Proving once again, liberals hate achievment...

Jan 2014
17,086
4,705
California
#61
There's an interesting debate to be had about that question. Malcolm Gladwell famously tackled it in his book "Outliers," which points out the dominant importance of sheer practice in becoming great at things. For example, he points out that the Beatles, far from starting as transcendent stars that everyone knew at a listen would be great, were just another working band in the early years. They were the house band at a club in Hamburg, where they played over 1,200 shows in the first few years of the 1960s. Because of the demands of the gig, they simply played together vastly more than most bands do -- 10,000 hours of playing time, in front of unforgiving audiences. So, by the time they finally broke big in England (and then America) they'd become a ridiculously tight and proficient unit with a unique sound honed by years of trial and error.

I have a mixed view -- I disagree with you about talent being something you can't develop, but I also don't think Gladwell is right about it being almost entirely about effort. I think some things come much easier to people than others, and that if you don't have a natural talent for something you'll never be truly world-class at it. But I think effort is the primary factor.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a strong natural talent for math. I was doing algebra in sixth grade, and had graduated to college math by eleventh grade. I scored a 760 on the math SAT (back in the days before they inflated the scores) without ever having taken so much as a practice test. I took a few years of advanced math in college and never found it even a little difficult. Yet, today, I'm mediocre at math, because I quit ever using higher math after my undergrad years, and in the decades since then I've forgotten most of what I once knew. Now even basic calculus notation befuddles me.

By comparison, I started with no natural talent for languages. In fact, I'd say I was worse than average. I had to work fairly hard just to get C's in high school German, and with three years of it under my belt, I only tested out of one year of college instruction. I basically had a tin ear for it. But I stuck with it, year after year. These days, I'm pretty impressive with languages. I've got enough German and Italian to read novels comfortably in each, and enough French and Spanish to struggle through novels in those languages. I also have a smattering of Mandarin and Russian, and bits of Dutch, Portuguese, and Irish. I now absorb new foreign words like a sponge, picking languages up far faster than normal people. That's not a natural talent. It's just adaptations my brain slowly made while I spent decades making the effort.

I've got no talent or ability with music. But I suspect that if I'd put in the hours with it that I have with languages over the past few decades, I'd be impressive there, instead. Probably no amount of effort was ever going to make me really elite, absent a gift for it, but I don't doubt that I --and just about everyone-- could have become a good, workaday professional musician with enough dedication. If I'd cared enough about music to put 10,000 hours of focused effort into it, I may not have been one of the big names of the age, but I bet I could have been a steadily working session musician, for example.
Mr. Arkady,

I think you are talking apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between academic ability and artistic talent.

True, if you put in hours practicing and practicing, you may one day become a adequate professional musician with enough dedication, but without talent, you will never rise above the dime a dozen session musician. A good example, albeit fiction, is the movie "Amadeus." Salieri was the one that practiced endlessly, and rose to mediocrity, decrying that Mozart never put anything into his work and produced gold. The point of the School of Performing Arts in not to produce a assembly line of Salieris, it is to encourage the Mozarts.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
#62
Mr. Arkady,

I think you are talking apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between academic ability and artistic talent.
I gave you the academic example just because I had first-hand experience with it. I think it applies similarly to artistic talent (as with the Beatles).

A good example, albeit fiction, is the movie "Amadeus."
Yet even look at that example. Compare the two musicians' lives. Mozart started being drilled intensely by his father (a professional music instructor) when he was just five years old. By the time he was eleven, he was part of a full-time touring act, going around Europe with his sister and father and playing anywhere people would listen. His job was to earn the family's income through those efforts. Then, in his late teens, he got a job as a working musician in a minor court, continuing music as a full-time effort. By the time he got to Vienna (the early scenes of the film), he had been playing music intensely for twenty years, and been a full-time professional musician for almost fifteen years. It might look like he was an effortless prodigy from perspective of age, but he'd put in his 10,000 hours and more, by then. Salieri, by comparison, was heavily caught up in political life, and he also had a much more well-rounded education (German and Latin, in addition to his native Italian, along with literature, and religion.) It's entirely possible that when they met, Mozart had actually put in considerably more time practicing than Salieri had.
 
Likes: BigBob
Jan 2007
34,645
7,526
#63
So this weekend, lead article in the SF Chronicle, the top performing high school is getting dinged for requiring academic achievement and GPA as an entry requirement. Turns out too many Asians get in, but almost no blacks:

Lowell High School's competitive selection process may violate state law

Then read this where the whack job liberals running the NY School for the Performing Arts are dropping audition requirements:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/brooklyn-performing-arts-school-drops-auditions-in-diversity-push/

"A Department of Education spokesman said the process will allow all kids an opportunity without the pressure of auditioning at such a young age.

The department says audition-based admissions were blocking underprivileged kids from getting in."

Underprivileged, as in kids with absolutely no talent?
I hope medical school doesn't go this route. Dumb down engineering degrees may not be good either. Now sociology or gender studies, sounds good as no one gives a shit
except MSNBC or some other propaganda mill. Some schools may be fine to play social experiments with ability but other schools need to demand excellence if you hope to turn out cutting edge talent.


Here is what it is all about:

Sanchez has long been a critic of Lowell’s admission policy, saying it leads to “systemic racism.” A former principal at Horace Mann Middle School, Sanchez said that not one of his students was admitted to Lowell in the two years he was there, he said.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
17,086
4,705
California
#64
I gave you the academic example just because I had first-hand experience with it. I think it applies similarly to artistic talent (as with the Beatles).



Yet even look at that example. Compare the two musicians' lives. Mozart started being drilled intensely by his father (a professional music instructor) when he was just five years old. By the time he was eleven, he was part of a full-time touring act, going around Europe with his sister and father and playing anywhere people would listen. His job was to earn the family's income through those efforts. Then, in his late teens, he got a job as a working musician in a minor court, continuing music as a full-time effort. By the time he got to Vienna (the early scenes of the film), he had been playing music intensely for twenty years, and been a full-time professional musician for almost fifteen years. It might look like he was an effortless prodigy from perspective of age, but he'd put in his 10,000 hours and more, by then. Salieri, by comparison, was heavily caught up in political life, and he also had a much more well-rounded education (German and Latin, in addition to his native Italian, along with literature, and religion.) It's entirely possible that when they met, Mozart had actually put in considerably more time practicing than Salieri had.
Mr. Arkady,

Academic and artistic talent are two different things. They work off of two different hemispheres of the brain. One relies on IQ, the other on artistic acumen. That being said, you indicate that you had a knack for math and languages, not a true talent. If you had a true talent for either, you would not just be proficient, but rather fluent in both.

And my example still stands. Mozart was drilled intensely by his father at 5 because by age 3 he begin playing the piano on his own listening to his sister practice. He begin writing small pieces on his own soon afterwards, and by age 10, he had written a symphony. Also when he was young, he heard a cloistered piece in the Vatican twice, and went on to transcribe it from memory. Practice is one thing, in which you will master the mechanics. Anybody can eventually learn how to play notes as written. True talent creates the notes.
 
Jan 2007
34,645
7,526
#65
Mr. Arkady,

Academic and artistic talent are two different things. They work off of two different hemispheres of the brain. One relies on IQ, the other on artistic acumen. That being said, you indicate that you had a knack for math and languages, not a true talent. If you had a true talent for either, you would not just be proficient, but rather fluent in both.

And my example still stands. Mozart was drilled intensely by his father at 5 because by age 3 he begin playing the piano on his own listening to his sister practice. He begin writing small pieces on his own soon afterwards, and by age 10, he had written a symphony. Also when he was young, he heard a cloistered piece in the Vatican twice, and went on to transcribe it from memory. Practice is one thing, in which you will master the mechanics. Anybody can eventually learn how to play notes as written. True talent creates the notes.

IN modern times look at Emily Bear. As a toddler she showed great talent on the piano. Her ability to compose and play go way beyond sheer effort.
 
Jun 2013
17,704
15,278
Here
#66
So this weekend, lead article in the SF Chronicle, the top performing high school is getting dinged for requiring academic achievement and GPA as an entry requirement. Turns out too many Asians get in, but almost no blacks:

Lowell High School's competitive selection process may violate state law

Then read this where the whack job liberals running the NY School for the Performing Arts are dropping audition requirements:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/brooklyn-performing-arts-school-drops-auditions-in-diversity-push/

"A Department of Education spokesman said the process will allow all kids an opportunity without the pressure of auditioning at such a young age.

The department says audition-based admissions were blocking underprivileged kids from getting in."

Underprivileged, as in kids with absolutely no talent?

"Liberals hate achievement"? They do?

Before Obama, Asian Americans voted Republican. The GOP wants to bring them back.
In the 1992 presidential election, 55 percent of Asian Americans voted Republican. In 2016, 65 percent voted for the Democrat.
Before Obama, Asian Americans voted Republican. The GOP wants to bring them back.

Give thanks that Founding Fathers were liberals
Give thanks that Founding Fathers were liberals


"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both."
-Thomas Jefferson - Letter to John Adams (1 August 1816)

"Your sect by its sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-fé. The prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion altho' the elder one, cannot be unfelt by ourselves. It is to be hoped that individual dispositions will at length mould themselves to the model of the law, and consider the moral basis, on which all our religions rest, as the rallying point which unites them in a common interest; while the peculiar dogmas branching from it are the exclusive concern of the respective sects embracing them, and no rightful subject of notice to any other. Public opinion needs reformation on that point, which would have the further happy effect of doing away the hypocritical maxim of "intus et lubet, foris ut moris". Nothing, I think, would be so likely to effect this, as to your sect particularly, as the more careful attention to education, which you recommend, and which, placing its members on the equal and commanding benches of science, will exhibit them as equal objects of respect and favor."
-
Thomas Jefferson to Mordecai M. Noah, May 28, 1818. Manuscript Division, Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 September 1820)

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Du Pont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)

"Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries. This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to A. Coray a.k.a. Adamantios Koraes (31 October 1823)

"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Image 1 of James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822.


"Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11]Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building."
Liberalism - Wikipedia

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


AREN'T YOU, DONNY TRUMP and all TRUMP "CONSERVATIVES" supposed to hate highly educated "ELITES"????? When did y'all begin to care about intelligence, over greed, gluttony, adultery, lying, narcissism and a host other things you seem to support as current "American values", reflected by the nation's leader? Some people like to ACHIEVE knowledge, intelligence and generally being decent people, over and above wealth and power.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2013
17,704
15,278
Here
#68
It's what liberalism has evolved into. Neo Marxist dogma took over in the 30's. Academia embraced it.
No, it is what so called "conservatives" (neo republicans) like to claim and believed it has evolved to be. Those claims and beliefs are disconnected with reality. Reality also says some things go too far, no matter what political affiliation some seem intent on pigeonholing them into.
 
Likes: BigBob
Jan 2007
34,645
7,526
#69
No, it is what so called "conservatives" (neo republicans) like to claim and believed it has evolved to be. Those claims and beliefs are disconnected with reality. Reality also says some things go too far, no matter what political affiliation some seem intent on pigeonholing them into.
Look at the objectives and look at what we have. Your Marxists won.
 
Jan 2014
17,086
4,705
California
#70
"Liberals hate achievement"? They do?

Before Obama, Asian Americans voted Republican. The GOP wants to bring them back.
In the 1992 presidential election, 55 percent of Asian Americans voted Republican. In 2016, 65 percent voted for the Democrat.
Before Obama, Asian Americans voted Republican. The GOP wants to bring them back.

Give thanks that Founding Fathers were liberals
Give thanks that Founding Fathers were liberals


"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both."
-Thomas Jefferson - Letter to John Adams (1 August 1816)

"Your sect by its sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-fé. The prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion altho' the elder one, cannot be unfelt by ourselves. It is to be hoped that individual dispositions will at length mould themselves to the model of the law, and consider the moral basis, on which all our religions rest, as the rallying point which unites them in a common interest; while the peculiar dogmas branching from it are the exclusive concern of the respective sects embracing them, and no rightful subject of notice to any other. Public opinion needs reformation on that point, which would have the further happy effect of doing away the hypocritical maxim of "intus et lubet, foris ut moris". Nothing, I think, would be so likely to effect this, as to your sect particularly, as the more careful attention to education, which you recommend, and which, placing its members on the equal and commanding benches of science, will exhibit them as equal objects of respect and favor."
-
Thomas Jefferson to Mordecai M. Noah, May 28, 1818. Manuscript Division, Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 September 1820)

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Du Pont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)

"Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries. This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to A. Coray a.k.a. Adamantios Koraes (31 October 1823)

"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Image 1 of James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822.


"Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11]Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building."
Liberalism - Wikipedia

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


AREN'T YOU, DONNY TRUMP and all TRUMP "CONSERVATIVES" supposed to hate highly educated "ELITES"????? When did y'all begin to care about intelligence, over greed, gluttony, adultery, lying, narcissism and a host other things you seem to support as current "American values", reflected by the nation's leader?
Mr. Knot,

Case in point. any attempt to tie past thought to today's politics is anachronistic at best, idiotic at worse.