Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jmurph wrote: Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
He began his experiment before Judith was even born. I appreciate a healthy amount of scepticism, but if a guy says that a child can be a prodigy in anything because of nurture, then chooses chess before that child is even born, and she then goes on to be the greatest female chess player of all time (by a long way), and he does the same thing with 2 other children, then I'm inclined to say it's because of nurture.
jmurph wrote: Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels.
Actually, I disagree. Tiger Woods had quite a similar story, his father started him playing golf at age 2, and "nurtured" that skill pretty hard. Tiger Woods is widely regarded as the greatest golfer of all time.
I believe that with training and conditioning from a young age (and disability allowing), any child can, in fact, become a professional athlete. Perhaps not the world number one, but you can bet they'd be pretty damn good.
Gretzky too. Greatest athlete of any sport.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
In my family, my brother acts more like my dad than I do. My dad died when my brother was an infant so my brother has no actual memories of him, where as I do.
I think there is elements within us all that make us a little more predisposed to a certain way and sometimes our environments help that along.
Once again, my brother: We are both stoic in nature, he is just has more of a conscious than I do about things. I think this can be attributed to the saying every kid grows up with different parents. But just replace "parents" with "a household".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/09 23:31:00
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I think we could all go round and round with hand picked examples of nature over nurture, and vice versa....
For instance, I just saw a "news" article on Facebook that a prominent (I guess, I don't listen to the crap) Christian music star came out as gay.... now, his nurtured environment was obviously a Christian one, where being gay was unacceptable. He decided he'd be happier and better able to live life by following his nature.
Nonsense, just send him to Gay Camp!
Pray the gay away? Yes, I've seen it work dozens of times.
jmurph wrote: Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
He began his experiment before Judith was even born. I appreciate a healthy amount of scepticism, but if a guy says that a child can be a prodigy in anything because of nurture, then chooses chess before that child is even born, and she then goes on to be the greatest female chess player of all time (by a long way), and he does the same thing with 2 other children, then I'm inclined to say it's because of nurture.
jmurph wrote: Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels.
Actually, I disagree. Tiger Woods had quite a similar story, his father started him playing golf at age 2, and "nurtured" that skill pretty hard. Tiger Woods is widely regarded as the greatest golfer of all time.
I believe that with training and conditioning from a young age (and disability allowing), any child can, in fact, become a professional athlete. Perhaps not the world number one, but you can bet they'd be pretty damn good.
But again, those were his children, and he himself was very skilled at math. What's to say that's not at least got some regard to genetics? If he had taken someone's else kid, then yeah, he'd have a solid case, but considering all three were his biological children, saying genetics had no part is folly.
But again, those were his children, and he himself was very skilled at math. What's to say that's not at least got some regard to genetics? If he had taken someone's else kid, then yeah, he'd have a solid case, but considering all three were his biological children, saying genetics had no part is folly.
Indeed, If he could achieve similar results with 10 children picked completely at random then he may be on to something. As it is.....
jreilly89 wrote: But again, those were his children, and he himself was very skilled at math. What's to say that's not at least got some regard to genetics? If he had taken someone's else kid, then yeah, he'd have a solid case, but considering all three were his biological children, saying genetics had no part is folly.
Nobody said that genetics had "no part", he was obviously a smart guy and might have passed that on, but maths is not chess. Laszlo Polgar was a mediocre chess player, his daughters could all beat him by the time they were about 3. And chess is not the only subject they excelled in. Also, the girls became the #1 and #2 female chess players in the world, Judit is the strongest female player of all time, which is an extraordinary feat even for someone with a natural aptitude.
jreilly89 wrote: But again, those were his children, and he himself was very skilled at math. What's to say that's not at least got some regard to genetics? If he had taken someone's else kid, then yeah, he'd have a solid case, but considering all three were his biological children, saying genetics had no part is folly.
Nobody said that genetics had "no part", he was obviously a smart guy and might have passed that on, but maths is not chess. Laszlo Polgar was a mediocre chess player, his daughters could all beat him by the time they were about 3. And chess is not the only subject they excelled in. Also, the girls became the #1 and #2 female chess players in the world, Judit is the strongest female player of all time, which is an extraordinary feat even for someone with a natural aptitude.
I'm not saying it's not. That's an amazing achievement. And yeah, if I encouraged my daughter to play soccer at the age of 2 and nurtured the heck out of her, she'd be the next David Beckham. But genetics still has some part to play.
That's my point, not that one outweighs the other, but it's a mix, like Yin and Yang.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 15:14:52
jmurph wrote: Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
He began his experiment before Judith was even born. I appreciate a healthy amount of scepticism, but if a guy says that a child can be a prodigy in anything because of nurture, then chooses chess before that child is even born, and she then goes on to be the greatest female chess player of all time (by a long way), and he does the same thing with 2 other children, then I'm inclined to say it's because of nurture.
jmurph wrote: Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels.
Actually, I disagree. Tiger Woods had quite a similar story, his father started him playing golf at age 2, and "nurtured" that skill pretty hard. Tiger Woods is widely regarded as the greatest golfer of all time.
I believe that with training and conditioning from a young age (and disability allowing), any child can, in fact, become a professional athlete. Perhaps not the world number one, but you can bet they'd be pretty damn good.
But don't you see that Polgar could just as easily be proving how strong the genetic component is? It's not like he took some random child, he used his own offspring and he demonstrated remarkable talent for chess to begin with. His wife, a language teacher, also showed very developed mathematic and special ability. Could he have done the same with a child who showed developmental disabilities in special recognition? Certainly, intensive training from a young age will impart greater skill than not having such training, but it is not the *sole* component.
Likewise Tiger Woods has a number of physical attributes that help him to excel at golf. Again, would a less physically robust human with special processing problems reach the same result? Probably not. Just like an outstanding physical specimen still won't make pro levels without adequate training. It is a nexus of both.
jmurph wrote: Likewise Tiger Woods has a number of physical attributes that help him to excel at golf. Again, would a less physically robust human with special processing problems reach the same result? Probably not. Just like an outstanding physical specimen still won't make pro levels without adequate training. It is a nexus of both.
IMO, other good examples from sports can be found in Steph Curry, Ken Griffey Jr, Barry Bonds, etc..... the three guys I specifically mentioned all had father's who played at the top professional leagues of their sport, and each of those three played at the top professional league of their sport as well.
jmurph wrote: Likewise Tiger Woods has a number of physical attributes that help him to excel at golf. Again, would a less physically robust human with special processing problems reach the same result? Probably not. Just like an outstanding physical specimen still won't make pro levels without adequate training. It is a nexus of both.
IMO, other good examples from sports can be found in Steph Curry, Ken Griffey Jr, Barry Bonds, etc..... the three guys I specifically mentioned all had father's who played at the top professional leagues of their sport, and each of those three played at the top professional league of their sport as well.
See also the Manning Brothers (Peyton and Eli) from Archie Who. There is a third Manning. A lesser Manning. An accountant!
jmurph wrote: Likewise Tiger Woods has a number of physical attributes that help him to excel at golf. Again, would a less physically robust human with special processing problems reach the same result? Probably not. Just like an outstanding physical specimen still won't make pro levels without adequate training. It is a nexus of both.
IMO, other good examples from sports can be found in Steph Curry, Ken Griffey Jr, Barry Bonds, etc..... the three guys I specifically mentioned all had father's who played at the top professional leagues of their sport, and each of those three played at the top professional league of their sport as well.
See also the Manning Brothers (Peyton and Eli) from Archie Who. There is a third Manning. A lesser Manning. An accountant!
jmurph wrote: But don't you see that Polgar could just as easily be proving how strong the genetic component is?
No, I don't see that... certainly not "as easily". What you are suggesting sounds quite far fetched to me. Polgar developed his theory before he was even married, in which he claimed that with early and intensive specialization in any particular subject he could turn any healthy child into a prodigy. There was no reason to assume that his yet unborn children would have any special aptitude for chess. And yet by some remarkable genetic coincidence (according to you), all three of his daughters became chess prodigies.
jmurph wrote: Could he have done the same with a child who showed developmental disabilities in special recognition?
Well I think it's moving the goalposts to start talking about disabilities. If Tiger Woods had no arms, then I imagine he wouldn't have been so great at golf. Let's presuppose a "normal" healthy child. Though having said that... women tend to be weaker at spacial reasoning, and (if you look at the ratings) weaker at chess. In fact, Judit Polgar is the only woman ever to have broken 2700. So they may indeed have had a disadvantage going in by virtue of being girls.
jmurph wrote: Likewise Tiger Woods has a number of physical attributes that help him to excel at golf.
There is nothing remarkable about Tiger Woods physically, nor was there anything remarkable about Gretzky. There are plenty of guys who are bigger and stronger, even in their respective sports. What set Woods and Gretzky apart was their skill, which they had honed from a very young age.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/14 15:18:32
jmurph wrote: Could he have done the same with a child who showed developmental disabilities in special recognition?
Well I think it's moving the goalposts to start talking about disabilities. If Tiger Woods had no arms, then I imagine he wouldn't have been so great at golf. Let's presuppose a "normal" healthy child. Though having said that... women tend to be weaker at spacial reasoning, and (if you look at the ratings) weaker at chess. In fact, Judit Polgar is the only woman ever to have broken 2700. So they may indeed have had a disadvantage going in by virtue of being girls.
Wait just a goddang second. So first, he coached his three daughters to greatness purely through nurturing, but now women are weaker at spacial reasoning and at chess? So which is it? Either Nature has little effect and women are only weaker at spacial reasoning and chess due to neglect, or women are weaker due to physiological differences, and Nature played a much bigger role in his daughters success at chess.
jmurph wrote: Could he have done the same with a child who showed developmental disabilities in special recognition?
Well I think it's moving the goalposts to start talking about disabilities. If Tiger Woods had no arms, then I imagine he wouldn't have been so great at golf. Let's presuppose a "normal" healthy child. Though having said that... women tend to be weaker at spacial reasoning, and (if you look at the ratings) weaker at chess. In fact, Judit Polgar is the only woman ever to have broken 2700. So they may indeed have had a disadvantage going in by virtue of being girls.
Wait just a goddang second. So first, he coached his three daughters to greatness purely through nurturing, but now women are weaker at spacial reasoning and at chess? So which is it? Either Nature has little effect and women are only weaker at spacial reasoning and chess due to neglect, or women are weaker due to physiological differences, and Nature played a much bigger role in his daughters success at chess.
This, or the exact opposite.
His genetically superior Ubermench daughters naturally conquered the world of chess with nurture taking a backseat
or
He took his naturally weak brained daughters and, through a regimen of nurture, beat all of their natural tenancies out of them until they were calculating chess ninjas.
So first, he coached his three daughters to greatness purely through nurturing,
Yes, this is quite well documented.
but now women are weaker at spacial reasoning and at chess?
Generally, yes.
So which is it?
Both. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Either Nature has little effect and women are only weaker at spacial reasoning and chess due to neglect.
Yes, that sounds about right: nature has a little effect, which can be overcome with training from a young age.
or women are weaker due to physiological differences, and Nature played a much bigger role in his daughters success at chess.
That doesn't make any sense. If they have no natural aptitude, then how can nature have contributed to their success? The fact that they were demonstrably successful, in spite of a "possible" genetic disadvantage, only strengthens my point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/15 12:06:15
Okay, just so I can make sure I understand. So an average male (say 5'9 ish as an adult, no neurological issues, but no indication of exceptional ability either), with training since a young age will reach professional caliber proficiency/mastery in any field? So he will be an NBA caliber player if he trains in basketball, will be NFL caliber if trains in football, will be a boxing champion if trains in boxing, will be a chessmaster if trained in chess, will be a Nobel level scientist if trained it science, etc.?
And a female could do the same in all of those fields since it is mostly training?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/17 14:34:39
jmurph wrote: Okay, just so I can make sure I understand. So an average male (say 5'9 ish as an adult, no neurological issues, but no indication of exceptional ability either), with training since a young age will reach professional caliber proficiency/mastery in any field? So he will be an NBA caliber player if he trains in basketball, will be NFL caliber if trains in football, will be a boxing champion if trains in boxing, will be a chessmaster if trained in chess, will be a Nobel level scientist if trained it science, etc.?
And a female could do the same in all of those fields since it is mostly training?
According to Smacks, a female could, she'd just be worse at it than males.
So first, he coached his three daughters to greatness purely through nurturing,
Yes, this is quite well documented.
but now women are weaker at spacial reasoning and at chess?
Generally, yes.
So which is it?
Both. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Either Nature has little effect and women are only weaker at spacial reasoning and chess due to neglect.
Yes, that sounds about right: nature has a little effect, which can be overcome with training from a young age.
or women are weaker due to physiological differences, and Nature played a much bigger role in his daughters success at chess.
That doesn't make any sense. If they have no natural aptitude, then how can nature have contributed to their success? The fact that they were demonstrably successful, in spite of a "possible" genetic disadvantage, only strengthens my point.
Quite simple, let me break it down for you.
Either Nature has little effect and women are only weaker at spacial reasoning and chess due to neglect.
Yes, that sounds about right: nature has a little effect, which can be overcome with training from a young age.
If nature has little effect, then women should be comparable with men at chess, assuming similar effort, which violates what you said about women being worse at chess due to spacial reasoning.
or women are weaker due to physiological differences, and Nature played a much bigger role in his daughters success at chess.
That doesn't make any sense. If they have no natural aptitude, then how can nature have contributed to their success? The fact that they were demonstrably successful, in spite of a "possible" genetic disadvantage, only strengthens my point.
They have a natural aptitude due to his genetics, i.e. he has better spacial reasoning and passed it on to his daughters. A "woman's natural weakness" was overcome through training.
I'm saying you can't say "women are bad at chess and have bad spacial reasoning", but then say that "nature had no impact on their success at chess". Physiology goes hand in hand with nature/genetics.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/17 15:23:12
jmurph wrote: Okay, just so I can make sure I understand. So an average male (say 5'9 ish as an adult, no neurological issues, but no indication of exceptional ability either), with training since a young age will reach professional caliber proficiency/mastery in any field? So he will be an NBA caliber player if he trains in basketball, will be NFL caliber if trains in football, will be a boxing champion if trains in boxing, will be a chessmaster if trained in chess, will be a Nobel level scientist if trained it science, etc.?
And a female could do the same in all of those fields since it is mostly training?
Sports are different because they require extreme athleticism that only a small percentae of the populace will be capable of doing. I could teach my kids how to shoot a jumpshot and have them practice for the requisite 10,000 hours to make them experts at it (or not) but they might never become NBA players because even if they are great jump shooters they may not have the size, speed and athleticism to play against the best basketball players in the world. It's a pyramid, lots of kids play high school sports, fewer kids play D1 scholarship sports in college, fewer still go on to play professional sports. It's not like the baskeball players on North Carolina or Duke that don't make it to the NBA are bad players, they're just not among the best 400 players in the world.
Nurture is needed to maximize whatever natural talent you possess, you have to work hard and practice to the best at doing whatever that you can be. However, you will aways be limited by your natural attributes. We see the Spud Webbs and Nate Robinsons in the NBA now and then but for the other 99.99% of people under 6ft tall it's impossible to get good enough to play in the NBA regardless of how much they practice or how good they get at the sport specific skills.
jmurph wrote: Okay, just so I can make sure I understand. So an average male (say 5'9 ish as an adult, no neurological issues, but no indication of exceptional ability either), with training since a young age will reach professional caliber proficiency/mastery in any field? So he will be an NBA caliber player if he trains in basketball, will be NFL caliber if trains in football, will be a boxing champion if trains in boxing, will be a chessmaster if trained in chess, will be a Nobel level scientist if trained it science, etc.?
And a female could do the same in all of those fields since it is mostly training?
According to Smacks, a female could, she'd just be worse at it than males.
No, not according to Smacks. And honestly, I expect better from you. I always credited you with intelligence and have never tried to oversimplify your argument into some silly sounding straw man. Sports were outside the scope of Polgar's hypothesis. However, in sports with a large skill element, I believe a person probably can reach a professional level with intensive training from a very young age. I understand the shortest pro NBA player was 5'3". Even sports that require extreme body types. Sumo wrestlers for example, are usually not born that way, they work hard to achieve that body.
If nature has little effect, then women should be comparable with men at chess, assuming similar effort, which violates what you said about women being worse at chess due to spacial reasoning.
Women are "comparable". Judit Polar was ranked #8 in the world, and she defeated many great male chess players. However, a woman has never been #1 or World Champion (yet). There is no "violation" there.
They have a natural aptitude due to his genetics, i.e. he has better spacial reasoning.
There is no evidence that he ever had any remarkable ability to pass on. If he were a former champion then I would take your point, but he wasn't even a rated player. He was a psychologist.
I'm saying you can't say "women are bad at chess and have bad spacial reasoning", but then say that "nature had no impact on their success at chess".
Again, for about the fourth time, I never said that nature has "no" impact. What's the point in a discussion if you're going to just keep arguing this strawman. I also never said women are bad at chess etc...
And there is no contradiction. Muggsy Bogues was 5'3", you probably wouldn't say he had a natural aptitude for basketball, right (certainly not with his height)? Yet he was still a good player, he was in the NBA. So it's not a "violation" at all to say that someone with with a disadvantage can still be great. Muggsy Bogues is walking testament to that fact. Ergo: nature does not go hand in hand, it matters a bit, but nurture matters a lot.
TheMeanDM wrote: Would like to begin a discussion about genetics and what people feel/believe/can prove what kinds of traits are passed down the line.
A few starter questions to break the ice:
Do you believe that certain behaviors can be genetically passed down?
Do you believe things like depression are genetic...or is everyone perhaps ulnerable to depression given some set of circumstances?
Are addictions encouraged by genetic or simply created through circumstanes/experiences?
Just curious about the community's thoughts.
I think its a little of both, your genetics have a hand in it, along with your environment, addictions are genetic in people, some more then others and not always for all things, depression is both genetic and effected by circumstances, its how you handle it that matters and usually if genetic its not as easy to handle when circumstances occur, as to behaviors? no they are not genetic, they are life experiences.
a sons life experiences are different from his father so his behavior is different.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
jmurph wrote: Okay, just so I can make sure I understand. So an average male (say 5'9 ish as an adult, no neurological issues, but no indication of exceptional ability either), with training since a young age will reach professional caliber proficiency/mastery in any field? So he will be an NBA caliber player if he trains in basketball, will be NFL caliber if trains in football, will be a boxing champion if trains in boxing, will be a chessmaster if trained in chess, will be a Nobel level scientist if trained it science, etc.?
And a female could do the same in all of those fields since it is mostly training?
According to Smacks, a female could, she'd just be worse at it than males.
No, not according to Smacks. And honestly, I expect better from you. I always credited you with intelligence and have never tried to oversimplify your argument into some silly sounding straw man. Sports were outside the scope of Polgar's hypothesis. However, in sports with a large skill element, I believe a person probably can reach a professional level with intensive training from a very young age. I understand the shortest pro NBA player was 5'3". Even sports that require extreme body types. Sumo wrestlers for example, are usually not born that way, they work hard to achieve that body.
If nature has little effect, then women should be comparable with men at chess, assuming similar effort, which violates what you said about women being worse at chess due to spacial reasoning.
Women are "comparable". Judit Polar was ranked #8 in the world, and she defeated many great male chess players. However, a woman has never been #1 or World Champion (yet). There is no "violation" there.
They have a natural aptitude due to his genetics, i.e. he has better spacial reasoning.
There is no evidence that he ever had any remarkable ability to pass on. If he were a former champion then I would take your point, but he wasn't even a rated player. He was a psychologist.
I'm saying you can't say "women are bad at chess and have bad spacial reasoning", but then say that "nature had no impact on their success at chess".
Again, for about the fourth time, I never said that nature has "no" impact. What's the point in a discussion if you're going to just keep arguing this strawman. I also never said women are bad at chess etc...
And there is no contradiction. Muggsy Bogues was 5'3", you probably wouldn't say he had a natural aptitude for basketball, right (certainly not with his height)? Yet he was still a good player, he was in the NBA. So it's not a "violation" at all to say that someone with with a disadvantage can still be great. Muggsy Bogues is walking testament to that fact. Ergo: nature does not go hand in hand, it matters a bit, but nurture matters a lot.
Muggsy Bogues is a great player, but he is not the greatest, Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan probably holds that record, maybe Larry bird, all 6'+. Saying that nurture vastly outweighs nature is a lie, otherwise every failed band would have guitarists that played like Slash. Dedication and training will take you far, but only so far. Natural ability helps elevate people to that extra level.
jreilly89 wrote: It's not even worth responding, as you're either intentionally misreading my posts or ignoring them.
I've addressed your posts almost line for line, responding in a very clear and conscience way. You on the other hand have consistently fallen back on misrepresentations. I agree that it is not worth responding, but that's mostly because you don't have anything worth saying.
so I'll address the summary of your argument. Muggsy Bogues is an anomaly, an outlier.
Just so you know: I have read and understood this statement, and I agree with it. Now let me explain to you why it isn't relevant to the discussion. The Polgar sisters were also an anomaly, the environment Laszlo Polgar created was an anomaly. Very few children are conditioned and drilled from such a young age, so it is completely expected that these cases will be outliers. However the fact that they exist proves my point. If nurture could not overcome nature then these people could not exist.
Muggsy Bogues is a great player, but he is not the greatest, Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan probably holds that record, maybe Larry bird, all 6'+.
Just so you know: I have read and understood this statement, and I agree with it. Now let me explain to you why it isn't relevant to the discussion. You have moved the goalposts. I believe the original target was "professional level" not greatest player ever.
Saying that nurture vastly outweighs nature is a lie, otherwise every failed band would have guitarists that played like Slash.
Just so you know: I have read and understood this statement, and I disagree. I know about a hundred people who have played guitar in a band at some point. None of them were relentlessly drilled from age 2 on guitar. Many started in their teens, and didn't practice enough. So I fail to see why every failed band should have a great guitarist? Your argument is bad. Every failed band "could" "potentially" have a great guitarist IF their guitarist was drilled eight hours a day from age 2, but that hardly ever happens.
Slash himself wasn't born playing a guitar, it's well known that he worked hard at it, and practised sometimes 12 hours a day. That sounds more like dedication than nature to me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/18 15:58:09
Interestingly, both of Slash's parents were artists (mother was a costume designer). And he didn't learn how to play guitar until he was 14, so apparently there is more to it than just being drilled since child birth....
I don't believe that everyone is capable of everything in this world.
Sometimes, there are indeed physical limitations that prevent you from doing something (perhaps your body isn't built to withstand the training it takes to be a power lifter).
Sometimes mental limitations prevent you from doing certain things....Some people, for example, cannot grasp certain math concepts no matter how much they study or get tutored, etc. Their brain just isn't "wired" in that manner.
jmurph wrote: Interestingly, both of Slash's parents were artists (mother was a costume designer). And he didn't learn how to play guitar until he was 14, so apparently there is more to it than just being drilled since child birth....
What has costume design got to do with guitar? Yeah, there is more, he practised 12 hours a day. Here is him in an interview saying the most important thing is dedication, practice and commitment. He's also recommended practice "excessively". TBH I don't really know how good Slash is. I'm fairly rubbish at guitar so I don't know what to listen for. A lot of people consider him overrated though. So maybe the late start did stunt his growth as a player.
Spoiler:
TheMeanDM wrote:Some people, for example, cannot grasp certain math concepts no matter how much they study or get tutored, etc. Their brain just isn't "wired" in that manner.
A lot of people are also lazy and overstate how hard they practice. Almost everyone manages to pick up a first language, it's much harder to learn a second later. People can claim they aren't "wired" that way (aren't good at languages), but that's obviously not true, else they wouldn't be able to talk. The truth is most people just aren't dedicated enough.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/17 18:39:35
jmurph wrote: Interestingly, both of Slash's parents were artists (mother was a costume designer). And he didn't learn how to play guitar until he was 14, so apparently there is more to it than just being drilled since child birth....
What has costume design got to do with guitar? Yeah, there is more, he practised 12 hours a day. Here is him in an interview saying the most important thing is dedication, practice and commitment. He's also recommended practice "excessively". TBH I don't really know how good Slash is. I'm fairly rubbish at guitar so I don't know what to listen for. A lot of people consider him overrated though. So maybe the late start did stunt his growth as a player.
Spoiler:
Costume design doesn't have anything directly related to guitar but suggests a creative mind which can conceive new ideas and then bring them into reality, which is a very good thing to have if you want to write your own music.
You can be an amazing technical player who can play everything by Van Halen, Hendrix, Iron Maiden etc. but if you don't have that creative spark to be able to write your own stuff then you are pretty limited as an artist.
I think that that kind of ability, the ability to think abstractly and creatively and to be able to see how individual things come together to form a whole and be able to take a whole and break it back down into individual components, is probably the most important thing in determining someones creative ability.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
~1.5k
