|
back in the mood to debate i guess.... and to see OPs pictures
whats wrong with being ethnocentric?
also, i'm not saying that such a study would be easy at all, it would take generations to get it down. however i disagree with you that "never self satisfied" and "overachieving tendencies" are always negative traits. to me those both sound like traits of innovators who want to improve the world, but to someone else it might sound like someone with low self-esteem. i think we have two different ideas about what "talent" is. from what i understand of your posts, its the ability to perform a task. i dont completely disagree with that but i think the word "talent" relates more to things people are born with like a quicker wit etc...
since when do actions need to be good or bad? someone's ability to memorize text can be good or bad depending on what they use it for, but it'd still be possible to test them on that and quantify how good they are at it (how many characters/words/whatever they can memorize until they mess up). i challenge you to name one characteristic (not task) that a person can have a natural advantage for, and not be able to quantify it.
---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------
EDIT: i found a cool book on my shelf that i havent picked up in a long time called "The Measure of Man" by a dude named Stephen Jay Gould. its very relevant to this thread
__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckguy
Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.
|
|