Sales is a skill, not a talent

[Philosophy Explorer]

One of the things that would hamper my interviews is my varied background (interviewers prefer those that list one or two jobs on their resumes), another drawback is my age. So not all applicants are equal. In any case I'm enjoying my retirement.

So far your straw man arguments fail to persuade.

PhilX

So you aren't as talented at selling as other people who can get through those interviews by selling the experiences they do have as a positive.

You are only using the words straw man here because you saw me write them and you thought you would join in.

It's not an even playing field.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

Let's try this again.

Think of pro sportsmen. They have talent for basketball or whatever right? If you joined a basketball team at your office and found nobody was talented there, but you could become the best in the team with some simple hoop practice, your current methodology allows you to loudly announce there is no such thing as a talent for basketball.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let's try this again.

Think of pro sportsmen. They have talent for basketball or whatever right? If you joined a basketball team at your office and found nobody was talented there, but you could become the best in the team with some simple hoop practice, your current methodology allows you to loudly announce there is no such thing as a talent for basketball.

You're comparing sports which is a physical activity with selling which is a mental activity.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

Let's try this again.

Think of pro sportsmen. They have talent for basketball or whatever right? If you joined a basketball team at your office and found nobody was talented there, but you could become the best in the team with some simple hoop practice, your current methodology allows you to loudly announce there is no such thing as a talent for basketball.

You're comparing sports which is a physical activity with selling which is a mental activity.

PhilX

That's not what I'm doing. I'm comparing one instance of cherry picking from inadequate data to support a universal claim with another.
I can do the same again and make it chess club instead of basketball if you want, it doesn't do you any good though.

Try again?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let's try this again.

Think of pro sportsmen. They have talent for basketball or whatever right? If you joined a basketball team at your office and found nobody was talented there, but you could become the best in the team with some simple hoop practice, your current methodology allows you to loudly announce there is no such thing as a talent for basketball.

You're comparing sports which is a physical activity with selling which is a mental activity.

PhilX

That's not what I'm doing. I'm comparing one instance of cherry picking from inadequate data to support a universal claim with another.
I can do the same again and make it chess club instead of basketball if you want, it doesn't do you any good though.

Try again?

If a specific method allows you to improve in a specific field, then there's no talent there.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

If a specific method allows you to improve in a specific field, then there's no talent there.

That's a mighty big claim. I don't agree. Persuade me using an argument with premises and conclusions that is both necessary and sufficient.

[Philosophy Explorer]

If a specific method allows you to improve in a specific field, then there's no talent there.

That's a mighty big claim. I don't agree. Persuade me using an argument with premises and conclusions that is both necessary and sufficient.

The sales advice I posted earlier. Unless you don't know how to put a zipper on your mouth, then your sales will improve. I'm betting the so-called talented people are unwittingly making use of that sales advice.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

If a specific method allows you to improve in a specific field, then there's no talent there.

That's a mighty big claim. I don't agree. Persuade me using an argument with premises and conclusions that is both necessary and sufficient.

The sales advice I posted earlier. Unless you don't know how to put a zipper on your mouth, then your sales will improve. I'm betting the so-called talented people are unwittingly making use of that sales advice.

PhilX

How do you think that supports the claim that there is no such thing as a talent for something that can also be taught?
Talent is a natural aptitude for something, that isn't incompatible with something also being teachable.

How have you been on this site for so many years without learning any philosophical method?

[Philosophy Explorer]

That's a mighty big claim. I don't agree. Persuade me using an argument with premises and conclusions that is both necessary and sufficient.

The sales advice I posted earlier. Unless you don't know how to put a zipper on your mouth, then your sales will improve. I'm betting the so-called talented people are unwittingly making use of that sales advice.

PhilX

How do you think that supports the claim that there is no such thing as a talent for something that can also be taught?
Talent is a natural aptitude for something, that isn't incompatible with something also being teachable.

How have you been on this site for so many years without learning any philosophical method?

As I said before, if anybody can do it, there is no talent.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

As I said before, if anybody can do it, there is no talent.

Anyone can play violin by picking one up and rubbing it with a stick. Anyone can be taught to play it better that. But not everyone can be brought up to the standard of a concert violinist. Some people have a talent for the violin that others don't.

Just repeating yourself isn't the same as making a valid argument. You have no talent for that sort of thing though.

[Philosophy Explorer]

As I said before, if anybody can do it, there is no talent.

Anyone can play violin by picking one up and rubbing it with a stick. Anyone can be taught to play it better that. But not everyone can be brought up to the standard of a concert violinist. Some people have a talent for the violin that others don't.

Just repeating yourself isn't the same as making a valid argument. You have no talent for that sort of thing though.

You're not following my argument. I'm talking about a substantial improvement where you move to the top of the list at selling based on the advice.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

As I said before, if anybody can do it, there is no talent.

Anyone can play violin by picking one up and rubbing it with a stick. Anyone can be taught to play it better that. But not everyone can be brought up to the standard of a concert violinist. Some people have a talent for the violin that others don't.

Just repeating yourself isn't the same as making a valid argument. You have no talent for that sort of thing though.

You're not following my argument. I'm talking about a substantial improvement where you move to the top of the list at selling based on the advice.

PhilX

That doesn't match what you previously wrote at all. Either stick to your claim that skills which can be taught can never be subject to talent or withdraw it. Don't pretend those words mean something else but only for brief periods when it suits you.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Anyone can play violin by picking one up and rubbing it with a stick. Anyone can be taught to play it better that. But not everyone can be brought up to the standard of a concert violinist. Some people have a talent for the violin that others don't.

Just repeating yourself isn't the same as making a valid argument. You have no talent for that sort of thing though.

You're not following my argument. I'm talking about a substantial improvement where you move to the top of the list at selling based on the advice.

PhilX

That doesn't match what you previously wrote at all. Either stick to your claim that skills which can be taught can never be subject to talent or withdraw it. Don't pretend those words mean something else but only for brief periods when it suits you.

The most important thing is the difference with the advice. And I've been consistent that I don't recognize a sales talent.

Let me add there are big differences between companies even when they're in the same market or industry. For example you mentioned Boeing. You try to belittle my experience since I haven't worked for substantial companies (an ad hominem). With those expensive airplanes from Boeing, I'm sure they allow the buyer to pay it off over time. With the newspapers, the subscribers paid up front. With the tvs, the buyers were allowed to pay off over time (an indication that the TV's were expensive). So FDP you've overlooked important details.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

The most important thing is the difference with the advice. And I've been consistent that I don't recognize a sales talent.

Let me add there are big differences between companies even when they're in the same market or industry. For example you mentioned Boeing. You try to belittle my experience since I haven't worked for substantial companies (an ad hominem). With those expensive airplanes from Boeing, I'm sure they allow the buyer to pay it off over time. With the newspapers, the subscribers paid up front. With the tvs, the buyers were allowed to pay off over time (an indication that the TV's were expensive). So FDP you've overlooked important details.

PhilX

FFS you lazy moron, that isn't an ad hominem, I am arguing against your investigative method. I am pointing out quite accurately that you simply don't have universal experience of sales as an industry. This is indisputable. You are using your own experience to describe what does and does not exist in that industry. So the point that you haven't seen the whole industry is relevant.

You are not being consistent. You wrote these words...

if anybody can do it, there is no talent

I gave you examples of what are teachable subjects where talent can also clearly be said to apply (basketball, chess and violin)
And you are not so far expressing any reason why salesmanship cannot be in that list.

All you are doing is flatly denying that it is, but without making any point as to why.

[Philosophy Explorer]

"FFS you lazy moron," Another ad hominems.

Universal sales experience you say. Don't need it. I have more than enough. It's like saying you need to conduct an infinite number of experiments which shows your lack of statistical knowledge.

I recognize talent in chess and violin playing, but not in selling. Since anybody can do selling with the technique I've described, then there are no talented salespeople and that's a cold hard fact.

PhilX