So, the pinball wizard wasn't talented at pinball? So, all of our minds work the same unless we're autistic or have a head injury? I don't understand your argument.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Not really, there have been savants that have had injuries to the brain that end up with similar results. These people cant function normally so they end up spending a lot of time and attention to the mental faculties they have left which in turn become overdeveloped compared to most people.NixXSkate wrote:
Doesn't the existence of savants basically prove talent exists? Such an obvious sign that brains are wired differently...
forum
What is talent, and does it exist/matter?
posted
Total Posts
107
Good scores>ppYuudachi-kun wrote:
I got to the point where I beat some kynan scores on the DT leaderboards to find they were one to two years old at the time.Nattsun wrote:
Talent is a thing and denying it is ridiculous, but using it as excuse is even worse. We are talking about a circle clicking game here, everyone can farm his way to at least a 3 digit rank if he invests a truckload of time. Especially with the low amount of players compared to other games it is not even THAT hard... Doing crazy stuff like Gayz on the other hand is indeed a matter of talent, just look at Kynan, how hard he tried and yet he can't compete with him.
Small victories
I finally managed to FC this aids with 91% acc: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/295&m=0
It makes me feel good to see that I am in the top3 in the Germany leaderboards on a quite popular map
Are you a masochist?Nattsun wrote:
Good scores>pp
I finally managed to FC this aids with 91% acc: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/295&m=0
It makes me feel good to see that I am in the top3 in the Germany leaderboards on a quite popular map
If so, join the elite underground top 4 Germany on this one. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/26605 (Technika diff)
Hardest 4* I've played in my life.
Considering we have basically no idea how the human brain actually works on a fundamental level and computers are orders of magnitude slower than human brains I think it's fair to say believing in some magical catch-all explanation -- call it talent, if you will -- is not much different than believing in some higher being -- call it god, if you will.
Though I've always viewed God as too convenient and self serving of an answer to everything.
Though I've always viewed God as too convenient and self serving of an answer to everything.
Nattsun wrote:
Good scores>pp
I finally managed to FC this aids with 91% acc: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/295&m=0
It makes me feel good to see that I am in the top3 in the Germany leaderboards on a quite popular map
Sees acc "Ok, that doesn't sound that amazing really...."
RIP
And no, I didn't have no fail on xD, respect to you mate.
And no, I didn't have no fail on xD, respect to you mate.
So basically talent is a social constructchainpullz wrote:
Though I've always viewed God as too convenient and self serving of an answer to everything.
Talent is a advantage on a respective task in which you can do something that a regular person cannot do on such short notice.
Being autistic is mostly a genetic dysfunction of the brain, having a head injury is a physical dysfunction. If you can have savants due to physical injuries rather than a genetic disorder it shows that being a savant isn't about inherent ability (talent) its about having a different brain structure. You could argue that if the savants that had head injuries didn't have the injuries they would not of developed their ability and so their ability was not innate.NixXSkate wrote:
So, the pinball wizard wasn't talented at pinball? So, all of our minds work the same unless we're autistic or have a head injury? I don't understand your argument.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Not really, there have been savants that have had injuries to the brain that end up with similar results. These people cant function normally so they end up spending a lot of time and attention to the mental faculties they have left which in turn become overdeveloped compared to most people.
So basically, it's different. Don't try to mix it together.They have different problems which has different solutions.NixXSkate wrote:
Being autistic is mostly a genetic dysfunction of the brain, having a head injury is a physical dysfunction. If you can have savants due to physical injuries rather than a genetic disorder it shows that being a savant isn't about inherent ability (talent) its about having a different brain structure. You could argue that if the savants that had head injuries didn't have the injuries they would not of developed their ability and so their ability was not innate.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
So, the pinball wizard wasn't talented at pinball? So, all of our minds work the same unless we're autistic or have a head injury? I don't understand your argument.
I agree. We know how muscles work so we can measure them and you can say that the ceiling of purely physical activities have a strong genetic basis. However anything that requires thought is shrouded in mystery because the size of the brain has nothing to do with its "strength" unlike muscles. You can measure performance for simple tasks like memory but animals like monkeys have shown far greater memory feats than even some of the most "talented" humans [1]. You could say that larger frontal lobes account for greater higher levels of intelligence but it has been shown that other parts of the brain contribute as well [2]. You could say from the statistics that mental ability is somewhat genetic but without being able to show how intelligence works from first principals you can't say for certain.chainpullz wrote:
Considering we have basically no idea how the human brain actually works on a fundamental level and computers are orders of magnitude slower than human brains I think it's fair to say believing in some magical catch-all explanation -- call it talent, if you will -- is not much different than believing in some higher being -- call it god, if you will.
Though I've always viewed God as too convenient and self serving of an answer to everything.
References:
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravykEih1rE
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 152827.htm
A few things:
- Talent is typically defined as the ability to improve at a certain skill at a faster rate than one with less (or without, but talent is not a dichotomy) talent, given the same amount of time and equally effective improvement methods. It is not the idea of someone being naturally good at a skill given zero time invested into that skill.
- Talent stems from something biological. Some talents have clearer origins, like for example a high jump world champion was naturally very talented at high jump due to his extremely long Achilles tendon, which gave him more power. Some talents have origins that are still under investigation; though twin studies have been done to show that these skills or factors have a significant hereditary factor. According to a report from the American Psychological Association, 45% of variance in intelligence in children was explained by genetic differences, and 75% of variance in intelligence in late teens and adults was explained by genetic differences.
Does talent exist?
The question of whether or not talent exists (by that definition) is something that was solved a long time ago; the example of the high jump world champion was an example of someone being more talented than other high jumpers. Donald Thomas won the 2007 Osaka World Championship for high jump with only eight months of light training in high jump to his name. The reason for his inclination towards high jump is because of his long Achilles tendon. (This was explained more in-depth in The Sports Gene, I might be giving an insufficient summary of it).
For the same reason, I feel that the exception made for being unable to be extremely good at a skill because of a physical deficiency (e.g. less fingers) to dispute the existence of talent is a moot point. The idea of talent has been based on biological means, and it makes no sense to have an exception to the rule for ones with blatant physical disadvantages; since that's exactly what talent is supposed to be. Talent is not a dichotomy of "he has talent" and "he doesn't have talent", it is a spectrum of how your biology is geared towards the skill in question. Some has a substantial disadvantage from one which doesn't have any biological traits that are geared towards certain skills (i.e. the median), and some others have a substantial advantage from one who is in the median as well.
The question of whether or not talent exists in more cognitive and semantic skills is harder to prove, though twin studies have tried to prove the existence of heritability (and in turn the need for nature) for certain skills. There's the IQ example (and IQ has a high correlation with g-factor, a construct that is used to measure cognitive ability and has a positive correlation with multiple cognitive tasks), and there is a study on how mental rotation ability of females with both parents that are entirely right-handed (technically homozygotic for the dominant alleles for a right-shift factor) being worse than females with parents that do not have the right-shift ++ genotype. It goes deeper than handedness obviously, but it shows that certain cognitive skills are, to some degree, hereditary.
This is not to deny that nurture/environmental factors play a part in developing skills; in fact the second link is a model that also shows an interaction with both environmental and biological factors that will influence spatial skills. The main question is whether or not talent for cognitive skills exist, and it does.
Is there a skill ceiling for people with less talent?
The more important question afterwards is whether or not this existence of talent will actually affect the "ceiling" of skill for certain abilities. There are probably skill ceilings for skills that require physical ability. I didn't research on this, so I prefer to not give any information on whether or not this has actually been confirmed. I can only give anecdotal evidence of how many players in osu!mania are not able to produce a very fast "vibro" motion, tensing up fingers to produce a jacking motion (think single-tapping very quickly in standard). There are not many players who have produced a vibro speed of 180 BPM 1/4s for 24 notes, and the amount of players who can produce a vibro speed of 200 BPM 1/4s is substantially lower. There is almost no one who can produce a vibro speed of 240 BPM 1/4s for 24 notes that I can think of, even with substantial practice. This is even with observing rhythm game players (and being one of the best in 4K VSRG) for 7-8 years.
For cognitive or semantic skills, there seems to be a skill ceiling for physics and mathematics. Students with a SAT math score of less than 600 (maximum of 800) has an extremely low chance of getting a GPA of 3.5 in physics or mathematics, and no one with an SAT math score of less than 560 has a GPA of 3.5. However, these two majors seem to be the only two that show this phenomenon. There was a sociology major with a 3.75 GPA but an SAT reading score of 360, for example. There were dozens of examples of low-SAT but high GPA students for almost every other major, but not mathematics and physics. Another part of the study can be found here.
What does this mean?
However, the existence of a skill ceiling does not necessarily mean that you'll not be good at the game no matter what. It just means that your upper limit will not be as high as some others. The study talks about attaining a 3.5 GPA overall. Most players who play rhythm games do not put in very much deliberate practice to improve their skill; and if they do, it's typically an accidental discovery. You can still put in deliberate practice to improve, even if your talent level for a skill is 50th percentile. You obviously won't get to the top, but you'll still get pretty far. No one knows how good you'll get, but from what I've seen in VSRG, you can go very far.
It would also be unfair to say that all of the top players used natural talent to get to the level that they are. While there are some players who are (at least in 4K, again I don't want to make assumptions for other game modes), a good portion of them put in thousands of hours of deliberate practice into the game to get to the level that they are today. No doubt, they improved faster than others, but I don't see how that means much. I also don't particularly like the idea of congratulating people just for the amount of hard work they put in as well; some hard work exerted into skills that have little to negative talent for is mostly fruitless.
tl;dr
Talent is not a dichotomy, it determines your improvement rate, talent stems from biological means (hereditary), skills can be notably hereditary, talent can determine skill ceilings, but you can still go pretty far even if your amount of talent for a skill is in the 40-50th percentile. A combination of both practice and talent is what takes players to the top; and you can still go far even without a good amount of one of the two. You just have to place your expectations lower.
- Talent is typically defined as the ability to improve at a certain skill at a faster rate than one with less (or without, but talent is not a dichotomy) talent, given the same amount of time and equally effective improvement methods. It is not the idea of someone being naturally good at a skill given zero time invested into that skill.
- Talent stems from something biological. Some talents have clearer origins, like for example a high jump world champion was naturally very talented at high jump due to his extremely long Achilles tendon, which gave him more power. Some talents have origins that are still under investigation; though twin studies have been done to show that these skills or factors have a significant hereditary factor. According to a report from the American Psychological Association, 45% of variance in intelligence in children was explained by genetic differences, and 75% of variance in intelligence in late teens and adults was explained by genetic differences.
Does talent exist?
The question of whether or not talent exists (by that definition) is something that was solved a long time ago; the example of the high jump world champion was an example of someone being more talented than other high jumpers. Donald Thomas won the 2007 Osaka World Championship for high jump with only eight months of light training in high jump to his name. The reason for his inclination towards high jump is because of his long Achilles tendon. (This was explained more in-depth in The Sports Gene, I might be giving an insufficient summary of it).
For the same reason, I feel that the exception made for being unable to be extremely good at a skill because of a physical deficiency (e.g. less fingers) to dispute the existence of talent is a moot point. The idea of talent has been based on biological means, and it makes no sense to have an exception to the rule for ones with blatant physical disadvantages; since that's exactly what talent is supposed to be. Talent is not a dichotomy of "he has talent" and "he doesn't have talent", it is a spectrum of how your biology is geared towards the skill in question. Some has a substantial disadvantage from one which doesn't have any biological traits that are geared towards certain skills (i.e. the median), and some others have a substantial advantage from one who is in the median as well.
The question of whether or not talent exists in more cognitive and semantic skills is harder to prove, though twin studies have tried to prove the existence of heritability (and in turn the need for nature) for certain skills. There's the IQ example (and IQ has a high correlation with g-factor, a construct that is used to measure cognitive ability and has a positive correlation with multiple cognitive tasks), and there is a study on how mental rotation ability of females with both parents that are entirely right-handed (technically homozygotic for the dominant alleles for a right-shift factor) being worse than females with parents that do not have the right-shift ++ genotype. It goes deeper than handedness obviously, but it shows that certain cognitive skills are, to some degree, hereditary.
This is not to deny that nurture/environmental factors play a part in developing skills; in fact the second link is a model that also shows an interaction with both environmental and biological factors that will influence spatial skills. The main question is whether or not talent for cognitive skills exist, and it does.
Is there a skill ceiling for people with less talent?
The more important question afterwards is whether or not this existence of talent will actually affect the "ceiling" of skill for certain abilities. There are probably skill ceilings for skills that require physical ability. I didn't research on this, so I prefer to not give any information on whether or not this has actually been confirmed. I can only give anecdotal evidence of how many players in osu!mania are not able to produce a very fast "vibro" motion, tensing up fingers to produce a jacking motion (think single-tapping very quickly in standard). There are not many players who have produced a vibro speed of 180 BPM 1/4s for 24 notes, and the amount of players who can produce a vibro speed of 200 BPM 1/4s is substantially lower. There is almost no one who can produce a vibro speed of 240 BPM 1/4s for 24 notes that I can think of, even with substantial practice. This is even with observing rhythm game players (and being one of the best in 4K VSRG) for 7-8 years.
For cognitive or semantic skills, there seems to be a skill ceiling for physics and mathematics. Students with a SAT math score of less than 600 (maximum of 800) has an extremely low chance of getting a GPA of 3.5 in physics or mathematics, and no one with an SAT math score of less than 560 has a GPA of 3.5. However, these two majors seem to be the only two that show this phenomenon. There was a sociology major with a 3.75 GPA but an SAT reading score of 360, for example. There were dozens of examples of low-SAT but high GPA students for almost every other major, but not mathematics and physics. Another part of the study can be found here.
What does this mean?
However, the existence of a skill ceiling does not necessarily mean that you'll not be good at the game no matter what. It just means that your upper limit will not be as high as some others. The study talks about attaining a 3.5 GPA overall. Most players who play rhythm games do not put in very much deliberate practice to improve their skill; and if they do, it's typically an accidental discovery. You can still put in deliberate practice to improve, even if your talent level for a skill is 50th percentile. You obviously won't get to the top, but you'll still get pretty far. No one knows how good you'll get, but from what I've seen in VSRG, you can go very far.
It would also be unfair to say that all of the top players used natural talent to get to the level that they are. While there are some players who are (at least in 4K, again I don't want to make assumptions for other game modes), a good portion of them put in thousands of hours of deliberate practice into the game to get to the level that they are today. No doubt, they improved faster than others, but I don't see how that means much. I also don't particularly like the idea of congratulating people just for the amount of hard work they put in as well; some hard work exerted into skills that have little to negative talent for is mostly fruitless.
tl;dr
Talent is not a dichotomy, it determines your improvement rate, talent stems from biological means (hereditary), skills can be notably hereditary, talent can determine skill ceilings, but you can still go pretty far even if your amount of talent for a skill is in the 40-50th percentile. A combination of both practice and talent is what takes players to the top; and you can still go far even without a good amount of one of the two. You just have to place your expectations lower.
I am a masochist, I love it when old maps make me suffer :^)Rayne wrote:
Are you a masochist?
If so, join the elite underground top 4 Germany on this one. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/26605 (Technika diff)
Hardest 4* I've played in my life.
I'm currently working on a C rank FC. You know it's hard when nobody 99d it lol...
I'm pretty sure he played "Insane" diff, not "Impossible".SirOxorsid wrote:
Sees acc "Ok, that doesn't sound that amazing really...."Nattsun wrote:
Good scores>pp
I finally managed to FC this aids with 91% acc: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/295&m=0
It makes me feel good to see that I am in the top3 in the Germany leaderboards on a quite popular mapRIP
And no, I didn't have no fail on xD, respect to you mate.
So if your brain works differently than another person (no head injury), your talent wasn't innate? My argument was that not all people have brains that function the exact same as another, an MRI of the brain person to person has differences, even if neither of the compared have autism. Can't these differences easily have an effect the way they interpret information, and/or of being naturally advantaged or disadvantaged at learning or performing a certain skill? Or is that like believing in God since I'm not a neuroscientist according to chainpullz?M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Being autistic is mostly a genetic dysfunction of the brain, having a head injury is a physical dysfunction. If you can have savants due to physical injuries rather than a genetic disorder it shows that being a savant isn't about inherent ability (talent) its about having a different brain structure. You could argue that if the savants that had head injuries didn't have the injuries they would not of developed their ability and so their ability was not innate.NixXSkate wrote:
So, the pinball wizard wasn't talented at pinball? So, all of our minds work the same unless we're autistic or have a head injury? I don't understand your argument.
And I can confirm that I played "Insane" diff. I may tryhard on the "Impossible" diff soon, nothing is set in stone yet d:KupcaH wrote:
I'm pretty sure he played "Insane" diff, not "Impossible".
It's the same mapping style IIRC, you get a truckload of 100s/50s by default, not even Exgon could get 300s on all the spinners. Pretty sure he had the highest nomod accuracy with 97%, and we are talking about Exgon here, that guy spins really fast lol
This whole argument kind of seems to fall back to the same thing: Talent exists in some form but it's near impossible to quantify and it's pointless to try to use it as an excuse.
Ah.. in that case, I did a little better...
i don't even know what spinners are anymore after playing that map.
Nattsun wrote:
And I can confirm that I played "Insane" diff. I may tryhard on the "Impossible" diff soon, nothing is set in stone yet d:
Ah.. in that case, I did a little better...
i don't even know what spinners are anymore after playing that map.
I got to Fc that with s C or something
It was fun and still rank 219 for an old ass famous chart
It was fun and still rank 219 for an old ass famous chart
I don't disagree that some people develop faster than others due to differing brain structures. What I do disagree with is that being a savant is due to genetics (talent) since there is a non genetic basis for being a savant. Many savants also have low IQsNixXSkate wrote:
So if your brain works differently than another person (no head injury), your talent wasn't innate? My argument was that not all people have brains that function the exact same as another, an MRI of the brain person to person has differences, even if neither of the compared have autism. Can't these differences easily have an effect the way they interpret information, and/or of being naturally advantaged or disadvantaged at learning or performing a certain skill? Or is that like believing in God since I'm not a neuroscientist according to chainpullz?
The SAT study don't show any link between genes and scores. All it shows is that people who have high problem solving ability will continue to be good at solving problems. For all we know the higher scoring people have had more deliberate practice not better genes.Shoegazer wrote:
For cognitive or semantic skills, there seems to be a skill ceiling for physics and mathematics. Students with a SAT math score of less than 600 (maximum of 800) has an extremely low chance of getting a GPA of 3.5 in physics or mathematics, and no one with an SAT math score of less than 560 has a GPA of 3.5. However, these two majors seem to be the only two that show this phenomenon. There was a sociology major with a 3.75 GPA but an SAT reading score of 360, for example. There were dozens of examples of low-SAT but high GPA students for almost every other major, but not mathematics and physics. Another part of the study can be found here.
I don't know what your definition of talent is. Being talented at something doesn't mean you're a genius, and it's not about the genes you're given but what you're born with/beyond your control. But whatever, this is a pointless argument, it's just semantics.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
I don't disagree that some people develop faster than others due to differing brain structures. What I do disagree with is that being a savant is due to genetics (talent) since there is a non genetic basis for being a savant. Many savants also have low IQsNixXSkate wrote:
So if your brain works differently than another person (no head injury), your talent wasn't innate? My argument was that not all people have brains that function the exact same as another, an MRI of the brain person to person has differences, even if neither of the compared have autism. Can't these differences easily have an effect the way they interpret information, and/or of being naturally advantaged or disadvantaged at learning or performing a certain skill? Or is that like believing in God since I'm not a neuroscientist according to chainpullz?
If you have it then you have it, if you don't then better luck next life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You'll know your place after playing for thousands of hours. That's all there is to it.
You'll know your place after playing for thousands of hours. That's all there is to it.