Not sure we are reading the same thread

It's uncanny how people around here think I am trying to change their view simply because I don't see something your way and I articulate that.

You're more than welcome to have your view, I could not care less about changing it to align with mine.

I am discussing it, not sure how you are missing that.

The paper you linked seems to be about becoming an expert. Practicing and developing proficiencies.
The point made at dinner tonight was more about deciding what to practice.

10,000 hours of practicing hockey won't make you Wayne Gretsky... and 100,000 hours of swimming won't make Wayne Gretsky win Gold medals in the pool either.

You completely missed the point and that's because you didn't read any of it. If you had read any of it you would have read that athletic skill is not a cognitive skill. Of course 10,000 hours won't make someone wayne gretsky.

Again, you're free to cling to your dinner bro's big observation. I've shared my view, success takes hard work and proper environmental components.

I am somewhat adept, at making large quantities of Vodka 'Disappear'...

Still, it's far better to be a shitty lawyer than an amazing local deli worker.

I need to get back to this. the question is very good.

I have a savant-like artistic talent for making images that most people like when they see it.

I've also always thought that everyone has a special talent, but a lot of people will never recognize what that is. Although being a good short order cook could be a called a talent.

production, organization, sustained effort

I've met a lot of "shitty lawyers" who would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. A lot of them would have been much better off financially becoming deli workers, and eventually deli owners or food distributors etc than third-rate slip and fall attorneys. Deli workers also don't start their career path with 200K+ of debt.

Organization is a very good one to have, and one that many people lack.

Sustained Effort is pretty much a requirement of success but I'm not sure it's a talent entirely. I do think a lot of that comes from upbringing, past successes, encouragement from others, etc... and unlike some other things I do think you can teach someone to have it as an attribute (much more easily if you get them before they are 30 for sure).

Production is vague and probably includes a few 'components' that are more specific. Meaning, production as the 'ability to get things done' can come from components like concentration, organization, ability to lead others, ability to work longer hours, etc etc...

I'm not doubting you have these attributes, or their importance, I'm wondering if they can be drilled down deeper to their roots? :thumbsup

Nice post,

I'm good hacking websites, and doing pentesting. I'm doing this for 10 years, since I was a child, working for a very big companies here in Spain. Is my real job, porn is only a hoby.

Best regards,

There's always politics or teaching.

Did some more thinking about this topic after logging off last night. One thing that occurred to me is that a talent like that would likely affect how you learn best as well.

For example, I'm an auditory thinker. One of the reasons I write well is that I can 'hear' the text as it would sound in a conversation. I also got through countless hours of academia pretty much without ever writing down any notes in a notebook. If I missed a class I was screwed, because I was able to assimilate information much more easily from a lecture than I ever could from making or reading class notes.

Eventually I made the conscious decision to write very few notes and pay more attention to the lecture during the lecture. Others are the exact opposite. They successfully learned the same information, often skipping class, and relying almost exclusively on written notes. To this day, I really enjoy hearing a good audio book while driving, but I've been told by others that they can't keep the stories straight unless they read it for themselves.

I'm wondering if your ability with images goes hand in hand with being a visual thinker who learns best from graphs, charts, infographics and the like....

Why are you good at hacking websites? What makes you a great pentester? What are the attributes you would look for if you were hiring someone else to hack websites or do pentesting work?

That is so sadly true. :2 cents:

Depends on how you define "better".

I'd sleep better at night with the satisfaction of being an amazing deli worker as opposed to being a "shitty lawyer".

Of course it would be nice to be uber rich - but I'd sooner go to bed knowing I was the best at what I do...as opposed to settling for mediocrity.

I'd bet "Shitty Lawyers" do not become uber rich more frequently than deli workers, and they are much more likely to end up in jail. :2 cents:

why would deli worker become a deli owner? with $25k/year salary? Also, I didn't mention that this amazing deli worker has very little biz skills. He is just really good at what he does, that's it.

Playing out the thought pattern with that as a case study... why is he good as a deli worker? Dependable? great short term memory? Wakes up at the crack of dawn in a good mood? If he figured out why he was good at what he does, he would likely be able to find other tasks that require the same skills and be able to do better than 25K a year.

Again, I agree some attributes have more value than others if you are good at them. For example, being able to dunk a basketball from the foul line or able to run the 40 yard dash in 4.2 will earn you many millions more than a lot of other attributes, and as Deon Sanders says 'You can't teach 4.1 speed, you either wake up with it or you don't.'

That doesn't mean that being bad at 'a high status profession' will necessarily work out better than being very good at and choosing to do something else. It also doesn't mean you will be happier doing it.

Why don't you ask them? Maybe over dinner?

Woke up cranky Dynamo? If you just want to keep trolling a thread on GFY, feel free.
If you'd like to participate in a philosophical discussion you are welcome to start doing so.

HAH, still can't take an opposing view I see. Just seems wierd that 1 minute you know a bunch of shitty lawyers (when it's convenient to do so), the next minute you don't have a clue about said shitty lawyers (again when it's convenient).

I also am getting a kick outta how one minute you get this silly idea dropped in your lap, the next thing you're doing is starting a thread about it dissecting everyone's abilities as if you're all the sudden an expert.

Reading this thread. I've come close to spitting coffee on my monitor a couple times this morning already!

Society creates the number of "successful" people it needs....

(During war time all are mobilised to be useful)

You didn't post anything in opposition to my viewpoint.

I have met and known plenty of them. I don't go to dinner with them or know the current status of their balance sheets... but the ones I have met sure do complain a lot about their chosen profession. Incidentally, it's not a mark of honor to have known many 'shitty lawyers', just about anyone living within an hour of New York City can likely make that same claim.

I don't recall being a sudden expert on any of it... I'm posting my views about it and seeing what other people say about the topic. Most have posted constructively and I have enjoyed the discussion thus far. I'm glad you have enjoyed it as well.

If society creates them... how are they selected?
Why would you think they are only mobilized in times of war?

refresher for you-

My response was to your post #63. You are attempting to troll and for whatever reason you seem to think there is a need for you to be confrontational about this topic. From your past posts in other threads, I believe you are better at actually discussing things than you are at trolling.

Did you have something constructive to add ?

Fucking
Driving
Auto Mechanics
Internet Marketing

in no particular order

I'm not attempting to troll at all, I simply completely disagree with the premise and have clearly stated that. It's unfortunate you think an oppossing view is confrontational, I've posited some very real reasons, examples and research disagreeing with the OP, all of which you've disregarded, choosing instead to make comments about me.

Yes, I have something constructive to add, in fact, I've already added it.

I'll restate it for you:

It's extremely arrogant, misleading and wrong to spread the idea that people can and should figure out what they are naturally good at and proceed to become successfull based on that observation.

That sort of mentality flies in the face of reality. Moreover, it completely discounts learning, training, practice, education, will-power, perserverance, hard work, luck, money, and opportunity, et al.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

When what you are GOOD at is posting on Internet forums I can pretty much guarantee you that you're a failure in life. :2 cents:

It certainly didn't hurt Charlie Sheen's career.
Unless you differentiate forum posting from tweeting?

I'm not sure how it's "arrogant" to have that as a viewpoint. Especially when he believes everyone has aptitude, though many do not identify or apply theirs the best way they could have done so.

I'm also not sure it's "misleading" or "wrong", though I can see you disagree with it and believe there are studies that indicate it isn't the primary factor. It does seem arrogant to think he is wrong and being misleading simply because you believe another countervailing view is more correct.

It clearly does not discount learning, training, practice, education, will power, perseverance, hard work, luck, money or opportunity. Having a steady hand, great visualization skills and an innate 'feel for the game' won't make you a great pool player instantly. It won't make you a major league baseball power hitter either. However, it does make your success at those things more likely than someone without those traits who could have found something that allows them to apply a great short term memory to instead.

You point seems more to be about moving forward once you find the right path. His point seems much more about identifying which path is the right one before investing the time and effort to move forward. :2 cents:

I've been good at putting together the right people at the right time. I've had a top notch staff in place since the start. So I would say I am good at recognizing talent and then letting them do their thing.

Now this is a nice and thought out reply to my counter-points.

You pretty much nailed what "talent" is. The ability to see the solutions and outcomes almost instantly when given a task. I'm working on a graphic novel adult project, but my main gig is medical animation. When I get a storyboard, I can see how every shot looks while just skimming over the panels for the first time.

I've always been envious of people who have that same ability in a musical way.

My wife is a teacher and is great in the classroom, but she also does lectures and presentations for teacher development. She has an insane ability to hold the attention of an auditorium full of people with very little preparation. Speaking in front of hundreds of people would give the shits.

Those are two talents I think are rare in the same person. Finding good talent is one skill, being able to let them put their talent to use seems to be another skill entirely for some reason. Lots of people seem to hire the right person but can't delegate, or delegate well but can't get the right people.

Being good at both gets back to the Bill Parcells line about 'if they want me to cook the dinner they should let me pick the groceries' and the debate of whether its better to have a coach/GM or a coach and a GM.

I will respond to your constructive posts with my own any time. :thumbsup

not in my experience in this thread.