Something not very important anymore. Do we want to stay blindly in love with those who can do things we cannot or should we try to make people able to learn how to learn ? it's a bit antisocial and un-binding but also the opposite.
I didn't mean "what would be the social significance of having talent". I meant "how would you know if one person was more talented than another person?"
Do you think what you want is achievable while humans vary in their abilities?
I understood, and socially insignificant words don't really have a place (aren't most words crafted from social interactions?). And thus I would know nor care to know as long as people are given ways to reach new level of understandings.
I believe something can be done, otherwise I wouldn't bother talking about it. This is only from personal experience, I experienced both feeling of being very talented as a kid, and the complete lack of it, all of a sudden, when going to college. Since then a lot of things that seemed impossible to understand started to click. It feels like experiencing both extremes of the ability spectrum. And in the end talent/innate-ability, or its absence, doesn't really matter. It's mostly desire and patience to unfold your own misconceptions.
And I strongly believe that the school system and society supports that notion that you either get something in a short timespan or you'll never because it's the way society can function; individual well being / growth jailed for this purpose.
I was speaking in an hypothetical future where talent wouldn't be a discriminating concept. In that future, objective concepts like electricity would still matter, and have a very concrete effect on people and society. Compared to nowadays where people are seeking "talents" for instant profit.
