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

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:31:52 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Anyway, the "unfair" was initially written by me in parantheses to
signify that I didn't consider it to be that unfair really. A tall bloke
has an advantage over a short bloke. And with equal skill he will be more
successful.

The waffling begins. The weasel has come out.

After several posts defending the us, the story now changes to "I
didn't consider it to be that unfair really".


What happened there? "Defending the us"? I can't remember what I
intended to type, but it wasn't "us". The "statement", probably, but
it wasn't "us".

usage?

--
sid

On 5/29/2015 12:53 PM, PAS wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
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.

Nonsense. Do you really believe that both have the exact same physical
skills because they both practice the same amount - they are equal? If
that were the case, why are there some players ona team better than
others even though they all practice together for the same amount of
time? One can practice more than the other and still not have the same
coordination and reflexes, some have better skills than others. We are
not all equal in this respect. When I was a young teenager, I had a
friend who loved to play basketball. He played all the time. He was
about five or so inches talle than me. But I could run rings around him
on a basketball court because he was rather uncoordinated and clumsy. He
practices far more than I ever did, he just did nothav ethe same innate
skills I had.

I truly think that you know you are wrong about this but aren't man
enough to admit it so you just keep digging yourself deeper and deepr
into a hole.

He is trolling. to him the facts are unimportant. He seems to get his
jollies, from starting controversy.





--
PeterN

On 5/29/2015 1:24 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 09:41:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-05-29 16:28:03 +0000, Sandman said:

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!

As I said, you guys ought to read "Harrison Bergeron". It has a lot to
say about equality, differences, natural ability, and the trend toward
political correctness which was starting to rear its ugly head in the
early 1960s.
It is a short story, but a very thought provoking one for 1961.
Especially if you consider natural ability and physical atributes to be
unfair.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I have read it. That's how I came up with the example I did. The
premise was that people with certain attributes should be handicapped
in order for those attributes not to give advantage.


Which premise is not unusual.
Golf - Handicapping
Horse racing - adjusting weight
Boxing - weight class
Tennis - ranking
--
PeterN

On May 29, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/29/2015 1:24 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 09:41:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-05-29 16:28:03 +0000, said:

In , 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!

As I said, you guys ought to read "Harrison Bergeron". It has a lot to
say about equality, differences, natural ability, and the trend toward
political correctness which was starting to rear its ugly head in the
early 1960s.
It is a short story, but a very thought provoking one for 1961.
Especially if you consider natural ability and physical atributes to be
unfair.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I have read it. That's how I came up with the example I did. The
premise was that people with certain attributes should be handicapped
in order for those attributes not to give advantage.

Which premise is not unusual.

None of them is unusual, but each has unique qualities for competition.

Golf - Handicapping

Golf handicapping works fine for individual games and club matches.

…but once you get to the PGA and the majors, handicapping is irrelevant.
Unless you actually add a physical handicap such as a 50 lb weight to the
right arm of any winner in a 12 month period.
Remember, like tennis those unranked players not eligible for entry to a
particular tournament will play qualifying rounds. Then there are those
awarded entry qualification into pro tour events for wins in minor,
collegiate and other amateur events.

Horse racing - adjusting weight

That is intended to be an equalizer which would mean the horse racing world
would be similar to one design yacht racing. However, sometimes even one
design rules don’t work as intended as minor tweaks are permitted within
the rule. Witness the America’s Cup. All are designed to an equal one
design rule, but some are just a little less equal than others, because the
rule permits it.

Boxing - weight class

Another equalizer, probably the most rational in your group of examples.
Neither competitor in any particular weight class is going to have a
significant weight advantage over another. However, there are other physical
attributes which can come into play with two boxers at the same weight. Think
of reach.

Tennis - ranking

This is an inappropriate example. All ranking does in tennis is set
tournament eligibility. Those outside the rankings play qualifying matches to
gain entry into a specific tournament. Then each tournament set the seeding
for their event, and ranking is only a small factor in that.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:


Andreas Skitsnack:
I'm beginning to think that one of the problems in this
particular absurdity is that Popinjay is not familiar with the
game of basketball. He doesn't understand the role of positions
where a forward uses height and a guard doesn't.

Sandman:
I see you're busy arguing with claims I've never made. Well, carry
on, I'll leave you to it.

snip

The claim you never made, that you actually made, was that a tall
person has an unfair advantage in basketball.

The claim I never made that you're arguing with above, is that I don't understan
the role of positions in basket ball.

Please carry on. Maybe you can make something up about me not knowing the
"accepted usage" of the word "position" or something like that?

--
Sandman

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
I have a very open mind and I welcome contrary studies and their
results, but so far, none has been given. Just empty words and
some anecdotal references. Oh, and Mozart, he's been around a bit
in this thread

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...no-matter-how-
much-you-practice-if-you-dont-have-natural-talent-youll-probably-never-be-best-
180952045/?no-ist

"Yet other researchers think that different factors, such as the quality and
timing of practice, matter most"

"Other researchers, however, cry foul. Some say that the authors didn't define
practice clearly enough, lumping in casual play with serious lessons and thus
diluting true practice's effect. Others say that there are important factors that
the literature doesn't capture very well, such as the age at which someone began
learning a new skill; whether they have a driven personality; and the number of
tournaments, tests, performances or other by-memory challenges that people put
themselves through. Still others, the Times continues, say that varying the
location and timing of practice can make a difference in how effective it is."

In short, this is a paper that hasn't done any studies, any testing or any
science at all. All they did was "analyze" other studies and drew their own
conclusions based on it. I', not saying that's not helpful at times, but it's
hardly new data in this topic.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
If he has a disadvantage, the taller one has an advantage. And
it's an advantage that neither can affect in any way, their
length is something they're born with, thus "length" isn't
equally distributed between them, and when something isn't
equal...

Anyway, the "unfair" was initially written by me in parantheses to
signify that I didn't consider it to be that unfair really. A
tall bloke has an advantage over a short bloke. And with equal
skill he will be more successful.

The waffling begins. The weasel has come out.

After several posts defending the us, the story now changes to "I
didn't consider it to be that unfair really".

Sandman
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
05/21/2015

"But not "talent". Being tall doesn't mean you have "talent"
for basket ball. It means you have an (unfair) physical
advantage."

My first usage of the term, clearly labelling it as mere side comment, clearly
labelling it as an advantage, clearly labelling it as not a talent (the only part
relevant to the topic).

Sandman:
If you peruse sports forums, you often hear people talk about
Shaquille O'Neal's unfair size or Kevin Durant's unfair length.
It's not uncommon that people regard this as unfair.

That's what we call "sour grapes". If you don't like the outcome,
whine that it was unfair.

Whatever you want to call it, the word is used in relation to player size. You
may personally disagree with it all you want, it doesn't mean it's used
"incorrectly" like you want it to be.

Now you're moving the goal posts again and making this "skill vs
talent" as if only one of the two can be a factor. In fact, both
are factors.

Nope.

Natural talent can make the development of skill easier, faster, and
more developed.

Nope.

You have maintained that only interest and practice
contribute to skill.

Indeed. Based on studies that have been made on the subject. You are of course
free to ignore and disagree those studies until your face turns blue, but since
you can't point to any actual "talent" to contradict them, you're on your own out
there.

--
Sandman

In article 2015052909415493898-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

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

Andreas Skitsnack:
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.

Sandman:
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!

As I said, you guys ought to read "Harrison Bergeron". It has a lot
to say about equality, differences, natural ability, and the trend
toward political correctness which was starting to rear its ugly
head in the early 1960s. It is a short story, but a very thought
provoking one for 1961. Especially if you consider natural ability
and physical atributes to be unfair.

Since "natural ability" is a myth... :-D

Anyway, I have read it long ago. There are many simiilar dystopian future
scenarios. THX1138 is a rather good one, or Dark World

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
If he has a disadvantage, the taller one has an
advantage. And it's an advantage that neither can affect in
any way, their length is something they're born with, thus
"length" isn't equally distributed between them, and when
something isn't equal...

Anyway, the "unfair" was initially written by me in
parantheses to signify that I didn't consider it to be that
unfair really. A tall bloke has an advantage over a short
bloke. And with equal skill he will be more successful.

Andreas Skitsnack:
The waffling begins. The weasel has come out.

After several posts defending the us, the story now changes to
"I didn't consider it to be that unfair really".

Sandman:
Sandman Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it
in-born? 05/21/2015


"But not "talent". Being tall doesn't mean you have "talent" for
basket ball. It means you have an (unfair) physical advantage."

My first usage of the term, clearly labelling it as mere side
comment, clearly labelling it as an advantage, clearly labelling
it as not a talent (the only part relevant to the topic).

snip

Having found his trolling on the word "unfair" unsuccessful, Andreas now
redirects his trolling to parentheses, working hard to get as far away from the
topic of talent and skill as possible in the process - which, to be fair, is a
good choice since had nothing of substance to add to that topic.

Carry on, Andreas.

--
Sandman

On May 30, 2015, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In article2015052909415493898-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Andreas Skitsnack:
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.

Sandman:
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!

As I said, you guys ought to read "Harrison Bergeron". It has a lot
to say about equality, differences, natural ability, and the trend
toward political correctness which was starting to rear its ugly
head in the early 1960s. It is a short story, but a very thought
provoking one for 1961. Especially if you consider natural ability
and physical atributes to be unfair.

Since "natural ability" is a myth... :-D

Note: I included the words, “…and physical attributes.�

Anyway, I have read it long ago.

Good.

There are many simiilar dystopian future
scenarios. THX1138 is a rather good one, or Dark World

…and so it goes.

--

Regards,
Savageduck