This attitude is a disease in our culture. I challenge you to name a single task an able-bodied human with a sound mind cannot be taught to do and explain why.
Math. Some people try for years and year, and I mean really really try and still can't grasp basic math skills. They have to be hand held through high school to get a D and have to repeat courses many times. I have seen it.
I have helped many people with math, these people were putting in the effort, real effort. They were practicing extra, getting help from the teacher, from me (I was just helping friends), reading the book, staying after school, etc, etc. I have never seen someone try so hard at someone and just not get it. Something never clicked in their head. I would explain the concepts 2,3,4,5,6 times. Nothing seemed to help. These people really wanted to do well in school and were honor students in most subjects beyond math.
One of my friends who had this problem was absolutely brilliant in other ways that I wasn't. One day she picked up a guitar and randomly tough herself how to play it without any formal instruction. I tried for years to learn how to play an instrument as a child, and I just couldn't. It seemed it just didn't click in my head, same as math ability didn't click in hers.
Besides define "able-bodied" and "sound mind," you cannot. Does the person with a learning disability get a pass from those requirements? I say they do not, those are stupid requirements, and it just goes to show you that you already admit we are all different with different abilities from the get go.
Do you think this kid can get a PhD in math, then say, come up with an advanced cryptography algorithm?
Given a 2 week limit, there is no way someone who has not used Haskell before would be able to contribute to a Haskell code base. Same for someone who has not used Java Spring or any other complex system.
A task that would not be possible in even a 2 year time limit would be to get a random able-bodied human to contribute to a cryptographic standard. Some stuff is difficult and takes years and years to learn and understand. Taking those years and years is actually physically impossible for a large number of people who would simply break down if forced into it.
Some people really have a problem with mathematics; other people have the creative skills of a lemming. Not everyone can be a grandmaster in chess or win the Olympic marathon, not even if they tried every waking hour.
People are NOT created equal, and your prerequisites ('able-bodied' and 'sound mind') reveal that you know and recognize that.
> Not everyone can be a grandmaster in chess or win the Olympic marathon
Why do the taught need to be the best of the best for the parent's statement to be valid? Can you not successfully learn how to play chess without being the sole grandmaster?
The requirements for becoming a Grandmaster are somewhat complex. A player must have attained an Elo rating of at least 2500 (although they need not maintain this level to obtain or keep the title). In addition, at least two favorable results (called norms) from a total of at least 27 games in tournaments involving other Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's, are usually required before FIDE will confer the title on a player. There are other milestones a player can achieve to get the title, such as winning the Women's World Championship, the World Junior Championship, or the World Senior Championship. Current regulations can be found in the FIDE Handbook.
What's the point of just learning how to play Chess? That's not much of an accomplishment for most people. On the other hand, not everyone has the skills/ability to be a Grandmaster. Plenty of very serious people compete and spend a LOT of time trying to obtain Grandmaster status. Some people devote their entire lives to chess, but only a little over a thousand get it. Do you think the others just weren't trying hard enough? Or is it just possible that some people can do things that other people can't!?
Not to mention the parent mentioned "sound mind" as a prereq, I find this as a mostly insulting term, since it can mean anything you want and it "others" many people in society. It also can become a tautology, you can't do that, you must have not met my prereqs.
I'll attack the concept anyways. "(non) sound mind" is a (mostly) legal term (Non compos mentis) which means (not) competent [to stand trial, to make medial decisions, etc...]
> Or is it just possible that some people can do things that other people can't!?
You are talking about degrees of mastery, the parent was talking about doing it in any capacity. It is quite possibly true that only some can become the best chess players in the world, but is there anything stopping the vast majority of the population from playing chess? The latter is the attitude many hold, which he found disconcerting.
> I find this as a mostly insulting term
That may be a fair, but it was clearly added to defend against nit-picking comments like "my aunt is in a coma" or "my friend has no legs".
>is there anything stopping the vast majority of the population from playing chess?
I don't play Chess, so I'm going to make an assumption here that the rules are somewhat complex? I am also going to say something pretty not PC.
Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people I have met in my life that can't be taught to play Chess.
I used to work in a restaurant and I trained new hires, you wouldn't believe the incompetence of the people who we hired. That place was a revolving door, we only kept maybe 20% of the people I trained, maybe less. We were asking them to serve customers and memorize many things, simple tasks for me, but very hard tasks for most of the people I trained. After maybe a month or so the incompetent ones got fired for not being able to do the job. They probably only could work somewhere where they did very simple tasks. I hated it because I always had to train, and I didn't like training, but I had to train anyways, because I was the best one there at training, said my boss.
99% of them seemed like they were really trying. Most if not all of them needed the job (why else would you work at a restaurant for low pay?)
He hired knowing most of the people he hired weren't going to work out.
One thing I have learned about myself is that not every learning method works equally well. In other words: Everyone learns differently. Is it possible that your training style, which I am sure worked great for many employees, left others out in the cold rather than a case of them being unable to learn at all?
>you wouldn't believe the incompetence of the people who we hired
It seems the incompetence wasn't with the employees but with the trainer. You hold that attitude toward your student and he or she is bound to fail.
A teacher who hates teaching combined with people lacking basic skills being expected to succeed in a high pressure environment for low pay? It's not surprising there were a lot of failures. I made no claims about the default ability to teach, it's another learned skill and mastery is uncommon.
There are also realities of the restaurant business (and lots of other businesses) which make training quite difficult, but I generally see these as deficiencies of the business management not truths of an industry.
>You hold that attitude toward your student and he or she is bound to fail.
I most certainly did not. I just was surprised at how many people had trouble with the job and lacked some basic skills. I never ever, ever, expected anyone to fail, ever. You made that up. If anyone did, it was my boss, or rather he usually said "well we will give them a shot." Seemed he hired on a trial basis wereas I always expected everyone to stay. I was never evaluating anyone.
I didn't want to train because only because I would rather just do the job, only because the time went by far faster that way. I specifically was always the trainer because I was the best trainer. If I was so incompetent than my boss would just pick someone else, and he did have a few people do it before deciding on me.
>deficiencies of the business management
In all honesty, this was by far the best run business I ever worked at.
I don't see a reason why playing violin would be impossible given a couple hundred or thousand hours of deliberate practice.
Jumping higher than the WR is a straw man, since that goes for anything - there can only be one #1. However, people can increase their vertical leap substantially if they train things like olympic lifting and plyometric. See The Vertical Jump Development Bible for example programs on how 12-50 year olds can increase their vertical leap on the order of 20 inches.
I really tried the violin (I think it is one of the most beautiful instruments), and for more than 'a couple of hundred hours' and it did not work for me.
I'm not sure how to articulate the mismatch but I'm pretty good with other musical instruments but between the violin and me it never was love to play it, just endless frustration.
At least I can appreciate others that play it a bit better :)
This is not surprising, violin technique is deeply rooted in the body (especially bow technique) and is difficult to learn past adolescence because your body/brain cannot adapt as well in adulthood.
Source: I learned violin around age 13 after already reaching an "expert non-professional" level in piano, found it very challenging and eventually gave it up after seven years of study.
> Did others also think you didn't become better with practice?
Yes
As to your last two questions, I think there is some kind of reward/work element here that did not click for me. Normally if I put in a certain amount of time I expect to see a measurable progress. With the violin initially that progress was there and then at some point (relatively quickly) it reached a plateau and after that the amount of work for a given amount of progress seemed to me to be disproportional. It's the hardest instrument that I've ever really worked on trying to learn how to play it and maybe one day I'll overcome my resistance and I'll try again but I really feel like I've met some kind of personal Waterloo there and the chances of this happening are very slim.
(I actually tried twice already with much the same result, I'm not one to give up easily).
I guarantee that anyone who puts in their proverbial 10,000 hours will be able to play the violin. For certain values of "play", of course. As with beating the world record holder of any sports discipline, the real top performers have a combination of the right genes, and the dedication to perform at the highest level. And while you probably won't be able to beat the world record, given enough practice/exercise, any able bodied person can become a decent jumper.
I agree with your first sentence, but not your overall premise. We are all capable of a hell of lot, usually much, much more than we realize, but not everything. I think most of us, myself included, need to take more chances to try and learn new things and error on the side of trying. However, the wisdom to realize something is truly futile is not a bad thing, after all, we've all got finite time and resources.
Adults are usually impatient. They don't see results right away and give up, not realizing it takes time! Children however can go forever without giving up, and I believe that's one of the (many) reasons why it is easier to learn a skill as a child. Sometimes it is good to remind yourself of this when you want to learn something new or feel like giving up.
