The first is used when you are talking about someone who is trying something for the first time, or is otherwise a beginner. The second is if you want to compliment what the person did, whether or not they are new at the field. Sometimes, when you say someone is talented, you really are talking about the ability to do something that they were born with.
You could be trying to motivate a child, or you might be a teacher who is looking at your students doing something for the first time. If they are able to do really good work, they probably have talent for that particular thing.
This is a good way to keep the conversation light while also expressing how surprised you are. The person who you are talking to likely is able to do great work, but it is clearly their first time trying it. By asking them this, you show that you are truly impressed by what they could make without much training.
For this reason, you are complimenting their innate ability to learn that skill. Similar to the first question, this question is asked because someone did something really well. The difference is that asking whether someone taught them the skill is more appropriate for younger students than for older people. The reason is that older students have the ability to teach themselves and can read a book to improve, while younger children usually have neither the desire nor resources to do that.
Like the previous question, this one represents surprise. It is the first time or one of the first times! One of the best things about experts is that they make something really difficult seem like it is effortless. When you watch a basketball game with LeBron James, for example, you may think that what he is doing looks so easy!
There is no way that you could not do that as well. They reason is that they do not look like they have to put in much effort to do something that in reality is really difficult. However, this is something that takes a lot of practice. Watch them beam with pride. They deserve recognition. This article originally appeared at Inc. Most times, a good outcome is the result of hard work. Number 4 could imply someone has invested too much time into their achievement. The other suggestions are good!
Good point. An organization can acquire talented employees, but cannot separate them from their talents. On one hand, I do think you need some level of innate talent to succeed in this field.
Man, I followed the comments on this thread and received a bizarre one from an obviously insane person. Was it the mark of the beast, new world order one? Thankfully the Spam filter captured it, but it surprises me that it sent it out to subscribed people!
I need to fix that. And yes, that was quite the comment. I did not read the whole thing because I can only take in so much crazy in my day to day life. Yes, that was the one. Unfortunately, I did read the whole thing, which I do not recommend to anyone.
Skip to content Inc. May 5, Evil HR Lady. It's absolutely stunning. The lighting, the composition, everything. It's perfect! What do you say?
Why on earth do we say that? Was the picture taken the very first time your friend picked up a camera? Was that her first photo? It these answer to those things are yes, then it's likely that it was pure talent--or pure luck. But, chances are, your friend worked very, very hard at learning the art of photography. We use "talent" as kind of generic kind of praise, but it's not really praise, because it's saying "you had nothing to do with the success here.
It's all straight from God. Despite these achievements, Ahmed does not identify as a polymath. When examining the lives of historical polymaths, he only considered those who had made significant contributions to at least three fields , such as Leonardo da Vinci the artist, inventor and anatomist , Johann Wolfgang von Goethe the great writer who also studied botany, physics and mineralogy and Florence Nightingale who, besides founding modern nursing, was also an accomplished statistician and theologian.
Not so fast. Waqas Ahmed argues that polymaths can only be those who made major contributions to at least three different fields Credit: Adrian Fisk. From these biographies, and a review of the psychological literature, Ahmed was then able to identify the qualities that allow polymaths to achieve their greatness. As you might expect, higher-than-average intelligence certainly helps. But open-mindedness and curiosity were also essential. The polymaths were also often self-reliant — happy to teach themselves — and individualist; they were driven by a great desire for personal fulfilment.
These qualities were also combined with a more holistic view of the world. Like any personality traits, these qualities will all have a certain genetic basis, but they will also be shaped by our environment. Ahmed points out that many children are fascinated by many different areas — but our schools, universities and then employment tend to push us towards ever greater specialisation.
So many more people may have the capacity to be polymaths, if only they are encouraged in the right way. That idea tallies with the work of Angela Cotellessa, whose PhD at George Washington University involved interviewing modern polymaths about their experiences. Like Ahmed, she found that traits like curiosity were essential. But she found that they also needed high emotional resilience to pursue their interests in the face of external expectations.
While polymaths like Johann Goethe indeed have higher-than-average intelligence, curiosity is essential for anybody looking to broaden their specialisations Credit: Alamy. There are, of course, some good reasons why we might be hesitant to pursue multiple interests.
0コメント