3 minutes ago, brian.shapiro wrote
You're basically taking the point of view that you can't develop have a passion for something later in your life, that you didn't have as a child, or had the opposite reaction to as a child. Which is proven wrong all the time.
As for talent, I'd say talent is simply a knack for something. Pushing yourself through work and practice doesn't guarantee you'll gain a knack for something, because no matter how hard you push yourself, you still have to "get it", and genetics may influence how easy you pick something up, but a knack in itself is not genetic. People can pick up a knack for something late in life just like they can pick up a passion late in life.
Talent => knack, +1
Passion is a choice. Some are lucky to have passion oozing out of their pores. Others must work to squeeze it out. Those lucky ones with a passionate personality disposition may lack the innate discipline of the others... there seems to always be a balance at work, imho.
Passion is always a choice, all emotions are choices.
I don't have a view that passion is ever out of reach.
EDIT: No one can pick up a knack for perfect pitch later in life, it is genetic and not at all environmental. Relative pitch is not the same as you pointed out, though with hard work relative pitch can function the same as perfect pitch - but it isn't the same at all.
What I object to is the unrealistic assertion that all people have the same potential, and that with hard work you are limitless.
We do not all have the same potential, not at all. Not physically, not mentally, not at all.
Students need to be tracked, for example, so the smart ones aren't sitting on their hands while the dumb ones struggle to keep up. This 'environment > nature' perspective (a.k.a. 'no child left behind') is responsible for destroying the public school system in the USA. Destroyed to the point of worthless for the smart students. And I am exactly right about this. Put smart kids together and put dumb kids together. Allow for changes. Problem solved.