> "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.
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.