Why Do People Refuse To Practice Social Skills?

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, from what I've read science still can't agree on it and are still doing research into the matter. Some assert that it's a myth while plenty assert that natural talent does, in fact, exist.

Those that assert that natural talent does in fact exist, are likely misunderstanding the situations they are examining. Aside from the occasional savant, which are extremely rare, most people who seem to have talent come from "nowhere" merely have skillsets you didn't know about, or unreported unique circumstances.

What you see / hear is a guy who's never touched a guitar before, suddenly playing a guitar really well - but what you didn't see or know is that they grew up in recording studios, or around talented musicians, and even if they never played a guitar, they still inadvertently picked up heaps of music theory and principles of technique.

The guy who's strangely good at pool, even though he's never played before - he spent 20 years playing marbles and pinball for fun, and got really good at learning trajectory and force.

They guy who's unusually good at baseball even though he's never played before - he used to swing a pick-axe in construction, so he's already got a good swing, and a good eye for accuracy, when it comes to hitting a small target.

The person who's really good with engines and mechanical stuff? Their dad was a master mechanic, and they grew up in an autoshop. They never worked on cars, but they still absorbed information.

The notion of "natural talent" usually comes from observers being unaware of everything that went into that person's ability, before that moment. Sometimes even the person wielding the ability doesn't fully understand where the ability came from - in particular if they don't understand how transferrable skills work.

The example I offered of my brother earlier, he didn't play any instruments prior to trying it at a party. He'd never asked to borrow my guitar, never touched my dad's (which literally never gets played, so it would have been open season).

He also didn't understand music theory at all or how the notes on a guitar relate to each other.

He just learned very quickly.

You're certainly making alot of assumptions. Some certainly do, but quite alot of talented people don't have don't have those kind of backgrounds, those opportunities to "absorb information". And I'm not talking about half-baked studies, I'm talking about thorough ones. There are plenty of rigorous studies that do look into those type of background details that have concluded that natural talent does exist. It's a little funny that I'm willing to meet in the middle with you to avoid this escalating and acknowledge that, officially, there's still no scientific consensus with scientists on both sides of the matter but you automatically go to assuming that the researchers don't know what they're doing.

Yours is actually a perfect example of how things can be overlooked.

Even if he never played a guitar (which I cited in my example - they grew up around music, even if they never played it), and even if he didn't overtly know music theory in a way to be able to explain it, from the sound of it, both you and your dad played guitar - or at least liked music - so he had TWO musicians that he was regularly exposed to. And odds are, you and your dad being musicians, likely had more technically advanced tastes in music than the average person, and your brother likely picked up certain influences from being around you both.

He may not explicitly know what a major or minor scale is, or whole or half steps in notes, or what different time signatures mean - but just from being around people who are immersed in music, you develop things like the ability to keep a consistent time, or what notes are supposed to sound like, or what notes sound good (or bad) together. He may not know how the frets correlated to notes, but once he did, knowing what might sound better would be influenced by listening to you, your dad, or your music.

What is perceived as "learning very quickly" is actually as a result of being exposed to beneficial influences for a long period of time. Even something as simple as growing up not really listening to music, vs growing up listening to all of the best music available, can make a difference in how "quickly" someone seems to learn from "scratch". It doesn't even have to be intentional - just from constantly being around it, some things get absorbed.

You're making some incorrect assumptions and they undermine your point, or at least expose that you're more concerned about the conclusion than having actual evidence that supports it.

My dad has never played guitar. He bought one that he thought was a good deal and never bothered to learn, not even slightly.

I've never been more than a beginner myself, and since my brother had zero interest, I had no reason to ever discuss guitar or music theory with him.

That's a bit of a moving goal post. You are correct that many talented people don't have backgrounds like that. But I was talking about people with "natural" talent, not just "any old" talent.

Furthermore, I was not making assumptions, I was citing examples - examples of how talent can seem to be natural, but does in fact have an explanation.

Additionally, attacking my sources with a broad brush by implying they are "half-baked" without even knowing what they are, or bothering to ask, seems a bit disingenuous.

The whole point of doing research is to find out something you don't know the answer to. One of the hardest things to figure out, is what the right question to ask is, and figuring out how to best ask it - implying that researchers aren't looking at the right variables isn't a far stretch.

Technically you're the one that assumed that the researchers responsible for my opinions don't know what they're doing. I'm assuming that the research that I am basing my opinions on is accurate, and that they did know what they are doing.

The science that I am familiar with is not "undecided" on the matter - it has quite a few notions as to how talent and ability function and manifest.

You're engaging the letter over the spirit.

You like music, right? You presumably listen to it alot, ya? You have specific tastes, ya? Odds are, he's heard the bands you listen to, just from you listening to them. Your dad seemed to like music enough to buy a guitar, even if it's never used. It seems a fair assumption that he too at least LIKES music, and perhaps listens to it a lot as well - maybe has specific tastes. By being around a more diverse and technical variety of music, one picks things up over time, just from hearing it. It doesn't mean you sat down and taught him stuff, it just means you passively added to his available influences. Someone is more likely to be able to be spontaneously creative on a bass guitar if they spent 10 years listening to the red hot chili peppers vs listening to the cranberries.

Also, this isn't mean to be an "aha! this explains LITERALLY EVERYTHING!", but be an example of how influences can affect people. Does he play video games? That could affect finger dexterity. Does he also listen to a lot of music, even if he doesn't play?

The POINT is, more often than not, when someone seems to have spontaneous talent, there's usually a hidden explanation which is simply not readily obvious. That's the whole reason I pointed out that simply the type of music one is exposed to, or even whether or not one is even exposed to music, can affect one's rate of improvement.

I think you're grasping at straws a bit here, because the specific claims didn't really stand up.

My dad was exposed to a lot of me yapping about guitar because my interest in it was at it's peak in that era. It was an impulse purchase that he occasionally complains about to this day.

As for my brother, he didn't like 'guitar hero' stuff, he listened to EDM and some punk and indie/alternative/punk adjacent stuff. He got into guitar hero stuff, really just to conquer it. He went from playing simple Propagandhi songs, to complicated Megadeth songs, to like Yngwie Malmsteen and Cacophony/Jason Becker stuff within 3 or 4 months.

That means mastering all sorts of virtuoso techniques that some people never manage to figure out.

I think you're also pointing to a bunch of things that might predispose someone to trying an instrument, as though they'd also suggest some sort of innate skill. Basically, stumbling back into the idea of natural talent even though your goal was to reject it.

This sounds like clutching at straws, trying to imply some type of mystic link between supposed natural talent and predisposition to trying something. You had a strong desire to try guitar, too - yet you didn't get the same results. People have desires to try things that they end up not being good at - so perhaps natural talent need not be a driving factor to try a thing. Seems like a forced correlation with no evidence of actual causation.

Anyways, given that savants do exist, albeit rare, lets suppose natural talent does exist. In what way does that help? Of what use is this knowledge? Either you have natural talent, in which case you're good already - or you don't have natural talent, in which case you just have to get good like everyone else does, with hundreds and thousands of hours of hard work and practice. Unless you assert that all talent is natural talent, and people are just naturally good or bad at things, and there's nothing that can be done about it - which seems unlikely given the sheer number of people who get very good at things they did not have a "natural talent" for, they just worked very very hard at it.

I was still talking about natural talent the entire time. The goal post is still in the exact same place. And I'm not attacking your sources, you were attacking mine by assuming they aren't being thorough and don't know what they're doing and I was telling you that they are and do. I've seen research that supports both sides (just to clarify, different scientists researching the same topic and concluding one or the other). I've seen more that concludes natural talent exists, but as a whole the scientific community is divided. I'm just as sure as you are that the research I've found is accurate, so this conversation is going to go nowhere.

I think there's talent and skill. Talent is the innate side, skill is the practised side. A high level of talent can make a learning curve progress faster, allowing one to gain skill much more quickly.

Pretty cool how the research is supposedly both inconclusive, and also agrees with you.

Modern psychology and behavior are reasonably keen that "natural talent" usually does have a logical explanation more often than not.

And anyways - let's say natural talent does exist. Now what? How is this of practical use? If you have natural talent, you're already in a good spot. If you don't have natural talent, that just means you have to work at things like everyone else. Unless you assert that everything is based on natural talent, and people can only get good at things if they're naturally talented, but if they aren't it's best to not even bother - which sounds like an excuse.

And that's really the only reason to even bring up "natural talent", whether it exists or not - to use as an excuse to not even try, or to justify giving up.

In that context, it seems like "talent" just means "skill I can't readily attribute to a source or cause", in the same way anything strange or unidentifiable gets labeled as "magic" or "aliens" or whatever.

You'd be surprised what kinds of random-ass, incidental, seemingly unrelated occurrences or coincidences can result in the manifestation of "natural talent".

Previous experience, exposure, and transferrable skills can also make a learning curve progress faster. If you didn't know someone had any of those things, it would sure look like they had "natural talent".

And again, even if real, in what way is the existence of natural talent useful, unless you happen to have said natural talent already? It still just seems like either a distraction or an excuse. So someone can naturally play the guitar like a master. Cool. What's that got to do with me? How's that help anyone who isn't naturally talented? Most people aren't naturally talented at anything. Most skill comes from meaningful hard work, guidance, practice, and persistence.

Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or willfully misinterpreting it, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, but either way it means there's not much point in continuing to debate with you.

I often hear this asserted whenever someone's position isn't given the unconditional merit they feel it deserves. It's really just an ad-hominem that relies on discrediting the person rather than addressing the points and merits of the reasoning. Rather than it being that I find your position uncompelling, it must be that I either don't get it, or must intentionally be acting contrarian in some way.

And anyways, I still don't see anyone answering the question I've asked more than once. I would think y'all would be happy to answer, since it assumes you're right.

So, again, lets assume you're right. Natural talent is real. Some people are just born talented. In what way is this fact useful? Either I have natural talent, in which case, I have natural talent, so there's nothing for me to do or worry about, cos I've got natural talent - or - I don't have natural talent, in which case acknowledging the existence of natural talent in no way benefits me, since I don't have natural talent.

It may answer why people with natural talent refuse to practice social skills - they have natural talent, and don't need to practice, supposedly. But what about everyone else who doesn't have natural talent. They're the ones that need the practice, since they're not naturally talented. So why don't they want to practice?