Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
Toaster said:
please do tell, which bit am I wrong on........that Talent has to be developed? or that a mystical force is at play......
The bit yourself and Efbe are wrong on seems to be the assumption that we are all born as blank slates with the ability to do and achieve anything in life so long as we are nurtured correctly.This appears to be patently rubbish to the majority of us who have seen and recognised with our own eyes that despite very similar nurturing environments, natural traits and limitations are also involved in development and that nurturing can only achieve so much.
A clear exmaple for me would be a simple game like chess as it takes out the physical element of the discussion. After each person has been taught the basics it's quite easy to see which of the following groups someone will fit into:
1. Some people struggle to work out how the pieces move let alone think more than 1 move ahead.
2. Some people quickly grasp the basics and consider and make moves thinking maybe 3,4 or 5 moves ahead.
3. Some are able to think 10 or 20 moves ahead and become grand masters.
No amount of additional training or nurturing will fundementally help each of these groups improve above their natural ability.
Toaster said:
You are right and wrong 
the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talent they grew in to it
Some studies are suggesting that genetics can have a large influence on which sports you are predisposed to be good at. the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talent they grew in to it https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genes-s...
Natural talent/gift/ability call it what you will... some people have it.
I am a musician, and there are some players who are good but will never be truly great as long as they have a hole in their ass. They practice and practice and never get any better. Then there are those who pull the instrument out of its case, never work at it and play like a dream. Now yes of course those who are incredible have practiced a lot, but all things being equal there are those who are truly incredible musicians, and those who are just not and never will be.... ever.
Those annoying people who just pick something up? having never done it before. How do you account for them?
I am a musician, and there are some players who are good but will never be truly great as long as they have a hole in their ass. They practice and practice and never get any better. Then there are those who pull the instrument out of its case, never work at it and play like a dream. Now yes of course those who are incredible have practiced a lot, but all things being equal there are those who are truly incredible musicians, and those who are just not and never will be.... ever.
Those annoying people who just pick something up? having never done it before. How do you account for them?
otolith said:
Toaster said:
You are right and wrong the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it
Could Bernie Ecclestone have been an NBA centre? Could someone with the height and frame of Geoff Capes be a current F1 champion? Could Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have achieved equal success in each other's disciplines? Different sports suit different bodies, and while there are certainly things you can change, there are others you can't. the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it Chess vs Piano would be a much better comparison. Could I have been the best chess player in the world? I would argue I could have. But I started too late and did not devote enough time, I did not have the best teachers or techniques in the world, so I was not. Could I have been the best piano player in the world? Same answer again. Yes.
Going back to your earlier post, I think we are basing our arguments on different view sets, The assumption I have drawn from the research I have read is that the architecture between people of the brain when it is first created is too similar to draw a difference.
That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.
Efbe said:
you are picking sports which are largely based on physiology.
Chess vs Piano would be a much better comparison. Could I have been the best chess player in the world? I would argue I could have. But I started too late and did not devote enough time, I did not have the best teachers or techniques in the world, so I was not. Could I have been the best piano player in the world? Same answer again. Yes.
Going back to your earlier post, I think we are basing our arguments on different view sets, The assumption I have drawn from the research I have read is that the architecture between people of the brain when it is first created is too similar to draw a difference.
That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.
Ok, taking everything you've just said above as true. Chess vs Piano would be a much better comparison. Could I have been the best chess player in the world? I would argue I could have. But I started too late and did not devote enough time, I did not have the best teachers or techniques in the world, so I was not. Could I have been the best piano player in the world? Same answer again. Yes.
Going back to your earlier post, I think we are basing our arguments on different view sets, The assumption I have drawn from the research I have read is that the architecture between people of the brain when it is first created is too similar to draw a difference.
That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.
What if different people have differing genetically effected paths and links between differing areas of the brain? The brain is not one 'lump' of matter, it's a whole series of areas which are effected by differing stimuli and interconnections which we are still a long way off understanding.
So you may be correct to summise that everyone's brain will build connections in the same manner, but that is a long way from proving that we all are born with brains which will develop the same given the same nurturing.
Why is it that two seeds from the same plant, planted together, will not be identical in growth? Based on your theory they should be identical, same number of stems, branches, leaves, etc...? No one would argue that the process of their growth is fundementally the same at cellular level, but one of them will be grow taller than the other.
Piersman2 said:
Ok, taking everything you've just said above as true.
What if different people have differing genetically effected paths and links between differing areas of the brain? The brain is not one 'lump' of matter, it's a whole series of areas which are effected by differing stimuli and interconnections which we are still a long way off understanding.
So you may be correct to summise that everyone's brain will build connections in the same manner, but that is a long way from proving that we all are born with brains which will develop the same given the same nurturing.
Why is it that two seeds from the same plant, planted together, will not be identical in growth? Based on your theory they should be identical, same number of stems, branches, leaves, etc...? No one would argue that the process of their growth is fundementally the same at cellular level, but one of them will be grow taller than the other.
differing genetically effected paths - This does not exist. synaptogenesis is not affected by your DNA.What if different people have differing genetically effected paths and links between differing areas of the brain? The brain is not one 'lump' of matter, it's a whole series of areas which are effected by differing stimuli and interconnections which we are still a long way off understanding.
So you may be correct to summise that everyone's brain will build connections in the same manner, but that is a long way from proving that we all are born with brains which will develop the same given the same nurturing.
Why is it that two seeds from the same plant, planted together, will not be identical in growth? Based on your theory they should be identical, same number of stems, branches, leaves, etc...? No one would argue that the process of their growth is fundementally the same at cellular level, but one of them will be grow taller than the other.
You maybe missing my point on brains building connections. though we all have the same mechanism to build synapses (unless you have a deficiency in which synapses are harder to create, or break down for some reason) each connection that is built is completely unique to you. It is your brain's fingerprint, albeit one that will rewrite itself billions of times throughout your life. And so everyone will be different, no two people will be the same, identical twins will have different ideas, actions and reactions.
Without a link between synaptogenesis and the genome there is no way you could inherit a specific talent. This is my argument around talent distilled down.
Efbe said:
otolith said:
Toaster said:
You are right and wrong the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it
Could Bernie Ecclestone have been an NBA centre? Could someone with the height and frame of Geoff Capes be a current F1 champion? Could Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have achieved equal success in each other's disciplines? Different sports suit different bodies, and while there are certainly things you can change, there are others you can't. the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it Efbe said:
Chess vs Piano would be a much better comparison. Could I have been the best chess player in the world? I would argue I could have. But I started too late and did not devote enough time, I did not have the best teachers or techniques in the world, so I was not. Could I have been the best piano player in the world? Same answer again. Yes.
It's only one aspect of musical aptitude, which I cite as an example, but do you have absolute pitch? I don't. Some untrained children do. On the other hand, some people have congenital amusia. Efbe said:
Going back to your earlier post, I think we are basing our arguments on different view sets, The assumption I have drawn from the research I have read is that the architecture between people of the brain when it is first created is too similar to draw a difference.
That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.
I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA. That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.
How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
Efbe said:
Without a link between synaptogenesis and the genome there is no way you could inherit a specific talent. This is my argument around talent distilled down.
That would be genetic transmission of knowledge, rather than genetic transmission of tendencies to form connections in ways which facilitate certain aptitudes. Piersman2 said:
The bit yourself and Efbe are wrong on seems to be the assumption that we are all born as blank slates with the ability to do and achieve anything in life so long as we are nurtured correctly..
I never said we are a blank slate what I said was that skill/mastery has to be trained. 'Natural talent' does not exist is what I have said. Why is practice important? It's to grow and strengthen Mylen it is this that helps creat greatness, not some mystical 'tallent'Edited by Toaster on Monday 6th February 16:50
Absolute pitch does not correlate to musical ability. There is research to prove this.
Musical pitch can be taught.
I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!
Musical pitch can be taught.
otolith said:
I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA.
How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
that is incredibly interesting How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!
Efbe said:
Absolute pitch does not correlate to musical ability. There is research to prove this.
Musical pitch can be taught.
Relative pitch can be taught in most people, and you can approximate AP if you have RP and a lot of practice, but it's not the same as untrained children having it. The attempt to train true AP in adults which showed that some people could do it also showed that the ability to learn to do it varied and depended on the individual's auditory working memory - for which there is evidence of heritability. I raised it not because it is fundamental to musical ability in general, but because it is a specific aspect of sound processing which appears to vary intrinsically between individuals. If that, why not other attributes?Musical pitch can be taught.
Efbe said:
otolith said:
I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA.
How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
that is incredibly interesting How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!
Flipfloptrader said:
For those saying natural talent isn't a thing, how would you describe athletes such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps?
Better genetics than most, without training and practice probably no better than average. Lots of theories on expertise, particularly sport and music. Check out a chap called Ericsson and snippets from his easy to read 'Expert Performance in Sport'. One interesting theory even suggests amount of practice, training environment, psychology and supervision of athlete to 'guarantee' expertise. Toaster said:
Flipfloptrader said:
.For those saying natural talent isn't a thing, how would you describe athletes such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps?
Natural talent is not a 'thing' genes play a small part but when names of great athletes are used to say 'there you go,' natural talent exists ignores the fact that you are observing mastery of a skill. what you don't see is what the individual did to get there, and that is shear hard graft, and adaptation through training. No one is born with greatness.Efbe said:
cymtriks said:
Look at it like this:
Hair - Black, Blonde, Brown, Red - not nurture, always nature
Height - short, average, tall - not nurture, always nature
Eyes - Brown, Blue, Green, Grey - not nurture, always nature
Feet - Any shoe size you like - not nurture, always nature
Brains - Why would expect these not to be just as variable and also down to nature?
Name - nurtureHair - Black, Blonde, Brown, Red - not nurture, always nature
Height - short, average, tall - not nurture, always nature
Eyes - Brown, Blue, Green, Grey - not nurture, always nature
Feet - Any shoe size you like - not nurture, always nature
Brains - Why would expect these not to be just as variable and also down to nature?
Languages - nurture
Ability to talk, make toast, drive, play a violin, all nurture.
Ability to talk - influenced by the brain's natural variation just like hair colour
Toast - are you serious?
Drive - influenced by the brain's natural variation just like hair colour
Play a violin - see above
Or are you going to tell me that nurture can make a short person tall, a blonde into a red-head or change someone's eye colour?
otolith said:
Efbe said:
Absolute pitch does not correlate to musical ability. There is research to prove this.
Musical pitch can be taught.
Relative pitch can be taught in most people, and you can approximate AP if you have RP and a lot of practice, but it's not the same as untrained children having it. The attempt to train true AP in adults which showed that some people could do it also showed that the ability to learn to do it varied and depended on the individual's auditory working memory - for which there is evidence of heritability. I raised it not because it is fundamental to musical ability in general, but because it is a specific aspect of sound processing which appears to vary intrinsically between individuals. If that, why not other attributes?Musical pitch can be taught.
Efbe said:
otolith said:
I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA.
How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
that is incredibly interesting How does this research fit with your model?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...
I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!
You partially broke down my straw man, and you are quite correct that we just don't know enough about this subject at all yet to be confident in any answer.
Given what we know so far there seems to be a possibility there could be a genetic influence on intelligence, though whether the variance is enough to amount to any real difference is another matter, so far complete research has shown no signs of this, but emerging research may show us something different.
In terms of specific talents there is currently nothing to support this idea, and whilst there may just be something we have not found yet, I will stick to my guns that a specific(rather than general) talent cannot be inherent, it has to be taught.
If you do come across any more research on this I would very much like to see it!
Lets see,
Ability to talk - practice
Toast - lost me here
Drive - practice (some learn quicker and at different stages than others, and?)
Play a violin - practice - see above
cymtriks said:
"Or are you going to tell me that nurture can make a short person tall"
Funnily enough height is one exception to the theory of Deliberate Practice...and is an obvious genetic advantage.
Personally I think it would be more interesting than the nature/nurture debate to consider why genes prevent some people more than others from actually improving with practice.
Ability to talk - practice
Toast - lost me here
Drive - practice (some learn quicker and at different stages than others, and?)
Play a violin - practice - see above
cymtriks said:
"Or are you going to tell me that nurture can make a short person tall"
Funnily enough height is one exception to the theory of Deliberate Practice...and is an obvious genetic advantage.
Personally I think it would be more interesting than the nature/nurture debate to consider why genes prevent some people more than others from actually improving with practice.
popeyewhite said:
Lets see,
Ability to talk - practice
Toast - lost me here
Drive - practice (some learn quicker and at different stages than others, and?)
Play a violin - practice - see above
cymtriks said:
"Or are you going to tell me that nurture can make a short person tall"
Funnily enough height is one exception to the theory of Deliberate Practice...and is an obvious genetic advantage.
Personally I think it would be more interesting than the nature/nurture debate to consider why genes prevent some people more than others from actually improving with practice.
Genetics has less to do with an individuals ability than you may think Usain Bolt is very tall and conventional wisdom says 100 Meter's shouldn't be run that fast with someone that tall.......Ability to talk - practice
Toast - lost me here
Drive - practice (some learn quicker and at different stages than others, and?)
Play a violin - practice - see above
cymtriks said:
"Or are you going to tell me that nurture can make a short person tall"
Funnily enough height is one exception to the theory of Deliberate Practice...and is an obvious genetic advantage.
Personally I think it would be more interesting than the nature/nurture debate to consider why genes prevent some people more than others from actually improving with practice.
otolith said:
Could Bernie Ecclestone have been an NBA centre? Could someone with the height and frame of Geoff Capes be a current F1 champion? Could Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have achieved equal success in each other's disciplines? Different sports suit different bodies, and while there are certainly things you can change, there are others you can't.
Bernie could play for the NBA he is 5'3 and so is Muggsy Bogues, F1 tends to be dominated by those with a strong socio-economic background. You also mention Mo and Usain who knows they could have been equally good at each others sports but not world champions. Toaster said:
ernie could play for the NBA he is 5'3 and so is Muggsy Bogues, F1 tends to be dominated by those with a strong socio-economic background. You also mention Mo and Usain who knows they could have been equally good at each others sports but not world champions.
Muggsy Bogues was a point guard, not a centre, the only position in which you ever see short players. I believe the shortest ever NBA centre was 6'9.F1 is dominated by people who have a strong socio economic background and are relatively lightweight. Look at what Mark Webber ended up looking like trying to get his weight low enough to compete with the shorter and smaller framed drivers. The world class long distance runner and world class sprinter are unlikely to have the right muscle fibre compositions to compete at the highest level in each other's sports.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff