dizygotic twins.
The fact that the studies used twins is important, and if you read the entire article, you should be able to understand why.
nates1984 Wrote:Quote: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.
Actively working towards doing these things at a very young age is far more important then genetics, in my opinion.
Ah, but that's just your opinion. If taller people are more likely to become professional basketball players, and height is 90% genetic, I'm not sure how much a head start on practicing is going to get you past being 5'. Non-physical skills heavily depend on early development, but I've read nothing that supports the idea that physical skills are entirely about how soon you start and how much you practice.
Quote:Ah, but that's just your opinion. If taller people are more likely to become professional basketball players, and height is 90% genetic, I'm not sure how much a head start on practicing is going to get you past being 5'. Non-physical skills heavily depend on early development, but I've read nothing that supports the idea that physical skills are entirely about how soon you start and how much you practice.
Ever heard of Mugsy Boges (or however you spell it)? Height is good for Centers yes, but there's slots on a team that have more to do with skill rather then natural height.
Good job zeroing in on the one slot on a team in a sport that something completely genetic determines a great deal in. lol
I feel confident my point still stands on two legs in a general way. ;p
I'll have to read that article later, when I'm not half assing work stuff to post on Neopets forums. =P
nates1984 Wrote:Quote:Ah, but that's just your opinion. If taller people are more likely to become professional basketball players, and height is 90% genetic, I'm not sure how much a head start on practicing is going to get you past being 5'. Non-physical skills heavily depend on early development, but I've read nothing that supports the idea that physical skills are entirely about how soon you start and how much you practice.
Ever heard of Mugsy Boges (or however you spell it)? Height is good for Centers yes, but there's slots on a team that have more to do with skill rather then natural height.
Good job zeroing in on the one slot on a team in a sport that something completely genetic determines a great deal in. lol
In that case, care to explain why a random sampling of 20 basketball Hall of Fame members gets me an average height of 6'8"? With none of the 30+ players I looked at (not all in the hall of fame, obviously) being below 6'?
Good job using a (theoretically unintentional) lack of knowledge about a sport to make it seem like my argument was invalid. Hate to break it to you, but in basketball, being "short" is being only slightly above average, no matter what position you're playing. Height matters, and if you're particularly talented, you MIGHT be able to overcome that - but no guarentees. Incidentally, I said 5'. That player you referenced was 5'3", and the shortest NBA player ever. You just proved my point while taking away all credibility from your own.
nates1984 Wrote:I'll have to read that article later
You know, if you ask for evidence, at least take the time to look at it. Nothing you've said has been backed up by a shred of fact, and yet, you act as though looking at the facts of other people is below you.
I dunno about the rest of you but I feel that this thread has a place in the "Think about it" section
.
It's not offending enough, so it's fine here.
People, there are multiple domains of intelligence/skill, mainly logical, rhythmic, naturalist, linguistic, interpersonal, kinesthetic, existential, intrapersonal and visual. Some types of intelligence, such as whether or not your brain is configured in favor of logical/reasoning is somewhat predefined, but certain things are mostly learned, such as interpersonal.
The question the topic starter is asking is unanswerable, since she never actually states what type of intelligence/skill is she referring too, and taking some vague generalization of all of the above and attempting to answer that is only worse, thus all this will cause is people focusing in on one aspect of intelligence/skill and forming half-baked arguments.
With that said, this topic is basically pointless.
There isn't a black and white answer, the point of this topic is for discussion, not to dismiss the thread entirely. We never did anything to you, while you came here and basically insulted all of our intelligence because we were saying what we think on the topic? Grow up.
Heh, all I did was point out the vagueness of this topic, I don't think that is exactly insulting someone's intelligence. Also, keep in mind that I'm not trying to dismiss the topic because you're saying what you think (nice straw-man btw), I'm merely saying that it's impossible to argue using the given circumstances Sexysilver provided. Period.
You need to stop taking things as a personal attack. =P
Quote:...and taking some vague generalization of all of the above and attempting to answer that is only worse, thus all this will cause is people focusing in on one aspect of intelligence/skill and forming half-baked arguments.
Quote:I don't think that is exactly insulting someone's intelligence...You need to stop taking things as a personal attack. =P
I would sure feel insulted if that were directed toward me. You're basically saying we can't develop a cohesive argument to support our opinion on the subject, be it broad or not. I have personally found this discussion interesting; I like hearing other people's viewpoints, especially on issues like this that I don't have a particular opinion on. Pointing out that the topic is too broad is one thing, saying that we're not capable of debating it is completely different.