>Instead, it'd probably be spread more evenly. (Of course, this is pure speculation). It's probably very likely that people who spend a lot of time doing something will be better at it than people who don't spend a lot of time doing that thing. But it's by no means automatic, I'd say. Depends on what the person in question makes of it. Or at least, I haven't seen anything compelling yet with regards to the notion that our lacking in one area necessarily means proficiency in another.