oat bag lady wrote:
So, since I'm not entirely clear yet, you're saying if Bolt was separated at birth from his genetically-identical twin brother Fred who today weighs 350 and sits around all day watching Jamaican Oprah, you'd still call Fred a talented runner, just one without any ability? I guess in my thinking I wouldn't, and I would be willing to call someone who had, for instance, no natural musical ability (say, someone who's deaf or whose brain just doesn't 'do' music well) but worked to become a world-class pianist quite talented.
I'm not saying you're wrong outright like you said I was, I'm just saying I would call someone who squanders their natural ability categorically UNtalented (i.e. natural ability != talent) and someone who has no natural ability but very high derived ability categorically very talented. I guess my consideration of mental ability as a necessary part of talent was not really right, but I still don't think it's simple enough to say talent is just natural ability.
Well, you are wrong about your opinion on the matter. You are correct in your line of thinking with regard to Bolt's identical twin (though for some reason even identical twins can have varying degrees of talent (see Ed and Jorge Torres). The obvious is that Jorge has more ABILITY but he likely has more talent also as they both did VERY similar training. Could be that in the womb Jorge got more nutrients or something...who knows. BUT, the essence of your Bolt example is correct...his fat twin would have the same talent as Bolt...he just doesn't have the same ABILITY because he didn't cultivate his talent. Let it roll around in your melon a little...you'll get it.