The way that the words are generally used has these implications and associations... Being talented implies some kind of natural gift. Being skilled implies performing at a high level, however it is that a person reached that level. So for example the following sentencecs make sense: - She became a skilled musician by age ten because of her great talent - Despite a lack of natural talent, he became a skilled musician after years of dedicated practice - Although blessed with great talent, he never really became a skilled musician because of his laziness However we couldn't normal talk about a person "becoming talented" as.
That goes against the definition of the word: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent But since you're actually more interested in how people become skilled rather than what the words mean, I think the story is a lot more complicated than we think when we label people talented. Small differences in ability, enthusiasm and early encouragement can end up as huge differences in eventual accomplishment:
See the article where this comes from: headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate....Talent is genetic. You either have talent, or you don't. You can become skilled at something if you work long enough at it, but you will never surpass the person who came about it naturally.
There is just something about natural talent that can't be beat. For instance, if you have a mediocre voice, but can carry a tune, someone can train you to make all of your voice that you can (i.e. Janet Jackson), but you will never wow people like someone with natural talent (i.
E Christina Aguilera). Anyone can learn to paint, but not many can just pick up a paintbrush and canvas and create a masterpiece. You can learn all the angles and techniques to be an architect, but not every architect can create something magical, like the Taj Mahal.
Talent is genetic. You either have talent, or you don't. You can become skilled at something if you work long enough at it, but you will never surpass the person who came about it naturally.
There is just something about natural talent that can't be beat. For instance, if you have a mediocre voice, but can carry a tune, someone can train you to make all of your voice that you can (i.e. Janet Jackson), but you will never wow people like someone with natural talent (i.
E Christina Aguilera). Anyone can learn to paint, but not many can just pick up a paintbrush and canvas and create a masterpiece. You can learn all the angles and techniques to be an architect, but not every architect can create something magical, like the Taj Mahal.
Talent is genetic. You either have talent, or you don't. You can become skilled at something if you work long enough at it, but you will never surpass the person who came about it naturally.
There is just something about natural talent that can't be beat. For instance, if you have a mediocre voice, but can carry a tune, someone can train you to make all of your voice that you can (i.e. Janet Jackson), but you will never wow people like someone with natural talent (i.
E Christina Aguilera). Anyone can learn to paint, but not many can just pick up a paintbrush and canvas and create a masterpiece. You can learn all the angles and techniques to be an architect, but not every architect can create something magical, like the Taj Mahal.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.