I was gonna say something like this but you already said it, so imma add to yours
Everyone is talented in some way-- you might not be able to sing, or do acrobatics, or drive a racecar, but you can do other things. Everybody can do something, yes your somethings might be different but that’s normal and perfectly fine. Things like talent and beauty are purely subjective, and even if you think you have neither of them that’s just your opinion.
I do agree with this as well, but wanted to add a little something that might give a different perspective.
Let’s say you are extremely gifted at being a computer engineer and you don’t know it. Nowadays probably you start fiddling with computers and eventually find out.
Let’s say that you are gifted for this, but instead being born nowadays, you were born in the 1800. There is no way to know you were a gifted computer engineer back then because, well, computers didn’t really exist.
The inverse also applies as well. If you are extremely good at lightning up street lamps, nowadays that skill is not relevant, since no one needs to light up street lamps manually anymore.
I do think these skills have usually some sort of equivalent (even tangentially) and you find out what you can be good at. Is it your optimal skill? I do not think we can effectively know, since everything is not available from both present, past and future, all at once to be exposed to.
Before digital computers existed, humans were the computers! (first referenced as an occupation in 1613)
Skills are transferable, though there definitely are many cases where people aren’t able to access the tools and education they might need to make the most of their talents because of lack of privilege and systemic oppression (which basically means facing more obstacles to gain access to the same tools and education as the most privileged get handed to them).
So when you were born definitely matters, but so does where, to who, what gender you were assigned at birth, how abled or disabled you are, and so on and so on…
That does make sense, but I don’t quite agree. To continue with your gifted-computer-engineer-from-the-1800s example, they aren’t just good at computers-- they have the underlying skills (problem solving, attention to detail, able to apply abstract concepts to concrete objects, taking account of the whole system, good at maths, etc) and if they were born now, they also have an interest in computers. But if they were in the 1800s they would still have all those things (except for the interest in computers) and they’d be able to apply them to be good at other things
I was gonna say something like this but you already said it, so imma add to yours
Everyone is talented in some way-- you might not be able to sing, or do acrobatics, or drive a racecar, but you can do other things. Everybody can do something, yes your somethings might be different but that’s normal and perfectly fine. Things like talent and beauty are purely subjective, and even if you think you have neither of them that’s just your opinion.
I do agree with this as well, but wanted to add a little something that might give a different perspective. Let’s say you are extremely gifted at being a computer engineer and you don’t know it. Nowadays probably you start fiddling with computers and eventually find out. Let’s say that you are gifted for this, but instead being born nowadays, you were born in the 1800. There is no way to know you were a gifted computer engineer back then because, well, computers didn’t really exist. The inverse also applies as well. If you are extremely good at lightning up street lamps, nowadays that skill is not relevant, since no one needs to light up street lamps manually anymore.
I do think these skills have usually some sort of equivalent (even tangentially) and you find out what you can be good at. Is it your optimal skill? I do not think we can effectively know, since everything is not available from both present, past and future, all at once to be exposed to.
Before digital computers existed, humans were the computers! (first referenced as an occupation in 1613)
Skills are transferable, though there definitely are many cases where people aren’t able to access the tools and education they might need to make the most of their talents because of lack of privilege and systemic oppression (which basically means facing more obstacles to gain access to the same tools and education as the most privileged get handed to them).
So when you were born definitely matters, but so does where, to who, what gender you were assigned at birth, how abled or disabled you are, and so on and so on…
That does make sense, but I don’t quite agree. To continue with your gifted-computer-engineer-from-the-1800s example, they aren’t just good at computers-- they have the underlying skills (problem solving, attention to detail, able to apply abstract concepts to concrete objects, taking account of the whole system, good at maths, etc) and if they were born now, they also have an interest in computers. But if they were in the 1800s they would still have all those things (except for the interest in computers) and they’d be able to apply them to be good at other things
Those computer engineers born in the 1800 would find an interest into something similar that wasn’t computers.
Like data manipulation, or drawing technical plans for steam engines.
Yeah, I can shitpost real good…