|
I wouldn't know they were cars, unless it was already pointed out to me, which it was. A more accurate word, or phrase, for what he drew would be a box with circles inside of it. This isn't talent, and attempting to foster talent which isn't there will just lead to overconfidence.
On January 22 2012 22:07 NB wrote:
i mean a kid know how to talk at age of 3... to me age of 4 could do things like that is just incredible. not even sure if i could hold a pen when i was that age.
When I was 4, I had the ability to speak English and read very well, and by this I don't mean "The Look Books". I don't mean this as a brag, but rather that something like that could be considered incredible, not badly drawing cars.
/pessimism
|
I think that's pretty damn impressive. I have 4 year old nephews and if they draw something you're gonna need to get an explanation out of them to have any clue what it is.
|
This kid has aspergers. No doubt.
For a kid NOT to be socializing at a party, but instead drawing only one thing, but over and over again? That's totally aspergers. Kids without aspergers will always socialize before doing shit like that at a party.
Take it from an aspie.
Also, Buddy Rich could play the drums when he was about this age. So could Chris Dave, and Max Roach, and a few other world reknown drummers.
|
So many jelly people in this blog. Those are actually amazing cars, on napkins no less. I can't believe he's only 4. My cousin was only able to draw barely recognizable drawings when she was 4. That could come out to be incredibly talent when he grows up. Jellies, please just acknowledge talent instead of dismissing it being sour D:
|
On January 23 2012 05:05 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 02:23 GeneralStan wrote:On January 22 2012 21:46 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Sorry but there is no talent, TALENT even less.
The kid has probably drawn a lot.
When a parent notices the kids skills they usually feed the fire. That's how things like prodigies are usually "born"
e. still, nice race cars What then do you think talent is, other than a skill developed from an early age? If even prodigies are nothing more than skills developed young, then you think there are no inherent abilities, nothing built into genes that constitutes a 'talent'? If this is the argument you make, what is wrong with simply redefining a talent as a skill developed early in life, such as this talented child displays? Nothing is wrong with that, but the word carries the meaning of some strange, unnatural,special, god-given ability which I don't think have ever been shown to exist. Therefore the word is bad and I will always oppose to using it for skilled people.
Wow, thank you. It's just not me that oppose the usage of the word 'talent'. Skills often, if not always come from dedication. Some people might be able to pick up new abilities easier because of their experiences and ability to analyze new situations. It's more often a mental challenge to learn something new, not a time-based challenge. It's just that by time, you'll pick it up almost no matter what (if you're not in some stupid mindset, like in SC2: "Wow, X race is OP.").
Talent, for me, is a word for someone who wants to protect themselves from feeling unmotivated: "Well, I've got no talent, so why should I even do X?".
The kid, if he keeps that up will become pretty good when he grows up. No doubt about it. And it will be because of his countless hours of work and dedication. Calling it a talent is an insult to him and his discipline.
|
NB D:
Why you no invite me to your parties. Jokin (:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
