Carl D. Cravens on wed 17 apr 96
On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:43:07 EDT, Carla Flati <76103.2240@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>......... and I see that you and I obviously have different definitions for
>the word talent. I also see that no matter how clearly we try to get our
>points across, someone is going to misinterpret something.
This is always a problem. "Talent" is a vague word. And hastily-typed
text is a cold, cold medium.
>In a round about, purely unintentional way I'm sure, you've proved my point.
>You hate library research. Would you do it for a living? What if your parents
>thought you might be great at it (or one of the MANY other things you're very
>good at) and forced you to pursue it when it was the programming that you reall
>wanted to do? You would be miserable just as an untalented lazy potter has no
>business being a potter and if he or she is, they won't be in business very
>long. They're obviously doing something for a living that they don't enjoy.
This is a poor analogy. If you want to compare me and library research
(for which I have a talent) to a potter, you have to compare me to a
*TALENTED* potter who hates pottery. *Then* you ask why they are doing
pottery. Many of us do things we dislike... yet we do them quite well.
Maybe we could do even better if we liked what we did. I do admit that
too many people are stuck making a living at things they don't like to
do, but there are times we can do nothing about it.
>said too many kids are forced to do things that don't come naturally because in
>my definition of talent, passion and dedication are involved and there's
>obviously no passion in you for library research, nor is there any passion or
>dedication in a lazy unmotivated potter. My post mainly had to do with kids an
>letting them develop their talents naturally so they end up to be happy with
>themselves in their adult lives or in other words, their lives' work. I feel
>you've taken my words out of context because your examples seem to deal mainly
>with adults making choices after the fact....... income taxes, emailers,
>hobbies.
Perhaps I missed the point of your message because I read it in the
context of a reply to my earlier comments, which had nothing to do with
children. I saw the discussion of children and restricting their
options to be a different (but important) topic which I wasn't
discussing. Your personal experiences have colored the topic in a
certain way for you (as it does for us all) and you find parts of this
discussion more important than others. But since our personal
experiences differ, those things we find important differ.
>>>Clayart isn't reserved for professionals only; this is a hobby for many of
>us.<<
>
>I don't know how long you've subscribed to Clayart, but if you've been around a
>while you woud know that I have to be one of the last people on this list that
>you have to tell that to! I'm not a professional potter. I have to get up
That's a problem with responding on a mailing list to an individual like
that... I switch between addressing the person to whom I am
replying and the group of people reading my message. This was more a
general statement than one directed at you. I'm glad we agree on this
point.
>every day and go to a job that's becoming harder and harder to go to. I'm
>living proof of what happens when a kid, for one reason or another, isn't give
>the chance to go for what they know and after everything you've described about
>yourself, I can't believe that you don't realize the fact that you are too. Th
I'm not. My parents neither encouraged nor discouraged my explorations as
a child. I chose programming in junior high (because I had a talent for
it) and it has stuck as my preferred vocation ever since. Circumstance
beyond high school is what has kept me from it. I will pray that God
will change your circumstances favorably.
>take me a while longer. Clay is not a hobby for me, it's part of me. It's a
>passion, a dedication, and a creative outlet that has been inside of me for as
>long as I can remember. This doesn't fit your definition of talent, but it fit
>mine so to debate the issue any further is pointless, however, as usual there i
This is true. My definition happens to be the dictionary definition,
but if we can't settle on a common ground we really can't discuss
anything. And I consider it a loss not to have the priviledge to
discuss these things with you.
>>[...agreeable but somewhat irrelevant stuff about teachers snipped...]<<
>It wasn't irrelevent to me, buddy.
But it was irrelevant to the discussion of talent in general. I agreed
with everything you said and saw no need to refute it or expound upon
it. You steered the topic somewhat away from what I was discussing to
what you wanted to discuss. I didn't care much to discuss that topic
and I steered it back. I didn't realize that that one paragraph was the
main point of your message.
--
Carl (ravenpub@southwind.net)
* If I want your opinion, I'll take you out of my killfile.
| |
|
