"What are the Differences Between Soccer and Jello Shots?"

Not many.

(Just a warning, when I started this I wasn't sure where it would go, and I'm currently at what I'm assuming to be the halfway mark, so I thought I would just come back and give this disclaimer that I'm still not totally sure where it's going. So, bare with me.)

Last night I had an extremely stimulating conversation with a friend of mine. I posed an idea, then reposed it a few times until he understood it, then we dissected it, but didn't reach a satisfactory answer. Hence, this blog post.

Based on the hypothesis that everyone on the planet is 'skilled' or 'talented' at at least one thing, what would be the stipulating factors for that thing at which one is to be talented?

In trying to decide, me and the friend chose two different activities to contrast: drumming and the ability to do Jello shots quickly. We both immediately agreed that drumming was a talent and a skill, and that Jello shots were not. Then I questioned the difference between soccer and Jello shots. Aside from the obvious way that they are performed, there really are very few differences. Both are done for an audience, they both have a potential to elicit a response from the audience, they both take a certain level of physical aptitude that is not available to everyone. They can be done competitively or for recreational purposes. Aside from the fact that one involves kicking something and the other swallowing something, there aren't really that many differences.

So, can sports then be considered the one 'thing' that a person is talented at? If so, could the ability to do Jello shots be your one talent?

Or, maybe the specifics aren't important, but more of a general 'physical' talent.

Yes, lets divide it that way.

Let's say there are 3 schools of talent: Mental, Physical and Artistic. They all have a bit of bleed into each other, such as Dance could be considered both Physical and Artistic, and writing could be considered Artistic and Mental.

Now, in order for it to be considered a 'talent' that a person is good at, there should be common factors that bridge the gap between the 3 schools; things like the 'talent' must elicit a response, the 'talent' cannot be something that exists merely for the enjoyment of the 'talented,' there must be a passion, or at least interest, in the 'talent.'

Since I'm not really sure where this is going, those are just some idea's that I threw out and now I'll try and apply it.

Lets take an activity, golfing, and apply the standards.

A golfer that is commonly considered very good (also, the only golfer who's name I know) would be Tiger Woods. His talent certainly elicits a response, other people gain from what he does, and I'm assuming he's interested in it because he's does it for a career.

However, all these things could also apply to a serial killer. Mass murder certainly elicits a response, other people may not take express 'enjoyment' from the activities of a sociopath, but they certainly have invested interest, and quite a few killers were obsessed with what they did, which would be a formed of passion or interest.

So, can killing be considered a talent?

I think the sheer scope of this question, plus my general lack of training in the field of abstracting ideas means that this blog could go on indefinitely without any sort of conclusion in sight.

As such, I think I'll leave this alone and come back to it later after I've had more discussions with other people.

Also, my entire premise of the assumption that 'every person is talented at at least one thing' could very well be completely false, and there may be people out there with no talent whatsoever. I don't think that, thats why I wanted to work this out, but it might just end up that Some People Just Have No Good To Give.