Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

On 5/28/2015 4:48 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 12:30:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 28, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/28/2015 12:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On 28 May 2015 15:48:29 GMT, wrote:

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Having a soccer mom.

I guess having a league that accepts bribes, negates that advantage.

If soccer moms had the means, they would buy FIFA.

As recent news stories have informed us, FIFA is certainly for sale.
It's just a matter of agreeing on price.


FIFA is not for sale, just it's decisions and executives. According to
the reports I've read, there very well may be a change in executives.
That will probably change the pricing for a while.

--
PeterN

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Being tall, for basket ball for instance. Things like metabolism, muscle
genegeration are also genetically governed.

Sandman:
snip nonsensical stuff

If nonsensical stuff should be snipped, then "Athletes may have an
unfair genetic advantages" should be snipped.

Just because you don't understand a term doesn't mean its nonsensical.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Whisky-dave:
The fact is you do NOT know what the word
talent means, rather than argue about a word you don't know
who to use, learn how to use it.

Sandman:
I have. I.e. I don't use it since it's a myth.

Whisky-dave:
Then prove it is a myth

Sandman:
It can't be proven either way. There are studies from which you
can conclude that it is a myth, there are also studies that draw
other conclusions, some contradictory, some not.

Once again, you raise hypocrisy to a new level.

Of course not.

In the previous post you wrote: "The topic is photographic ability.
I'm still waiting for that proof."

Indeed, knowing I will wait forever since it can't be proven. That was the point
of the request. Whens someone makes explicit claims they can't prove, it
sometimes help to ask them support or prove it, with the intention of showing
them that they can't prove, thus the claim aren't as ironclad as they seem to
want them to be.

In this post, you state that existence of talent can't be proven.

Very good, Andreas.

--
Sandman

On May 29, 2015, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 28 May 2015 16:48:33 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In ,
Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
No it isn't we all know what the word better refers to as it's a
refference between things.

Sandman:
Indeed, and determining which of these two things is better
requires judgement, i.e. a subjective opinion about the end
result by a third party most of the time.

So how can anyone get better by practising if we don't know what
better means.

We do know what better means when it comes to one persons skill. When it
comes to
"art", it's not that easy to determine.

I agree , but if you can practice to become better then all you need to do is
work out how much someone has practiced then you'll klnow whos best surely,
according to what you've said.
So since the first camera who is the worlds best photographer and why.
See it's not that easy is it.

Whisky-dave:
But some are more skillfull than others and it's not always just
down to how many hours practice they have done.

Sandman:
Proof? No?

So you think the best runners/athelets in the world are just those
that practice more.

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

why unfair. If your metabolism has a greater efficiency than another why is
that unfair ?

I think you guys ought to read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, “Harrison
Bergeron�.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

Andreas Skitsnack:
What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Sandman:
Being tall, for basket ball for instance. Things like metabolism,
muscle genegeration are also genetically governed.

There is nothing unfair about being tall and participating in
basketball. Nor is there anything unfair about having any other
natural ability such as quick reflexes, good coordination, or actute
peripheral vision.

It isn't deemed unfair by the rules of the game, no. It's slightly out of
context. I talked about this in an earlier post and just referenced that.

Take two persons, one 5'2" and one 6'4". Say they have the same level of interest
for basket ball, and the same amount of time available for practice.

Both will be equally skilled at basket ball, i.e. coordination, reflexes,
whatever. But the taller guy is more likely to be more successful due to his
"born with it" length.

In this scenario, it's an "unfair" advantage for one of the persons, a factor
that neither can affect in any direction and greatly benefits one.

Sandman:
snip nonsensical stuff

Andreas Skitsnack:
If nonsensical stuff should be snipped, then "Athletes may have
an unfair genetic advantages" should be snipped.

Sandman:
Just because you don't understand a term doesn't mean its
nonsensical.

I can't imagine how you are defining "fair" or "unfair" in such a
way to make an absurd statement like this.

I can imagine that you can't imagine that very well. Yars of experience with your
inability to understand simple words and terms makes this the natural assumption.

--
Sandman

On May 29, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:20:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 29, 2015, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 28 May 2015 16:48:33 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In ,
Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
No it isn't we all know what the word better refers to as it's a
refference between things.

Sandman:
Indeed, and determining which of these two things is better
requires judgement, i.e. a subjective opinion about the end
result by a third party most of the time.

So how can anyone get better by practising if we don't know what
better means.

We do know what better means when it comes to one persons skill. When
it
comes to
"art", it's not that easy to determine.

I agree , but if you can practice to become better then all you need to
do
is
work out how much someone has practiced then you'll klnow whos best
surely,
according to what you've said.
So since the first camera who is the worlds best photographer and why.
See it's not that easy is it.

Whisky-dave:
But some are more skillfull than others and it's not always just
down to how many hours practice they have done.

Sandman:
Proof? No?

So you think the best runners/athelets in the world are just those
that practice more.

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

why unfair. If your metabolism has a greater efficiency than another why
is
that unfair ?

I think you guys ought to read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, “Harrison
Bergeron�.

Yes, Popinjay thinks that a tall basketball player should have his
nose tied to his toes with a short string because being tall is an
unfair advantage.

Perhaps he could assume the mantle of Diana Moon Glampers, “The Handicapper
General�.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
So how can anyone get better by practising if we don't know what
better means.

Sandman:
We do know what better means when it comes to one persons skill.
When it comes to "art", it's not that easy to determine.

I agree , but if you can practice to become better then all you need
to do is work out how much someone has practiced then you'll klnow
whos best surely, according to what you've said. So since the first
camera who is the worlds best photographer and why. See it's not
that easy is it.

It is, because I never said that X amount of practice results in skill level Y.
This is just because you can't read to save your life.

This is what I said: "Talent is a myth - skill is pursued interest".

"pursued interest".

I'll repeat: "Pursued interest".

So the "pursued" means that you have spent time doing something, you have sought
something and alotted time to it.

"Interest" means, well, "interest". It means that you have an interest in
something.

I.e. - you need BOTH the *time* and the *interest* to develop your skills. So
just measuring time practiced tells you only one of those factors. It doesn't say
anything about the "interest" part, since any given person can do something for
thousands of hours without interest and thus not reach their full potential.

Sandman:
Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

why unfair. If your metabolism has a greater efficiency than another
why is that unfair ?

Unfair because they are created unequal physically. A short bloke and a tall
bloke may train to become equally *skilled* in basket ball, but the taller dude
has far better chance of getting more successful, though not due to "skill" nor
"talent", only because he has an unfair genetic advantage compared to the short
guy.

Sandman:
I've already talked about this many times. That's not "talent"
though. The topic is photographic ability. I'm still waiting for
that proof.

So am I and ypou'#ve provided NONE of it.

No you haven't, yet you make claims about it. Just hot air - as usual.

Tell me how come isaac newton worked out gravity before anyone else.
He taught him.

"he taught him"?

Is it your claim that Isaac Newton was born as a baby with an in-born "talent"
for making gravity-related experiments? That would be funny.


--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Savageduck:
I think you guys ought to read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story,
“Harrison Bergeron”.

Yes, Popinjay thinks that a tall basketball player should have his
nose tied to his toes with a short string because being tall is an
unfair advantage.

Putting words in other people's mouths - that's what Andreas does best. If he
can't counter the actual argument, he'll invent a made-up argument which he can
attack instead!

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
I mentioned the psychologist, scientist and authors that I base my
opinion on,

no you did not

Yes, I did.

Sandman:
and their studies and work. A person with a normal brain, if
interested, has all the information he needs to look it up
further.

and doesn't find what you say it says.

That's not my problem. I've referenced them and a person *with a normal brain*
can work it out from there.

Whisky-dave:
They are thinmgs peolpe believe in therefore we need a word to
describe such a thing.

Sandman:
Just as some believe in talent, so we have a word for it - that
doesn't mean talent exists any more than magic or god.

Be it can be shown unlike God

No it can't.

Sandman:
As for "talent", it is used because it described a
perceived notion about a persons skills. Studies have shown
that this most likely isn't the case.

Whisky-dave:
No such studies at all.

Sandman:
Incorrect.

So show those studies .

I have already referenced them in an earlier post.

Whisky-dave:
Yes it can brain scans can reveal areas that 'light' up and
others that don't which are differnt for differnt people.

Sandman:
Which doesn't amount to "talent", so it's irrelevant to the topic.

It shows a latent skill

No it doesn't.

where talents are formed for want of a better word

Incorrect.


--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

Andreas Skitsnack:
What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Sandman:
Being tall, for basket ball for instance. Things like metabolism,
muscle genegeration are also genetically governed.

Why is that thought of as unfair

Because it is a factor that a person is born with and can't change.

that isn;t said about usain bolt
regarding his hieght,

That's because his height isn't that much of an factor in his sport. In fact, the
best sprinters are of medium height. Too tall and you're too heavy, too short and
your legs aren't long enough to make strides long enough.

there's lots of tall and taller people in the world.

You don't say. That's very interesting, I'll write it down so I can tell my grand
children some day.

Sandman:
snip nonsensical stuff

Andreas Skitsnack:
If nonsensical stuff should be snipped, then "Athletes may have
an unfair genetic advantages" should be snipped.

Sandman:
Just because you don't understand a term doesn't mean its
nonsensical.

Isn't that your claim regarding the word talent.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent

Talent means the skill that someone has quite naturally to do
something that is hard.

Yes, that is what the word *means*, just as "magic" means something doen with a
supernatural force. Having a definition doesn't mean that what it descibes
actually exists.

"Talent" is a myth. What it means, what it describes, what it is defined as,
doesn't exist. Just like the word "god", "magic", "unicorn" or "mermaid".

Someone who has talent is able to do something without trying hard.

Which is the myth, which is incorrect.

'Thick as ****' does NOT refer to the physical dimentions of the
piece of ****, what is meant is the intellectual ability of the
object/person as having the same intellectual ability as a lump of
feces, the size and shape and origin of which doesnt matter.

This truly should be your signature.

--
Sandman