I believe that the term "talent" is a very difficult one to describe
and I agree with the author of the article that in evaluating the
phenomenon of innate predispositions one must be careful in defining
'giftedness' compared with nurturing encouraging parents who are
talented in a particular area, and through familial settings transfer
the skill onto their children.
But as Joanna acknowledged, to what extent is there a differentiation
between achieving a high standard in a specific domain or skill, and
the idea of biological natural talent?
Furthermore, the five criteria proposed in section 1.1, I believe, is
quite useful in attempting to define talent. In describing an
attribute or talent in a particular way one must locate specific
constraints and limitations. I feel the five properties of talent
suggested here quite sufficiently do that.
Talent, in my mind, is a gift one is born with , and one that is
necessary for achieving a genius level of any skill, be it mathmetical,
musical or athletics, agreeing with the beginning of the article and
Joanna. For example, however much one practices singing, the rhythm,
musicality, pitch and tone can only excel if a)you can sing and carry a
tune from earlier on, highlighting the notion of people who are simply
tone deaf unable to achieve such a level, and b)if you are encouraged
within that talent that is discovered early, and practise continously.
The point being that talent must be there originally to allow an
individual to excel at any skill, agreeing with Davies, 1994.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:20 GMT