I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that one can't learn something.
I probably wouldn't be able to learn world-class violin skills even if I trained obsessively. Plenty of violinists train obsessively, from a starting age far younger than me, with more natural ability than I'm likely to have, and a tiny fraction of them become world-class. So what? I don't see this as disempowering.
that's sound from an intentionality perspective (you should actively choose what to pursue and what not to pursue based on your unique set of accidental gifts), but performance is different from learning. while we each (very likely) have differing learning horizons, it's highly dependent on interest and motivation not simply raw "intelligence".
you could learn as much about playing violins as world-class violinists if you were as obsessive about it, even if you couldn't play as well. those not-quite-world-class violinists likely know as much, but just don't have the same combination of accidental (physical/psychogical/biochemical) gifts that give them a miniscule edge.
"ability" is often an illusion of opportunity costs. it's less "can't" and more "won't".
I'm not sure about that. Knowledge 'in a vacuum', separated from one's abilities to do anything useful, isn't what we normally mean by the word. To put it bluntly, no-one cares who has the most encyclopaedic knowledge of violins, they care who's best able to do the job.
Like I said in the other thread, sometimes there's no substitute for raw talent. Just about everyone is smart enough to learn algebra, and programming, but I suspect most people lack the raw intelligence to become an MIT professor, regardless of how hard they work.
You can put in as much work as you like, but if the other guy puts in just as much work and has an incredible natural ability in the field, you really don't stand a chance. Same goes for sports, where it's more about your physical limits than your intellectual ones.
Again though, I don't see that these realities should put us off self-improvement, whether learning, or sport, or any other avenue. It seems silly to even write it: learning still has plenty going for it.
> "ability" is often an illusion of opportunity costs. it's less "can't" and more "won't".
Agreed. For most of us at least, our intellectual ceilings aren't generally what steer our decisions.
> "Knowledge 'in a vacuum', separated from one's abilities to do anything useful, isn't what we normally mean by the word."
that's a different claim from before: "I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that one can't learn something." my counterclaim was limited to the ability to learn, not perform or achieve accolades. besides, you can do something useful with just knowledge, for instance, teach others who can/will exceed your performative abilities.
> "I suspect most people lack the raw intelligence to become an MIT professor"
becoming an MIT professor is fraught with confounding variables like luck and politics, so that's not a great example of raw talent/intelligence trumping all.
> "Same goes for sports, where it's more about your physical limits than your intellectual ones."
actually the best athletes are also highly intelligent. it's part of the accidental gifts that give them another tiny edge in a winners-take-all arena. lebron is known for his "photographic basketball memory" (in reality more intelligence than memory).
also, there are plenty of coaches that are highly knowledgeable and better as coaches than they are as players. lakers coach frank vogel for instance.
people have limits but the inability to learn generally isn't, and shouldn't be, the limiting factor.
> my counterclaim was limited to the ability to learn, not perform or achieve accolades
The ability to perform is something that is learned. I'm not abusing the word 'learning' here.
It makes little difference though, as my point applies just the same. The most difficult things to learn (in the narrow sense) may still be beyond the abilities of many. I suspect this is true of many areas of advanced maths, for instance.
> you can do something useful with just knowledge, for instance, teach others who can/will exceed your performative abilities.
Sure.
> becoming an MIT professor is fraught with confounding variables like luck and politics, so that's not a great example of raw talent/intelligence trumping all.
No, the example is fine. Without a high natural intelligence, you won't even be in the running. It's necessary, but not sufficient.
> actually the best athletes are also highly intelligent
I didn't say otherwise. It doesn't impact my point, though. The average person doesn't have the natural gifts necessary to make it as a top-flight professional athlete. That takes both natural ability and hard work.
> people have limits but the inability to learn generally isn't, and shouldn't be, the limiting factor.
cool, looks like we've mostly conceded each others' points and are only left mainly with a semantic disagreement over the scope of the word "learning" in this context.
I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that one can't learn something.
I probably wouldn't be able to learn world-class violin skills even if I trained obsessively. Plenty of violinists train obsessively, from a starting age far younger than me, with more natural ability than I'm likely to have, and a tiny fraction of them become world-class. So what? I don't see this as disempowering.