Why is it that in anime, or maybe it's Japanese culture, do they put so much emphasis on talent? Almost everything is based on it, people flat out say they can't do something because they lack the talent (or it's because that guy isn't a "genius"). It sounds like such a shitty excuse not to do something.
Do they really think like this? Or is it just their cartoons?
But talent is a real thing. Some people are better suited for some things than others.
With hard work and training anybody could become good at violin, but not everybody could become world class players.
But it's always a reoccurring in Japanese media. So much so it's annoying.
I agree that Japan is a bit on the extreme end of biological determinism. However, I'd say that the west - especially the US - are on the other extreme.
In the US a very liberal (classical liberal) ideology is present, that man is essentially capable of doing pretty much anything if one only puts enough effort into it. While this is a positive outlook, and it especially was so when classical liberalism was born - mostly in opposition to the rather feudal societies that still were in place in Europe - stating that a person's birth wouldn't decide ones faith.
Nowadays, it turns out that this ideology can rather fast become a negative one because that people can do just anything isn't factually true. In the past, menial work and craftsmanship was more present while nowadays the way to a modicum of wealth and decent life leads through the doors of academia. Not everyone possesses the ability to educate himself though. Telling these people that with perseverance and effort they could succeed is a lie. Liberal (by American standards this is more often to be found in conservative circles though, since liberalism in the US seems to be equated with leftism) ideology doesn't want to realise this, and the once positive outlook on life becomes a negative one because it blames those who don't succeed for their failure, attributing it to a lack of effort and character rather than what it really is: a lack of ability.
Maybe. But the consequence would be that you were essentially born to be a loser. It depends on which you prefer. I would guess in the case of /a/ it's more about a lack of social skills or outright psychological issues that keep them from succeeding rather than a general lack of intelligence.
The issue is: if you look at lower class people you will notice that most of them are simply lacking in intelligence. With no education in the world you could turn them into engineers, lawyers, medical doctors, etc. - to blame them for their poverty, claiming they didn't study enough or something means to blame them for being stupid.
anyone who believes in hardwork>talent or hardwork=talent doesn't work as a writer for anime or manga. Because the scifi book I was following is clearly all about hardwork and diligence is better than talent alone
That's true, though. People with talent can do amazing things that leave others stumped even if they barely put in the effort. True, somebody with talent who put no effort into doing something is likely to lose against somebody who worked hard, but if that talented person applies effort they will ALWAYS come out on top and the hard worker will never be able to reach their level.
I honestly despise the liberal dogma that pervades the west.
Because that's the fucking reality of things.
All this "believe and you can do it" garbage is nothing but a pipe dream losers tell themselves and winners are paid to parrot in order to sell a product.
I'll use /fit/'s hardest pill to swallow.
The man who holds the world record powerlifting total and the highest squat ever is a 24 year old who started lifting only 7 years ago.
He is white, does not use illegal substances and he leads a perfectly normal life working as an engineer in the family business.
He does weightlifting as a hobby. He did not lift from child, he did not sacrifice a normal life and financial stability for his achievement.
His very existence runs counter to the general attitudes in lifting circles. How did he surpass the blood, sweat and suffering of countless men before him? Talent, he is a genetical freak with very thick bones, tendons and abnormally large muscles. Talent is everything, without it you are just mediocre at best.
I must agree that this is pretty annoying even if it's true, it's throwed in every anime.
It's basically "daily remainder: you filthy otaku neet have no talent, no meaning but the cash to buy our show in which we shit talk about you."
They have backward notions of a person's capability based solely on what they think they can accomplish, rather than real world experiences and results.
A lot of their culture is archaic, yes.
"Talent" is 80% hardwork and 20% luck.
There's countless studies showcasing the that biggest determiner for success is how many hours you put in. Tiger Woods does not have "golf genes". He just played so much that he used to bring his golf club to the table when he was a kid.
You can't achieve anything if you only work hard.
But you'll achieve a lot.
However, there is a difference between working hard in a dumb sense and working hard in a smart sense.
If you work hard on your job, do not expect too much to come out of it. If money is your goal, you must look for other ways.
This is my own experience, I'm a retired young anon that has a lot of cash. I also consider myself incredibly untalented.
But note that in terms of sports and smarts, talent truly does matter. There will always be someone that's more good looking, more smarter and more athletic simply due to his genes.
But why should that stop you, or anyone for that matter? If you know a way to improve your life, act on it.
If you make it your life's goal to be the best you can be, it will be a fantastic one. The moment you stop making shitty excuses and start learning is the moment you start growing.
The value of those hours is important you have to note, not just the number.
And also, from the perspective of someone living as an adult that has a better understanding of decision making compared to a child who simply does things on a whim, you are "born into" what you become as an adult because your previous decisions as an ignorant child were completely out of your control. The notion that someone is always the same person with the same perspective is utterly bullshit, at the end of the day what makes you what you are 10 years from now is determined by the present and the area of the brain that handles decision making is not fully matured until the mid 20's.
You're not stuck because of genes, you're just stuck with whatever past you decided to fuck around with.
>There's countless studies showcasing the that biggest determiner for success is how many hours you put in.
And you never considered that someone who is good at something due to being talented progresses faster, receives more positive feedback and is thus more likely to keep what he's doing and put more time into it? If you lack intelligence you won't be able to get higher education. And no practice in the world would make you a better golf player than Tiger Woods because he does indeed have "golf genes" - or rather, a combination of traits which makes him good at golf.
IQ is a stupid way to measure intelligence, however, leaving that aside, the physicist is able to do well at his job because he may have been confronted with the underlying principles behind scientific work from a comparatively young age (especially when taking into consideration that a lot of the people who end up studying a science come from academic households).
So while there definitely is a sort of predisposition for the physicist to do well with his job, it probably has more to do with the way he grew up rather than any kind of genetically determined factor.
Not him, but fuck off. That literally has nothing to do with his point which is actually true. Le noble family bloodline shit is archaic and retarded. Kings will always defend their dumb children.
Fuck off. It's absolutely related to it, and his point is a bogus one that ignores the general level of incompetence among lesser peoples like Africans, aka the real world results he tries to cite.
>Le noble family bloodline shit is archaic and retarded.
Nope. People who are born into a family of, say, carpenters, will find it much easier to do carpentry than some scrawny liberal kid descended from a bunch of IT nerds who wanted to try doing it.
>How did you pull that from what he said?
Because those people are the ones who say shit like that.
Has spent more weeks at rank 1 than the 2-9th place golfers combined.
Don't think either of you are reading his post.
>They have backward notions of a person's capability based solely on what they think they can accomplish
Is basically "if you think you can do it" is bullshit.
Nobles gained power and stayed in power due to superior intellect, this much is true.
When you think of it the first nobles were just politicians, they were the village council, the decision makers and administrators. If the specific traits that earned them their place were carried on that does indeed make them superior. There's also the fact that nobles could afford to give their offspring a superior start at life and a better education, further widening the gap between commoners and the patricians.
IQ is no metric akin to bodily size, in the sense that you can say for certain that a guy who scored 115 is less intelligent than a guy who scored 120 on his test, but as a statistical quantity applied to demographics it does indeed give you a good idea of their academic ability.
Some people are born stupid. This is a fact. No amount of education is going to turn them into engineers or physicists. The idea that with hard work they could overcome their stupidity is a lie. A flat out lie. And it's not going to help people, because if they could have overcome their stupidity with hard work then they're obviously lazy and deserve their poverty.
Simply dealing with the fact that some people don't have what it takes to succeed in a first world society would help it a lot. Being stupid doesn't mean that one is a bad person after all, and I'm fairly certain plenty of people who'd score worse on an IQ test than the average /a/non are actually a lot more confident when it comes to dealing with every-day problems due to a lack of autistic retardation - even though being technically less intelligent.
>7 years ago.
That is a lot of training time anon. Also where in your mind did you get that he didn't lift as a kid? Sure he wasn't a young kid 7 years ago, but he was 17 years old. Kids usually don't start lifting till they get into some kind of sport around the age of 15. Trying to build a lot of mass prior to that is pointless.
>the opposite of a carpenter is a liberal
>everyone who thinks that hard work and experience are relevant to someone's level of achievement is a liberal
/pol/, please, you're being too conservative for conservatism
>Nope. People who are born into a family of, say, carpenters, will find it much easier to do carpentry than some scrawny liberal kid descended from a bunch of IT nerds who wanted to try doing it.
AhahaAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm nearly convinced that you're a stupid troll now.
>Why is it that in anime, or maybe it's Japanese culture, do they put so much emphasis on talent?
Because "hard work" could only get you so far, in the end it's the talent aka "the last push" that matters.
Then again that's way too general of speaking, it's "EXPERIENCE" that always flies in before any hard work or talent, especially in East Asian countries.
Genes determine everything? What nonsense. Individuals are not responsible for their genes. Individuals are individuals. Family lines or genetics have nothing to do with the abilities of the individual. People who believe that genes decide everything are truly worthless people who can only do what they are told. People who boast of their ancestry have nothing that they can boast about in themselves. Those people are the ones that I truly disrespect. by Reinhard von Lohengramm from Legend of the Galactic Heroes
No. You're points are entirely devoid of logic and you're stupid (for all this talk about "muh talent" you sure don't have any) to the point that you deserve scorn. That's why you're being insulted even by people other than me.
Most prominent weightlifters start either in their preteens, or very early into their teens.
The two strongest lifters in the squat and deadlift started lifting at 17 and 18 respectively, both after a skiing related accident and they both admit that the injury from the accident is likely limiting their potential, despite being far above anyone else.
Arnold started lifting young and he failed as an oly-lifter and powerlifter, that's why he turned to bodybuilding which was still a niche back then. 7 years is nothing, many lift for a decade without getting anywhere near the top.
"He lift from child" is an expression we use to emphasize that a man has been lifting weights from a very young age to get where he is. Many of these still fail.
>There's also the fact that nobles could afford to give their offspring a superior start at life and a better education, further widening the gap between commoners and the patricians.
I wish they emphasized this more. Economic and political power has always been the difference maker of the elites, not superior genetic traits deliberately kept restricted to a certain family. Worse is if that trait is only possessed by a single person. So we have an MC that's destined for greatness just because his dad is Jesus. Anime makes eugenics look so easy.
By the way, one of the better depictions of talent I've seen is from Slam Dunk. Eiji Sawakita is basically the poster boy of cultivated talent.
It does to a certain extent, yes, since it more or less tests things like pattern recognition and "logical intuition" (there's probably a proper term for that, but I don't know it), which are required skills in most branches of academia.
>Some people are born stupid.
Are there any studies about that? Because with my current views, I find it hard to believe that people who aren't mentally disabled or didn't have a proper upbringing could simply be born less intelligent than others. I am by no means saying that every person is theoretically capable of becoming what most would consider a "genius" if they had been brought up in the same way a genius was, but in my opinion, any mentally able person would, with proper education from a very young age, be capable of very high-level academic work/research in their field of choice. I simply find it hard to believe that "intelligence" would, in that regard, work in the same way as anatomic predispositions do, where talent is, to a good degree, simply determined by how your body is structured. However, if you do have links to any studies that were able to remove intelligence from factors like education and upbringing, I'll gladly read through them and reconsider my stance.
>Simply dealing with the fact...
I actually agree with you there. I don't know how it is in other countires, but where I live, we have way too many people in the highest forms of publically available education, and it's more or less obvious that most of them would be better suited for, so to say, lesser mentally demanding work. That's the reason why I believe that, at least where I live, the school system should be changed so that you don't require the highest form of education to do, say, certain engineering jobs, so that, with some restructuring, you could go to a "lesser" school, but still receive the necessary education for these kinds of jobs, while the "highest" form of school education would be left for the people who will later on do things like academic research (of course, there's other factors going into that, like a stupid amount of elitism, etc., but I won't go into that).
Anyone with a brain thinks like this. That short kid with asthma back in high school didn't seriously consider being an all star line backer for a reason.
People can't just do anything. You have things you are good at and things you aren't. And hard work only goes so far for people with no talent.
Because Japanese people and their society have made it easier to blame their failures on someone being more talented than them.
They're always like "Aaa~ tensai desu ne." 天才
I mean, look at the fucking kanji, it's like your talent came from the heavens and then they can just say the nice old "It can't be helped" and get on with their day.
Hard work gets you a long way over a long period of time, but someone who's just really good at that thing will usually exceed you if they put in effort. There are plenty of geniuses who just never find the dedication needed to really make use of their talent, though - didn't the highest IQ ever recorded belong to an advice columnist or something?
Probably because Japan is the culture of "work yourself to death and act like you like it". In other parts of the world it's possible you could "out work" a large enough portion of the population to get ahead. But not in Japan. No matter how hard you work there are millions, tens of millions of people who are going to work just as hard as you, if not harder, who are also naturally more gifted. It's full of people burning themselves out to fit in and make it in society. If you don't have that natural edge or some other advantage you'll NEVER advance in life.
There's probably a huge audience there that can relate to that. The feeling that no matter what, hard work doesn't mean shit unless you've got talent.
Once you reach around age 17 everything you've done by that point will essentially determine what you'll be doing. And if you fucked around with drugs, games, television, and whatnot then there's nothing else to do.
The simple answer is that faggots like William Wordsworth came with their Romantic philosophies that glorified the artist as an inspired creator rather than focusing on an artwork as the product of skillful toil.
The idea that talent is the sole deciding facotr in any craft (be it art, sports, etc.) is fucking ridiculous, but it makes for an interesting story, so writers use it readily.
Some things are effected by "talent". If you have long legs and a strong body, you're going to be better at running than someone with short legs and a weak body.
That being said, skills are totally different from talents (a skill is something you can teach someone, a talent can't be taught). When it comes to skills, like drawing, playing an instrument, even fighting, practice is the most important factor. You wont get good at anything unless you practice it a lot. Different people learn at different speeds, but someone who has put thousands of hours of practice into something will always be better than someone who is "naturally talented" but didn't practice.
Same applies to talents too. You could have the perfect body for running. You're still going to be shit at it if you never practice.
It's better than obsessing over your inadequacies. If you're going to do something about it, then do, by all means, but it's good to be comfortable with where you are and not get frustrated over not being a Nobel-winning chemist or something.
That literally means nothing about what I said.
Obviously the "best" people at anything are those that are talented at it and work their asses off for it. Professional sports are full of excellent examples of people like that.
Also perfect examples of people that have talent but were too lazy to do anything with it.
And people that worked their asses off but never really excelled because they didn't have the talent.
Shit you can't watch/read sports related news without hearing about talent coming up all the time.
The idea its some Japanese only concept is ridiculous.
It's not anime, but if anyone watched Blue Blazes there was one line where an artist says he doesn't want advice from someone who doesn't draw.
His response was "It's not that I don't draw it's that I can't" and he actually got upset as if there was a difference, almost taking pride in it. It's as if he didn't even try to begin with. Yeah I'm aware this is just a TV show, but that kind of thinking is so pathetic it makes me cringe.
That's bullshit, though. There are plenty of people who change life paths or wind up more or less successful than they were on track to become. Promising people get depressed or addicted; mediocre students mature and develop new interests, etc. Yeah, obviously where you are has an impact on where you'll wind up, but it's not the sole determinant.
It absolutely did. if you read up on Mozart, his father started disciplining him on the piano the moment he felt he was old enough to press the keys. As well, none of his great symphonies were written when he was a young boy. It wasn't until he mastered his craft that he started making masterworks.
>So we have an MC that's destined for greatness just because his dad is Jesus.
There are plenty of faggots with great pedigrees that amount to nothing.
Meet Onii-sama. Deemed a failure at birth he was attempted murdered and disposed of, when that failed he was stripped of his right to succeed the family, never received any familial love and ultimately made a servant to his little sister.
The main reason why he can do the things he does is because of his intellect and his hard work. Without these he would've never been able to do the things he does with his ability.
Sometimes I wonder how things would have been if my parents hadn't pawned the guitar my grandparents gave me as a kid and my school actually let me in their music program.
Pretty much this. I mean, its not exaggeration to say that most people that go to college for one thing end up getting a career in something that is only barely related, if related at all, to what their degree was.
Are you saying that every kid that grows up with a single musician parent will start composing at age 4, let alone be remembered in the annals of history as one of the greatest?
If something like that were to happen today it would be all over the news. Also:
> seeing as he came from a family full of successful musicians
> Leopold Mozart, a native of Augsburg, was a minor composer
His father was a small town musician, that's all.
In the same vein as this, I read that Michael Phelps was actually genetically predisposed to be an excellent swimmer. He has disproportionately large hands and a short torso, which probably means something for a swimmer but I have no idea what.
No, of course not. But >>120529063
what this guy says.
>a minor composer
>small town musician
doesn't change the fact that he had easy access to instruments, which post people during that time period did not.
Anyone who is having trouble understanding the relationship between talent, skill, and the crafting of fine work should take a look at T.S. Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent.
It's pretty much the best thesis on the creation of art (particularly writing) out there.
I think people that grow up from birth with music are probably going to be more in tune with it. That being said, obviously Mozart is an especially extraordinary case.
I mean, you can look at Sweden right now and see what a proper education focused on music can do versus pretty much everywhere else.
Studies also show that the most successful athletes tend to be born earlier in the year, The reason is that because they have a few months worth of growth and physical development on their peers they tend to be bigger, stronger and faster than everyone else their age. This naturally gives them an advantage when playing sports which then mothballs into them both enjoying it more, spending more time at it and receiving preferential treatment due to their perceived talent.
Hard work is important. No one who's successful got there without putting in the hours. But the fallacy that the successful tend to have is in believing that anyone can do it if they just work hard enough, which isn't true. There are probably millions of really great hockey players out there who dream of going pro and who work at it, but the NHL only drafts a few hundred a year.
>Are there any studies about that?
You're trying to tell me you've never interacted with someone you thought was stupid? This doesn't require studies because we're talking about a statement where the anecdote is sufficient proof. I'm not talking percentages of the population here - how many of them there are you're free to guess, the point is: some people are idiots out there and there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone is suited for the type of thinking that is required in certain academic fields, just like some people have problems when interacting with others in social situations. However, holding this liberal ideal of everyone being able to do everything is simply a pipe dream. And it doesn't help anyone because in the end you'll be stuck with your idiots in a futile attempt of getting them through higher education they're not suited for, which they probably dislike too because they have no fun doing it, and what then? Blame them when they fail because they're lazy rather than simply untalented?
>I find it hard to believe that people who aren't mentally disabled or didn't have a proper upbringing could simply be born less intelligent than others.
Some people are taller than others. Some people are more inclined to get fat. Some people are prettier, some are uglier than others.
I obviously don't have numbers at hand, but back in the early days of philosophy people were well capable of using their heads and estimate the likelihood based on reasonable thought: if we agree that the human consciousness and ability is physically represented within the brain and if other physical traits can vastly differ from individual to individual - wouldn't it be most reasonable to assume that the same applies to the human brain as well?
Yeah? So? Plenty of people work just as hard or harder and never accomplish even close to what he does. Talent can't take you all the way on its own, but neither can hard work. He was always going to be, at the very least, competent. Even if he was a lazy fuck. Hard work made him the best. Just the best.
Not even mentioning how ever many people out there that could have been top end Hockey players had their life been different enough that they got into hockey when they were young.
I think you are missing the point. If I were to quantify hard work in units of WORK, and I gave two people that put in 100 units of WORK each, the more talented one would be the better. Which is the entire point.
And it completely ignores that some people are just purely inept at certain things, no matter how hard they work at it.
You'd still get stuck at a certain point because you have plenty of people who cannot do much besides menial work. In the past there was work for them to be done. They could be craftsmen, they could be factory workers. But nowadays there's little use for them because menial work is nowadays done by machines or in third world countries. It's too expensive to be done in first world countries. Some might find work as burger flippers, or some other service type job, or perhaps if we're talking about the US they end up in the military or in prison where they're exploited as slave workers. The point remains however that sizeable part of the population isn't needed by society. What to do with them? Right now, they're commonly blamed for their uselessness, which in my opinion isn't fair to them and denies the problem at hand.
Luck can trump everything in life. The most incompetent lazy shits can live long and rich lives while the hard working people can suffer and die in obscurity, purely because of luck. Luck can be an extreme factor in any life. Don't treat it as some tiny variable.
Don't forget in the david and golaith story golaith was actually blind, weak, and his only chance of victory was david not choosing to shoot him in the head with his pistol-force sling.
I've spent the last 10 years of my life as a professional welder. I just got my A+ certification, so, you know, an utterly different field of work, and I only did that so that I could have a more stable job situation that still pays well because now, at 31 I'm going back to school so I can study evolutionary biology. (I was inspired to do this by a guy on Youtube named AronRa, who's an ex tattoo artist who went back to school at 44 to earn a degree in paleontology (which he now has).
Oh, I'm also working on a science fiction novel that I started at 27 after having never written anything before. The first book is done and, after a wall full of rejection letters, I have at least one publisher showing interest.
Seeing some type that someone can't change what they're going to do with their life after age 17 may be one of that saddest most wrong headed statements I've ever read in my life. Seriously dude, you gotta get that kinda shit out of your head because it's such a catastrophically wrong and unhealthy attitude to have that I don't know how to convey it you other than using the word "catastrophically".
As for why I'm 31 and browsing /a/? Eh. I'm still a big anime loving dork at heart and I like to occasionally keep up with what new stuff is out.
It depends on the gap in talent and the gap in hours. If you have a middle-of-the-pack child in math class, and he starts doing five hours of studying a week, he'll do better than the smarter kids who aren't doing any studying, but he'll probably still get blown out by the "gifted" kid who only studies three hours.
You're missing the point here. Of course I've talked to people that I would consider stupid, but there is no way to show that their stupidity can't be attributed to the way they grew up. That's why I'd like to read/see a study where these factors are removed as much as possible (which, of course, would be very hard). The point I'm making is: nobody is a complete idiot the moment they are born. They merely become idiots during the early years of their life, and are unable to change anything about it later on, because they simply lack the ability to.
>However, holding this liberal ideal of everyone being able to do everything is simply a pipe dream.
Yes, of course it is. There is not and will never be anyone who can just do everything they set their mind to - I think what you'll end up being later on in your life is pretty much determined by the age of 10 (at least in a broader sense, like academic work, manual labor, etc.).
> futile attempt of getting them through higher education they're not suited for
That's exactly what I'm talking about in the second post - I do not want it to be that way. In my ideal, these "idiots" would be properly dealt with in educational terms.
>Some people are taller than others... human consciousness and ability is physically represented within the brain
Hm. But that would imply that the ability would be there to begin with. However, no two human brains are alike in structure, so there's that.
What he is lifting seems around average for his age. Back when I was in High School for football I lifted around that. Then again I was 320lbs while Arnold in that image was around 220lbs. There were some kids on the team that could lift more than me, but they juiced up. The one now does mr.Universe contests and the other got drafted for the Packers. Still I didn't train my whole life to lift that much weight it was more like 3 years and whatever crap I had to do at home for chores.
Yeah I agree that genetic disposition accounts for a lot. I have a friend who is skinny. No matter how much he trains he will be skinny. However he can eat twice as much as I can and has been the same weight since we were in school. So 7 years of training for him I guess would be nothing. However for anyone who has a larger body 7 years of training would be more than enough time to lift. Still like with the genetics strength will change how you look. There are strong men lifters who have guts and can lift large heavy objects. Then there are body builders who are just into sculpting their bodies, then there are power lifters who are a mix of the two.
Many times it's because "only [insert protagonist] can pilot this robot".
Plus Amuro has all the experience after OYW.
All the Meisters in 00 had certified battlefield experience one way or the other.
Yeah, you may actually be right about that. Now that there is much less demand for things like crafting jobs, the people who aren't suited for academic work (who, let's be honest, are probably the (vast) majority), don't really have a spot where they fit in with our kind of society. How to deal with that is something I will have to spend a lot more time thinking about before I can make a somewhat valuable argument.
It all depends really. In sports with an age restriction or other limitations, physical advantages or an extra few months of age can make a significant difference in performance, particularly at a younger age. In a larger context, hard work and experience makes more of an impact than talent. However once you reach the upper limits of human ability talent and natural ability is the feather that tips the balance when every competitor is both a hard worker and experienced.
I disagree about Tats. He understood magic better than anyone else, had an extreme amount of martial training and experience, and because of those he was probably one of the worlds top experts on magic AND magic warfare. He was built by his experiences, and developed by himself a different view and application of magic. He was simply deviant to everyone else so his understanding and drive to succeed were on a level completely impossible for the average magic user.
Plenty, they're just not so popular these days. Dark Schneider comes to mind. Sure he gets gored and trashed, but he always returns stronger than ever with a smile on his face and mocks his opponent. He never trains, he is just fucking exceptional from start to end.
I would rather have that bullshit than the "everyone is a special snowflake and can do whatever he/she wants if he/she puts his/her mind to it! Gambare!" shit.
People who always say "genes dicide your life" seem to think that success = elite. Like if you don't be the best, you're a failure. And being the best needs talent so if you don't have it, don't bother to do anything because you will be a failure anyway.
The society is not that black and white. 99% of people are in the middle/lower ground, which are worse than the "elite class". Working-hard can't guarantee you to be in the elite class, but it's possible to be better than those people who are around the same level of talent as you. Call it a success or not, it's still better than doing nothing.
I mean, come on man. Helen Keller was fucking deaf and blind and it took a fuck ton of time for her to read one book. And she still managed to be a better author than most "normal people" becaue most people have perfect sight but don't bother to read.
If you really put all your effort into something you love, you will definitely get something you wanted. Not everything sure, but better than nothing.
>nobody is a complete idiot the moment they are born. They merely become idiots during the early years of their life, and are unable to change anything about it later on, because they simply lack the ability to
Possible, but I'm inclined to believe the genome is more relevant. However, who of us is right here is actually besides the point because we're discussing the state at hand: they're stupid. Why they're stupid isn't actually that important - important is how society treats them.
>Hm. But that would imply that the ability would be there to begin with. However, no two human brains are alike in structure, so there's that.
And no two human legs are completely alike in structure either. I think you're attributing too much meaning to minor differences. In terms of structure, human brains are more alike than they are different. However, there are differences. Just like some people are taller than others, some people are more intelligent than others - or if you dislike the term "intelligent" you might replace it with "have more affinity for certain types of thinking". After all - most of the physical ability is processed within the brain too, so technically someone who's very dexterous with his hands is certainly "intelligent" in his own way, his brain is better at processing certain things than the brain of others, even though most of that takes place at an unconscious level is done inside is head nonetheless.
600 lbs is not average for his age by any means, half of that is. Anon if you could lift that naturally, you're strong as hell and more genetically gifted than the vast majority of people, including weightlifter communities. You're calling 270 kg average? Holy shit, are you from Olympia?
Props to you, anon, and you'll never be too old for /a/ and anime.
I expect to be in the same boat in a couple of months, too.
then you have clearly not watched the right anime
>ctrl+f: bitches, whores, adachi
I'm disappointed in you, /a/.
Well that's not fair, Guts got special anal training as a kid, you can expect all people to be that lucky.
My dad used to have me lift the back of his f150 truck to win bets with his friends when I was 16. However like I said doing that stuff as a kid isn't good. I have a slipped disc in my back and no acl in my right knee because of that crap.
Helen Keller was extraordinarily intelligent.
Not every deaf and blind person could have done what she did. Most people would have failed.
The problem is that people don't want to call talent by its name. They fear biological determinism too much since it is closely related to social darwinism. The problem with this is however that it you rule out the component of talent, of sheer biological ability which enables people to do things others can, then you raise the bar to a level that others can't reach, no matter how much effort they bring up. And what is the consequence of that? That they're simply not trying hard enough. That they're lazy. An at the core positive ideology ("you can do anything") becomes negative if applied too rigorously.
There's a middle-ground between "you can do anything" and "no need to try". There is no shame in failure, many people fail. Also, occasionally it is reasonable to play it safe and not make an attempt to do something and take a risk, this isn't necessarily cowardice but it might as well be insight and having knowledge of ones own abilities.
Its the real world.
My law teacher back in high school worked his ass off for months getting his law degree, basically devoting 100% of his time to it. Still did somewhat shitty. Meanwhile, some guy who was apart of his class essentially was never there, aced the whole thing without trying.
Some people are just built to do something, and no amount of hard work will ever close the gap.
Jesus, first time in months I actually want to post in a thread, and my internet decides to be retarded.
We did start out talking about why they're stupid/how they came to be stupid, but yes, we kinda moved on from that.
>have more affinity for certain types of thinking
While that makes it sound more palatable, it doesn't really change anything about the issue at hand. Maybe gives it a bit of a new focus, because it implies that the word "intelligence" is not usable in this case because it is too general. One could, however, then go and say that while humans definitely have different (amounts of) these kinds of affinites, there isn't someone who wouldn't be able to excel at any of them. The thing I'm getting at is that when it comes to the potential of an arbitrary human being, while removed from any extrinsic influences, would be very close to that of another.
But yeah, regarding how to deal with the "idiots" again, I can't seem to be able to come up with any humanitarian way to deal with them. On the spot, that is. I still have to give it some more thought.
That's why you have Naruto dattebayo!
But at the same time, it's also possible for someone with natural talent in a particular field not have the natural talent to actually work hard, while someone else without the same natural talent does have the talent to work hard. In that way, it's impossible to say what really causes success or failure since "talent" to do something essentially applies to everything.
lots of people wouldn't accept this ( probably american i think) because they got jammed into their head since they were kids the idea that anybody can grow up to be anything they wish to be just because
>Because those people are the ones who say shit like that
So basically you're making a baseless assumption of someone you've never even met, and immediately start bashing his beliefs because you think they're the opposite of yours?
I'm not trying to be mean when using words like idiot. The issue is: the type of thinking which a first world society favours is a different one than that a tribal society favours. In the past, most of these people could have become useful members of society since menial work was more important. Nowadays the need for it is getting less and less.
What to do with them? Well, that's a good question.
For one, making life not harder on them than it already is could be a good idea. e.g. welfare programs to make sure people don't completely drop out of society, don't turn to crime or political/religious extremism, and not blaming them morally for their situation.
>I'm not trying to be mean when using words like idiot.
I understand that - it didn't seem like you were using it in a degrading manner, we're just talking matter-of-factly here, so to say.
But yeah - nowadays, you'd basically have a tribe full of "wisemen" as opposed to the hunters/crafters/other people that were needed in large numbers during the tribal times. Maybe, just maybe, humanity as a whole is in a sort of transitional phase right now, which could be why so many of the "old kind" (what would've been the hunters and crafters) become left behind by society.
>those people with polyglotism that can learn entire languages within several months
>those people with perfect recall and photographic memory that know fucking everything
>you are not one of these people
No, it's a personal attitude and conscious choice. Working hard takes time and devotion. I know this because I've experienced it first hand.
On my first three months of uni I was constantly in a state of "do or die" and as a result I would work for hours after school. The result was that I aced my tests.
Now I don't even turn up for lectures and only do the bare minimum to take my exams, but still get passing grades. Right now I should be reading 200 pages of material on web development and another 100 on programming, yet here I am posting on /a/.I can work hard and have done so for extended periods of time in the past, but choose not to at present.
So then how do you explain the fact that some people need ritalin (or whatever drug it is these days) to stay on task, while others don't? Why can't you just pay attention? Since personal attitude can vary, and depends on the individual, I still think hard work is a result of various combinations of talent.
I have a thing against going after girls who are already spoken for. Also I haven't done a flip in over a decade and with the disc and no acl I don't see that happening.
In short I watch anime because real life sucks. It is rare that I go to a bar without there being a fight, and its nice not having to worry about getting stabbed or shot at when I'm at home watching anime or talking online.
>which could be why so many of the "old kind" (what would've been the hunters and crafters) become left behind by society
Essentially, the hunters and gatherers are at the moment being carried by the wisemen - the opposite of what it was before. While their work is still needed to a certain degree, especially in other parts of the world, in first world societies their use is diminishing. I don't see them vanish any time soon though.
More like no Zenkichi, he's the perfect example to use in this thread.
>wasn't talented from birth like the MC
>still got pretty fucking far with hard work, even if the MC still outshadowed him because sheer talent
>Gatsu is super fucking special, he has the ability to defy fate
not really i mean one of the theme of berserk so far is that no matter what guts dose he cant change the great picture of things and every action he did since meeting griffith in the end resulted in griffith favor but ofc that all this is just build up so that when guts kills the god hand members and the idea of evil in the end of the manga to prove that free will>determinism
>you just gotta CHOOSE to be smart and get good grades
Are you saying this person "didn't try hard enough"?
Of course failure isn't a shame. It's all about how the person takes on it.
What I meant to say was people shouldn't limit themselves by making an unreachable definition of success and using it to discourage themselves.
I think being realistic is good when approaching your goal but not if you deny yourself before even starting.
So basically imo talent decides your capacity while effort decides how much you actually have in your container.
It still seems like two sides of the same coin to me. Something to do with the brain, and something to do with what you're born with. But I suppose we're not going to agree anytime soon.
Sorry the rest of us just aren't as smart as you, anon-kun.
>never studied, just paid attention to class and had good grades on almost all tests (though rarely acing it)
>had friends who were the same as me
>enter Physics major without any effort
>first semester is okay, but I realized I had to actually study
>spend 4 hours a day studying
>ace almost everything
>learn that studying is actually pretty nice when you don't have to study shit that you dislike
Feels good to be smarter than Homura.
How did you learn that studying is awesome, /a/?
It's the exact opposite. The Japanese believe hard work trumps all. That's why they go to cram schools and study 12+ hours a day.
Anime will say the opposite because it's what they, the exhausted and tortured students, want to hear. They're at their wits end and want to believe that any failures they encounter are not solely their fault, and that some people are simply greater than others.
I read this insane article on Wikipedia about Japanese moms.
This particular passage made me realize that their society is beyond repair.
>Mothers are essentially in heavy competition with other mothers who also want their children to get into the elite universities. In some cases, to make it seem like her own child is not studying as much, mothers will let their child use the parents’ bedroom to study while the mothers watch dramas on the television in the living room. Other mothers who pass by the house will see the child’s bedroom light off, assuming that the child has shirked his or her studies to watch dramas on the television in the living room. The next morning, the mother will report what happened in the dramas to her child, who will go to school and talk about it to his or her classmates, who will also assume that their friend is a slacker, lowering their expectations of their friend and for themselves. However, when examination time rolls around, the “slacker” will be admitted into an elite school while his or her friends will drop behind.
Who cares about talent? If it even exists, you either have it or you don't, and there's nothing you can do about it, so why waste time worrying about it when you could be practicing instead? So you'll have to work harder then someone who happened to luck out and be born naturally good at it - if you really want to be good at something that shouldn't really matter. Just work as hard and long as you have to to get where you want to be. If you really want to do something then not coming out of the womb already being a master at it shouldn't be an issue.
And you must never give in to despair
Often this isn't just an issue of a personal definition of a success but a societal definition. Societies that are very much into the classical liberal ideology, and I'd say this applies very much to the US, are very much inclined to blame people for their failure. If you hold the idea that people can do anything if they only try hard enough - thus disregarding the element of individual ability - then the one to blame for failure is always the individual. Refer to >>120526707.
huh wasn't talking about Serpico or Griffith but i guess that brings the number to 4
I was talking about the number 1 guy of that lord that buttfucked griffith and the bald guy in the mustache that survived that ritual that gave femto a physical body.
Intelligence doesn't equate to smartness, anon. Intelligent people who don't study aren't making excuses for themselves, they're just being lazy.
Though you do get a fuckton of idiots claiming to be smart, but lazy so they kind of drown out the actual smart and lazy faggots.
I believe that some people really are super-crazy-weirdly smart, but just don't put that much effort. Yet still manage to do pretty well in most hard things. Stuff like that happens, but there's absolutely no point betting on it since it's about point-nothing percent of the population.
>Intelligence doesn't equate to smartness, anon
Honestly, we don't even have a solid definition for "intelligence" or "smart." If you argue the difference, you're essentially arguing to yourself since everyone inevitably has some different versions of their own definitions.
Every culture does this, well most of them anyone.
Also you want a heartwrencher? Heres one, and she's not even the best girl
Smartness is proven in direct results. If you cannot do certain things, if you can't reach a level of academic prowess you simply aren't smart enough.
Intelligence is your ability to learn and apply your knowledge to solve a task.
Intelligence and smartness is the difference between talent and hard work.
I don't really get it...
Yep. I'm just trying to have some fun trying different things until I find something I like.
Honestly the only thing holding me back is math. I would have aced the ACT/SAT if it wasn't for that. But every time I tell myself I'm going to seriously study and learn it I just end up finding cracks in the system to scrape by with ok-ish grades.
It is true. Why do you think MX0 was canceled?
It's because the japs didn't want to read a manga about someone who works hard and is somewhat lucky. They want to read about a naturally born godlike super-mage.
I want to tell that everyone here is
It's not, though. There are people who don't study at all and do better than most of the class. There are people who are smart but think STEM is boring or humanities are worthless and don't do anything in those required courses. There are those autist codemonkeys who can produce whatever algorithm you need at the drop of a hat but can't be bothered to actually go through school. There are many smart people who just don't do what's necessary. The flaw isn't thinking that you're smart but lazy - the flaw is thinking that makes you somehow special or superior.
Being "smart" without putting effort into your studies can only get you so far. There are many people who breeze through high school without ever picking up a textbook, and those people are all probably pretty quick learners and good analytical thinkers. But a poor work ethic will be the end of you in college, especially once you start taking upper division classes. And that work ethic will also insure that you never stand out in a work environment and limit your capacity for advancement.
Successful people have to learn to marry their smarts with actual effort. Even someone who isn't very book-smart or who didn't do well in school can earn a pretty decent living if they work hard to get results, though what they end up doing may not be their "dream job".
There are some instances where laziness will pay off, though. I have heard that some employers, those who manage programers especially, will often prefer employees who hate to do work. Laziness can often be good inspiration for finding the most efficient way to solve problems. However, the most important part is that you produce results.
This still makes me mad.
I didn't say anything about "you can do everything with just effort".
Like I stated talent decides your capacity while effort decides how much you have in your container.
You still need to fill your container regardless of it's capacity. Of course it's wise to do more research and make sure you're in the right way to put your effort in. You still need passion/positive attitude towards your work.
I just don't like the attitude that always discouraging yourself and it usually ends up with doing nothing at all.
>I just don't like the attitude that always discouraging yourself and it usually ends up with doing nothing at all.
But then you can start thinking that the alternative is to reach high and disappoint yourself. While defeatism is certainly not admirable, it's understandable.
It is well likely that many people here are underachievers, in the sense that based on their mere academic ability they could achieve more than they're currently doing - if they're doing anything at all. However, that assumes that this was just an issue of academic skills, it leaves social skills and other things out of the picture. e.g. some /a/non with social anxiety, even if he could in theory do well in college might not practically do so because he gets nervous in class, procrastinates his work because picking it up alone reminds him of the stress it is dealing with other people which makes him lose his motivation, etc. - the point is: nobody chooses to fail.
However, I'm not talking about this on an individual level but on a societal level and in my experience societies who buy all too much into the classical liberal ideology are eager to pin failure on a lack of effort and thus a lack of character, when practically, it was more likely a lack of ability. An ideology which in feudal times was very liberating turned into the very opposite within modern society.
I think people just need to keep in mind that being the best doesn't really matter and try to become great without expecting to. If something's too hard, try something easier. If something's too easy, try something harder. You'll get somewhere.
>always been told that you should do what you like
>always liked parkour
>could never practice because i was a fatty, never found somewhere in here to practice, and i'm scared of highs
>tfw turning 20 and still on my way to getting a better body
Only thing i'm worried is that the internet says that people usually start at a younger age, so that plus my fear of high places could be a bit of a problem.
Also, how do i stop procastinating? I wanna do so much shit but i can't stop playing vidya or browsing 4chan.
But at the same time, it's rather disheartening to see someone cruising ahead of you with half the effort. I suppose if you're passionate enough about whatever subject matter, it doesn't matter, but I think that's rare.
Not that guy, but that's empty advice. How would one find motivation? Being motivated is a subconscious state of mind. It nothing you choose.
There's a huge as fuck industry around motivational tapes. Why do you think do those sell so well? It's because people can't just "find" motivation. Of course it doesn't work with those tapes either.
I tend to break it out quite a bit.
Intelligence would be your raw capacity for figuring something out.
Cleverness would be how quickly you process what your intelligence holds
Wisdom might be a sense of putting your other talents to efficient use
Knowledge would be what external information you have to work with
Reasoning would be your ability to apply your other talents to new applications, could also refer to inventiveness.
All of these contribute to someone being perceived as "smart'
Aw anon, everyone has a talent for something. Some people just have more talent for generally considered useless things, while other people have talent for generally considered for useful things. For example, I'm really good at accidentally repeating myself.
Broaden your horizon, anon and discover your talent!
I think it will be clear once we figure out how exactly our genes affect our different aspects of ability.
Now we can't really argue about this because I personally think that social skills are something that need to be trained other than plain talent, just like academic skills.
So imo given the situation you stated they actually can achieve more if they try to put effort on their social skills just as academic skills unless they have some incurable genes/brain problems which we still can't be 100% certain like I said in the begining.
If you set a certain goal then it can be impossible but if you just want to achieve more than doing nothing at all it's completely possible.
I don't support the idea that effort can make everything possible but I also don't support the idea that effort can't change anything.
If it helps, Einstein was a bakemono because there was a physical two-part in his brain that was way connected more than the average human, making him ridiculously smart
You're not a bakemono anon, take pride in that.
>I personally think that social skills are something that need to be trained other than plain talent, just like academic skills.
Well, I think that just about any skill or ability is a combination of pure talent and hard work. But the real question is what percent of what. Just like with the nature vs nurture debate, I'd imagine most people saying that both matter, but to what extent?
I have a talent for being a failure. But who wants that shitty ass talent? You can't do anything with failure. Failure doesn't make people smile. And it's all my fault too, I can't blame anyone.
Honestly, if someone does better than me because they're just better naturally, I sometimes feel better about it than if they're working harder but less talented. If you're hard-working but less gifted and do better than me, then I feel like I'm fucking stuff up, whereas if you're smarter or have better aptitude for a sport or whatever, it makes sense, and we're all doing things right.
>I think it will be clear once we figure out how exactly our genes affect our different aspects of ability.
Once we can quantify the abilities brought by genes we will know if people are being lazy or they just don't have talent or both.
This is whom I imagine the "I'm a lazy genius"-types think they are.
>I personally think that social skills are something that need to be trained other than plain talent, just like academic skills.
I'm fairly certain that social skills depend just as much on plain talent than anything else.
People with certain anxiety orders have elevated stress levels in situations that are a non issue to others. It can be empirically measured. They can be medicated with drugs that affect their brain chemistry. Why is it that their brains work slightly different if not something that is represented as a physical abnormality within their bodies?
>I don't support the idea that effort can make everything possible but I also don't support the idea that effort can't change anything.
I would argue: the prerequisite to find the motivation to put effort into something is a modicum of talent (as well as the absence of negative factors, e.g. psychological disorders).
I can't understand it, but then again I see things from the other way around. I don't like the feeling that something is impossible. If someone that isn't as gifted as I am is doing better, I can see what I lack and the things I need to do to get there. If the other guy is better through talent, why even try? He'll do it better anyways, there will be no place for me. I may as well give up.
No, that is people in general. Nat talent can easily beat hard work in a lot of areas.
music, math, reading, speech, politics...
this tends to be highly aggrevating to people who lack talent.
eg. corps school, could never get a 100.
this little fuck straight outta highschool?
easily could make them with minimal studying.
it's frustrating to watch someone else achieve with ease something you work hard for.
>tfw i want to get good at computer stuff like programming
>already know that i'm sub-par at math and logic
>have never been good at riddles or puzzles
>realize that these are all skills needed to be a good programmer
>tfw my only skill is being able to tell you random trivia about random things
It's useless. Besides going onto a dumb game show like Jeopardy (where all the contestants are successful or incredibly smart), my ability to tell you Wikipedia articles off the top of my head will get me no where. I'm destined for failure and have come to realize that talent/genetics basically trumps everything. I'll never be a competent programmer because my mind just doesn't work like that. I won't be able to land any other type of job above min wage by being who I am either.
I've had friends like these all through the years. They coast through life by doing the minimum amount of work possible and then ace all the tests. They understood stuff intuitively and never needed any additional explanations. While people thought I was smart because I could list off the capitals of some Yuro countries, I knew who the real smart people were. They mock me and every other dumb failure out there.
I'm not even sure what talent and hard work are in politics. If you're trying harder than I am to be a deceptive fuck, does that count? What if I'm just really good at finding blackmail material?
Its more likely they programmed at a earlier age than you, thus knowing how the little things work
>show like Jeopardy (where all the contestants are successful or incredibly smart)
Successful people don't participate in Jeopardy.
And knowledge of trivia isn't a sign of intellect.
it really depends on the type of programming you do. in some fields you can go your entire career writing code that only uses elementary math.
programming in general is broad, what exactly do you want to program? then go learn that. for example, if you wanted to work on websites/databases, you'd learn things that are different compared to someone who wanted to do game programing.
he's likely a web developer, you don't need math for that.
People do appreciate personality more than brains, after all.
>I think it will be clear once we figure out how exactly our genes affect our different aspects of ability.
That's why we can't really argue over this right now because we don't exactly know how acquired dispositions are weighted in one's life.
Talking this right now is like talking about religion. I can say that I believe there is a central terminal that controls everything so every movement we make is actually fixed and determined like an anime being played. No one can prove me right or wrong.
It's more of a safety net thing for me.
If I worked my ass off and didn't pass a test for example then I can be sure that I gave it my 100% even if the result is bad, but if I failed or passed with a shit grade having not worked for it I keep torturing myself with "What if I studied more? What if I gave it my 100%? Why didn't I do it? Why am I so stupid?" etc etc.
>nature vs nuture
Wild speculation from me (and I am not qualified whatsoever in this field), but I'd bet its your early years that determine your intelligence the most. Learn how to read early and educate early.
>That's why we can't really argue over this right now because we don't exactly know how acquired dispositions are weighted in one's life.
This isn't entirely true though. We can still argue based on reason. I used same argument earlier. If people exhibit vastly different physical traits on other parts of their bodies, why would the brain be any different?
You have people who can do wondrous things with their heads, calculate square roots of huge numbers. There are savant idiots who can do things others couldn't even dream of. Some of these traits are actually present in some sort of physical deformity of the brain. It can't be located, in the sense that people can't tell precisely what's going on, but they can see that their brains are oddly shaped. In that regard it is well likely that intelligence or any other type of talent, e.g. when it comes to drawing things, is represented within the brain in some form or another. In the same sense, disabilities, a lack of social skills, psychological disorders are likely represented - not necessarily within the brain alone, but perhaps also due to some other sort of hormonal imbalance, but the point remains that it's mostly a physical issue. I don't buy into the idea that sees the human mind as this sort of higher sphere which is somehow independent from the biology - there is no evidence for it.
Think of it like this: It becomes rather a monotonous task of constant, constant improvement with occasional bursts of "Oh right, this is why I started it in the first place" that make you feel good. It's the exact same experience on-paper you get from constantly improving your browsing experience of various websites. But do you want to just know how to scroll through threads really well? You gotta cut back on your browsing time if you want to get anywhere.
>Manipulation is a skill you can learn.
No, not really. This too has prerequisites.
A good looking girl can easily manipulate men. Does she do that by being smart? No, she does so by being good looking. Whatever she says would be interpreted completely differently if some ugly neckbeard was saying it.
Manipulation doesn't require intellect or technique, it most of all requires sympathy.
But did you even try doing something at least? You can be decent at almost anything if you put some effort.
I was horrible at soccer when I played in school, but after playing a lot I could be of some help to the team.
I was lazy all through highschool and my first 2 years of college. I didn't do any assignments in highschool and did everything the night before it was due in college. Averaged an 80% (A-). I ended up dropping out, not because of difficulty but because I realized that I was heading down a path that would end with me getting a degree and having nothing. Next fall I'll be returning to college to start an engineering degree, with full intent to place effort into my studies. I almost have no hobbies as is. My life will be Ball, Yugioh, and College. I might binge watch anime every time I get a breath, but that's it.
The point is, you need to work hard so that talent will matter. If you work hard and don't have talent, it's easy to figure out where your real talents lie. I've met many people who were clearly dumber than me, but got better grades. It was apparent during in class discussions and in conversations that I was able to acquire a better understanding of what was being taught than they were with much less time, but I didn't go any further than that. I would end up forgetting material that I had written in essay's or on tests because I didn't do more than a day's work on any one thing. I've met people who put less effort in than me and yielded more results, but they are always less happy than a person who is willing to put effort in.
I remember being forced to take piano lessons for years. I was stuck on a single song for months after 4 years of lessons and it wasn't even that difficult. I also wanted to learn art but was terrible at that too.
The point remains however that such abilities can't be gained through practice. They are rooted within a physical abnormality. It is thus likely that any other type of ability is similarly represented as a physical trait. People who are lacking it, or people who have it less pronounced won't be able to perform comparably well.
I'm not saying you need to be a genius manipulator, even a stuttering unattractive fedora with a scrotum for a face could learn some basic manipulation to nudge things in his favor.You don't have to be able to convince the US government into bombing Canada to qualify as a manipulator.
Can relate to this.
Always blame myself after terrible outcome.
But still being lazy again next time. Fuck me, I never learn anything.
Fine anon, you suck. Good riddance.
>even a stuttering unattractive fedora with a scrotum for a face could learn some basic manipulation to nudge things in his favor.
His manipulative abilities would be severely limited though.
All humans are equal, we love you. I've had dreams where I've lived so long as a human, millions and billions of years, I feel like I could recreate the entire human race.
Through strange infinitely complex twist of fate we somehow live as humans.
Hey, he's got the element of surprise. Nobody expects the loser to be the mastermind. If he can sufficiently utilize other people's lack of respect for him and be willing to be humiliated he's well on his way to launching those nukes.
Of couse there are different between people's brains just like their bodies.
But we still need it to have exact studies to talk about how much innate factors actually take. We all know they affect us, but the real question is to what extent? 50%? 80%? 100%?
Now we can only talk things in a really vague way so it can't lead to a agreement.
Anime is generally aimed at adolescents and maybe otaku's. Talent vs determination is like the perfect subject. I think American film/movies deal with this subject far less. Superpowers seem to be like the general cop-out used for by everyone.
But physical issue can be acquired too. How can you sure one's physical body is all inborn or not, and if not, TO WHAT EXTENT does inborn factors affect one's ability . This doesn't really lead to a conclusion without actual studies.
I used to do that, but I try to learn from my mistakes. I tell myself, "Hold that shit and adapt." I'm not that bright or smart but I put a fuck ton of effort in trying my best. I major in
Material Science and Engineering at OSUand man shit is rigorous, luckily this is my last semester before I graduate.
I know I'll never be godlike or crazy intelligent or anything like that, I wonder why am I trying so hard sometimes.
Then I think I have the ability that I can do it, and seeing my waifu when I close my eyes gives me some motivation.
Anime always has the less gifted win. But you cannot rule out talent. This is why pro athletes always credit their parents or god that they were born with a certain level of advantages in talent.
Perhaps you can use your pathetic ways to swindle charity money off of stupid middle-class people, start some kind of crowdfunding scam. Or work as an alternative form of shrink by complaining about your own self-esteem issues in front of patients to the point where they start to think that even their problems are stupid.
>I don't want to scam people though. If self-pity is my only talent, I'd rather be talentless. Maybe that should be my life goal.
Go right ahead. I want to own a bar one day, and you'd make a great customer.
I know it's much, we all know that talent is indispensable.
But to what extent exacty? That is the thing I asked. If we just throw out these random claims it's not going to do anything. I said we haven't completely figured out what genes exactly do to our body so there won't be an end for our argument.
We don't need to know the specifics to understand there are empirical evidences at play. It doesn't mean there aren't outliers though. But if training or techniques can't explain, we know there are some inborn talent there.
uh yeah, genes do help though hard work is more important.
The way I look at it. You're born to do something in particular. But that doesn't mean you cant do other things.
In video game terms you get allotted stats every year of your life. These decrease as you get older but they also take a nosedive once you start working. For example say out of 100 points per skill you can choose to participate in you start with 10 because these are your 'base stats'. With this in mind, your 10 points might go to skiing. But say when you're younger you get into art. You may get to 100 in art someday, but you'll never be that 110 in skiing you could have been.
>tfw in this example I've spent litterally all my points on nothing.
>tfw my stats are 100 for watching anime and masturbating.
>tfw I'm on the cusp of loosing any chance I might've had from 13-23 to do anything meaningful with my spare time.
Haha oh wow, thanks for enlightening my morning anon. Perhaps you can get into stand-up comedy, just make long rants with examples of how worthless you think you are, it's bound to get comical past a certain point.
Figma have been getting better and better.
Neither extremes work. Talent and genetics can make things easier, but it is also true that you can accomplish anything if you try hard enough. Red pill fags can't into moderation. They think that everything is genetic. It's stupid.
But it's true
No matter how hard you work over something, if someone has a natural talent on said thing you will never surpass him IF and only IF he also trains on it
It's just how things go
Well, not everything. You will never be the very best at anything. However say you're an artist with both good social skills
or luckand drawing skills, you will be more famous/make more money then a plain talented artist with great drawing skills.
You will never be a good programmer. But not because it's outside of the realm of possibility. But because you have given up. You would have to work harder than those with an aptitude, but that doesn't make it impossible. A man can accomplish anything he imagines.
Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill, 1937. Yes, the Law of Attraction is real. Get over it already. You will fail if you choose to fail. You will succeed if you choose to succeed. It's that simple.
>Do they really think like this? Or is it just their cartoons?
They really think like this.
That's why in their school system your future is decided in the early years of your life, with little hope of changing it later.
That's also why so many people kill themselves in Japan.
In a way Japan is a caste society even more than India.
Because it's true.
Only sore losers say hardwork > talent.
Anyone with above average intelligence will tell you that average people in school would say
>"You are a no-life nerd who only studies.That's why you always score so well!"
when the truth is that you aren't even trying while they are burning their brains from studying.
Then the above average people will say >"Y-Yeah, man. I am such a nerd!"
just to not make the dumber than you people feel bad.
People in top universities are the ones that stood in the top of their classes since they were kids. Go ask them if they don't share that same experience.
Talent sets your lower and upper bound skill.
Hardwork can only make you transit between those limits.
It's not uncommon to see a lazy talented man outperformancing a hardworking average guy.
Screw general computing. Go into Bioinformatics and go crazy. Remember that there a million niche fields out there that you could never guess existed, just need to find the one that fits you. Its the ultimate test to prove that you are just entry-level casual scum
The truth is that it's more complicated than it seems. Passion *IS* talent to the Japanese, and it is significantly more true when seen in that way.
Everyone has a talent -everyone has something they will be truly passionate at. It's well known that you more quickly and aptly and deeply learn that which you are interested in.
In this way, the West and Alistar Crowley were both right. Pursue your passions with fervor and you will meet success.
Your ability to do well in AP classes and an engineering program aren't decided based on just whether you tried hard enough or not. I know people like to think that life is decided by dramatic moments, that day you decided "I'm gonna try my hardest" and hunker down.
But the truth is that life often more about states than changes. You have to be willing to put in effort over time. The abilities that look spontaneously prodigious are built up over time as well, it's just that often that time was time that other people pissed away as toddlers, or children, or teenagers.
I'm sure your hero there could've been smart, like a clever guy who can figure things out. But no amount of raw talent can overcome everything. It does do an awesome job of faking it sometimes, though.
Japanese folks have a complicated relationship with talent, hard work and entitlement. In the real world, I think talent is considered a real thing but is often reviled, precisely because of the entitlement it engenders. You're supposed to work hard regardless of your talent or what you receive from it, and not doing so is shameful. I think tenacity is actually more valued there. 根性 ("Guts") is a thing there, much less so than here (other than in wrestling).
In the west, talent (and that magic word, "potential") is highly valued and sought after, but the perception is that everyone can succeed if they work hard, though they may not get to be the best. Certainly the American Dream was never about being the best, just getting what you deserved for your hard work.
Anime is funny, in that sometimes the villains are super talented but lack dedication or heart. Other times they have no talent, but use every dirty trick in the book or relentless dedication to cultivate their strength. I'm not sure there's an easy answer for which is best in anime, but I think the important thing is how much they talk about effort and talent, and how little they talk about entitlement.
I'm not going to read through this incredibly shitty thread but I'm just going to say,
as an ACTUAL ASIAN,
that if you think that Asian societies focus more on talent than on hard work, then you are FUCKING RETARDED and know JACK SHIT about East Asia.
Yeah, clearly parents make their kids study 12+ hours a day, every day, for years just because they believe that talent is a much larger determinant of success than hard work. And perhaps I'm also the Queen of England?
People top their high school classes in America because they're EASY SHIT, retard, not because they're smart. But go on, feel free to ignore research about the irrelevance of IQ to career success past ~135 or so in comparison to determination and work ethic, ignore the fact that the most distinguished researchers and mathematicians credit their successes all to hard work and not to inborn talent, go on...
Fuck off, you're handing him a death sentence. "Bioinformatics" is a shit field with no jobs in industry whatsoever.
>You can learn techniques. You can not learn instinct, adaptability or reflexes.
Wow thanks for informing me that I can't "learn instincts", are you going to next tell me that water is wet or that fire is fiery?
You "can't learn reflexes"? Yeah why don't you fuck off, you've clearly never played any sport aside from "shitposting on /a/ like a faggot".
Probably because it was above your skill level (so you didn't have the background to approach it) and/or your piano teacher was shit.
Fuck right off, I aced 15 APs with zero effort and it is fucking obvious to me that the vast majority of people do poorly in them not because of lack of talent but because of how poorly the school system prepares them prior to said courses.
Yeah, right, you fucking moronic faggot.
>entrance exams for every goddamn stage of education which can be studied and crammed for regardless of where your current standing is
>IQ tests for kids, tons of gifted programs and gifted tracking
You know NOTHING about education, so why don't you sit the fuck down when the adults come out to talk, buddy?
The ability to work hard is just another talent in itself.
Really there's no point in taking pride or shame in anything you can or can't do because every single aspect of your existence is determined by your genetics and your experience and interactions with the universe, both things ultimately out of your control.
True free will does not exist.
The fact that so many people here have this fervent belief that inborn talent trumps hard work is a sign of how UTTERLY FUCKING PLEB everyone here is.
Yeah, maybe if the challenges and barriers you're facing are literally commoner-tier, then sure, innate talent will dominate.
Get to something that is ACTUALLY DIFFICULT (PROTIP: nothing at the undergraduate level is difficult) and you will see how UTTERLY WRONG you are.
>You "can't learn reflexes"? Yeah why don't you fuck off, you've clearly never played any sport aside from "shitposting on /a/ like a faggot".
Sports is all I do. I love doing it even though I know I suck at it.
I've been drawing for years and years, I seem to recall a lot of people walking past me or looking at my shitty drawings and going "wow anon you're so talented~"
When in fact the only thing I did was simply draw for a long time, and like to do it.
It's not even good stuff either, I feel like usually when people say that stuff that they're just lying to me to make me feel better.
>you can't learn reflexes
I've also practiced various martial arts for about 7 years and I can confirm that's bullshit, however.
"Talent," is something the successful side uses as an excuse for those under them from not making it, and an excuse those that are failures use for themselves never getting anywhere. It can't be denied that some people will always have better cognitive skills than others. They will always understand, learn, and accomplish things faster and get stronger than other people much easier. That doesn't mean that people that have to kill themselves to get there and work hard as fuck aren't worth anything. Jap culture just tells people that if you aren't good at something the second you pop out you're worth nothing.
I've been drawing for years and years, and a lot of people walked past me, looked at my shitty drawings and said something like "wow anon you're so talented~"
Years later, I realized they were just being nice.
> I feel like usually when people say that stuff that they're just lying to me to make me feel better.
Isn't "being nice" just another way to lie to someone to make them feel better?
This is probably right in some cases too. But I've noticed that even people who don't know a thing about art tend to mysteriously increase the strictness of their evaluation criteria as you get better...
Basically, you can only be unreservedly praised so long as your skills are on the "harmless" level.
Maybe. Shit, I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid, but it never feels genuine, I suppose.
I ventured out into the wonderful world of drawfagging because I wanted to have a starting place to get recognized and work on my
anniemay drawing skills, but for every anon that thanks me for something there's more that just tell me I'm shit and I know I really shouldn't listen to them, but it gets to me sometimes.
I look at people like Magister who went from pretty crappy to amazing over the course of two years and it makes me wonder if it's all really worth it or not.
Sorry for the blog, seeing this thread late at night got me thinking really hard
I'm sorry, I didn't catch your meaning.
>no talent throughout high school
>or undergrad years
>get into something I actually enjoy in postgrad
>love putting the work into it
>people shut up and listen when I speak in class
>come close to breaking the 90% barrier with my thesis
>graduate with honors
Actually enjoying what you do and thus being highly motivated helps more than talent, it can make or break ordinary people. People with talent who have all of that will still have an edge, though, obviously.
I just had to quit my adderall prescription cold turkey because I was a few months away from starring in Katawa Shoujo.
I have no drive, motivation, energy or hope anymore.
Class started 2 weeks ago and I've already missed all of them at least once.
Also, I watched Samurai Champloo. It was pretty good.
Talent is a very real thing, but it can certainly be surpassed by hard work (or just plain regular work). Most talented people end up wasting their potential and can never fully capitalize it, and end up losing out compared to hard workers in the long run. The tortoise and the hare is essentially a story about talent.
That said, talent can be a big fucking deal because someone with talent + hard work will come out on top against less talent + hard work.
>mfw this thread
Thinly veiled blog thread? Thinly veiled blog thread.
Also, I'm no optimist but god you people are so fucking bitter. Talent isn't even that important unless you're aiming for the absolute top.
It's ironic how many of you seem to have the same defeatist attitude that you shit on the Japs for having.
American academia has become a joke. Anyone that can rub two braincells together can learn a trade and make a solid living without paying absurd amounts of money for freely available information and a fancy piece of paper.
In today's world, talent is a pretty big deal. In a lot of fields, it decides who gets a job and who doesn't. The competition is so massive, only those near the top get to earn their living doing what they like.
I'm 21 but I still don't know what I want to do in the future. I'm just taking a business course for the moment to buy some time.
I got less than 2 years before I graduate. I probably need exposure but I refuse to leave my cave.
Yes, and people get tall by drinking milk every day.
Do you also believe IQ doesn't exist?
His father had been teaching music for well over a decade and put that shit into practice on his son for free 24/7
Everyone used to sing praises about how talented Micheal Jackson was as a kid then as he got older we found out his dad beat the shit out of him from a young age to make him "talented" and fucking him up socially.
It's fair to say that people have different genetic limits for certain things but most people don't reach anywhere near their max potential.
That is how it is most of the time. However, after all the cousins, bros and good liars are employed, there are those few individual spots left, where the skilled go. And since there are a lot of skilled folks out there, the hardworking mediocrities get left out.
Hard work is mostly used by successful people to feel good about themselves and boast that they had no talent, luck or anything special to aid them along the way. They are just so fucking awesome they kept doing whatever it is that they have become successful at. That does not diminish the importance of hard work, it can get you to places, but it has a definite ending point where it gives out. Meanwhile, circumstances and talent will get you into the VIP room for half as much effort and unlocks the doors to which hard work has no access to.
>However, after all the cousins, bros and good liars are employed, there are those few individual spots left, where the skilled go
You forgot minorities. They'll never run out of minorities.
Hardworking alone can't make you a top 0.001% talent, but it can make a bottom 0.01% person become average 50% of the population and make a bottom 10% people become top 10% peopple. also laziness can make a top 0.001% talent become bottom 0.001% fool
>You can get skilled by working hard you know
>They can't even tell if you have 'talent' for whatever you're applying to.
This is too innocent for me. Why don't you grow another 10 years and come back again.
Reminder that lying well is the best talent and that skilled deception combined with moderate competence will get you anywhere.
60% of the lying you'll need to do is just lying about how much you like people anyways, so it's not even difficult lying. Like, just pretend to be interested in the things they like and to be fond of them.
It's kinda innocent when you sprout crap only an 8-year-old would believe. Yes, you can get skilled if you work hard. If you have the aptitude for it, that is. And yes, people can tell whether you have talent or not. It's not a magic trick or anything.
Kinda drifting off-topic here, but lying is really much less about dominating people with your superior intellect and will and much more about people hearing what they want to. People lying to themselves is much more effective than anything you could ever say; Sometimes you're just best off to get out of the way and let people screw themselves.
Anyone who thinks talent isn't a big factor needs to take a university level analysis class, or some other hard theoretical math.
Talent is the difference between knowing formulaic approaches to calculus, diffy-q, linear algebra, and being able to come up with the proofs that support those on the spot.
It separates plebs from math majors with
I wish I could do that kind of math
You can get skilled not matter how much talent you have. Can you beat the guy with more talent that put in the same amount of time? Probably not. Can you still be good at it? Definitely.
> And yes, people can tell whether you have talent or not.
Not when screening for job candidates, which is what we're talking about, dumbfuck. Talent is such a broad thing anyways. It can be for people skills, math, whatever. So no, they can't tell. At least not until you're at the job.
You seem to ha