FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:35 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:32 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:28 am
Are you suffering advanced brain disease? I tell you repeatedly that there is a structural problem with a philosophical argument you have cobbled together and you respond that there is no structural problem with a sales technique?
Because the sales technique is valid.
PhilX
I don't care about the sales technique. The structure of your argument is faulty. What is wrong with you?
Technique is merely "means of perspective". We structure the world according to our perceptions.
I have done sales on and off, it is perception one learns through technique. That is where the "talent" argument comes in, a talent is merely a way of doing things and to argue that someone is talented is to argue that the person already manifests an inherent perception. Perception can be taught, through application of the will, and in these respects skill and talent are inseperable.
They are strictly extensions of a causal argument as to which came first? Sales or Talent? In these respects, I would argue it does not matter as they manifest themselves through inherent degrees of perception. Perception itself is a form of measurement, that gives structure, hence the "technique". Talent is just saying one already has that perception, but it does not nullify the inherent nature of what constitutes skill as both are merely degrees of perception.
"Talented" people often use "visualization" skills, as a means of perception, so how can skill be separated except as a causal order?