Yes, I am deeply envious of your charm, Cheerskep, as I am of your acuity in writing and reasoning. I don't know about "gifts" as such since they are mostly an accident of genes and good luck in a particular environment. Some folks are more visually oriented than others but I'm unclear if that's an advantage in social terms. Some people who are advantaged visually were poor students in the early primary grades, or slow to read. It might be that a cognitive diagramming, visually based, is more delayed in some youngsters and it is necessary to letter and word formation.
My own thought is that all drawing is learned by means of formulaic diagramming that is gradually more and more refined. But as soon as kids become adept at those visual formulas (house, person, flower, tree, sun) which, incidentally, are only slightly different by culture, they are ready to make alphabet letters, words, and begin to read. At that point drawing abilities become more or less frozen as writing and reading skills develop. But for some kids, the drawing skills also keep on developing as the formulaic diagrams become more sophisticated. They become "gifted" when in fact they may just be "slow" to switch over fully to writing and reading. WC --- On Fri, 10/17/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 17, 2008, 11:19 AM > In a message dated 10/17/08 11:08:58 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > If there was ever a word that belongs at the top of > Cheerskep's list of the > > most clumsy tools to guarantee thick muddiness of > notions, it's talent. > > > > Talent is surely one word we could do without. > > > Still, there are some "nice" distinctions that > might be made. For example, I > can imagine someone having different notions for > "talent" and for "gift". To > hell with the particular words, let's just momentarily > bear with ones we have > while I ask: Could you conjure notions that would make > sense of a line like > this?: "A gift is inherent. Talent is broader; > it's the ability to apply the > gift." > > It may be the implied distinction there is bogus (I > haven't thought this > through). In show biz, producers talk of XXX's great > looks as a gift, but add > that > she has no talent for acting. You may say, no, the ability > to act is as much > a gift as good looks. The good-looking good actor simply > has two gifts. > > The coach/trainer may know "how" something should > be done, but not himself > have the "gifts" required to do it? > > Someone might think of a "gift" as somethng that > arrives full-blown, as > distingusihed from a "skill" which requires a > gift plus "learning" of some > kind. > > From my great distance I'd judge you (and my > movie-director son) have a > visualizing gift that I lack almost totally. But you also > have a talent to > execute > your vision that I also don't have. Again, though, you > may see them as two > different gifts. > > (Lest I seem too gloomily self-deprecating, I'll admit > I know you envy me my > personal charm.) > > Any thoughts? > > > > ************** > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
