Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent

[popeyewhite]

Toaster said:

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.......

I agree. As someone who has studied this topic at some length (fairly) recently I come down on the nurture side. Genetics certainly plays a part, and gives certain individuals a head-start, but without practice and the correct instruction all that potential would most probably be wasted.

[otolith]

popeyewhite said:

You're right, they won't. How is this relevant to the OP?

It's not, it's relevant to a sub thread about the extent to which the right genetics is necessary (but not sufficient) for elite athletes.

[popeyewhite]

otolith said:

It's not, it's relevant to a sub thread about the extent to which the right genetics is necessary (but not sufficient) for elite athletes.

Ah, thanks.

[XM5ER]

Toaster said:

thebraketester said:

Natural talent is a thing. It is undeniable.

No its not, talent is trained folk law would have you believe anything else

Sorry but this is just damned silly. Natual talent is a thing but is separate from ultimate success (10,000 hours etc). Anyone who has played and coached sports with kids can see this with their own eyes.

Unfortunately the science in this field is hugely politicized and is further muddied by religion.

[popeyewhite]

XM5ER said:

Sorry but this is just damned silly. Natual talent is a thing but is separate from ultimate success (10,000 hours etc).

10,000 hrs is a theory of expertise, and is explained by Ericsson in his Theory of Deliberate Practice. There needs to be careful separation between 'talent' - which anyone can show - but won't necessarily win a thing, and 'genius', which is generally honed by many years of training in the best facilities and with the best minds and up to date methods.

[AshVX220]

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

[Efbe]

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

Ash, Kind of. Nature is essentially what you have when you are conceived and what your DNA will control and make for you.

You are given your nose by nature. the shape and size is in your DNA, there isn't a lot you can do about it.
Nurture would be any external input on you. so yes talking to a unborn baby would be included as nurture. If a child is left to their own devices to learn, this would still be nurture.

[XM5ER]

popeyewhite said:

XM5ER said:

Sorry but this is just damned silly. Natual talent is a thing but is separate from ultimate success (10,000 hours etc).

10,000 hrs is a theory of expertise, and is explained by Ericsson in his Theory of Deliberate Practice. There needs to be careful separation between 'talent' - which anyone can show - but won't necessarily win a thing, and 'genius', which is generally honed by many years of training in the best facilities and with the best minds and up to date methods.

I think we are now talking about three different things. Genius in the sporting arena as opposed to intelligence. The idea that all kids are the same and have the same mental capacity is a political/religious ideal and not one that bears out in reality. As I said earlier, this is very political, many scientists that operate in the arena fear to publish due to the backlash potential. No I'm not going to find link for anyone, just research i, I've listened to interviews and read articles over the years about this.

On another anecdotal note, anyone who's had litters of puppies or kittens will have observed the personality (for want of a better word) variation amongst the animals. These personalities stay with them as the grow. It's quite amazing to observe.

[Toaster]

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

[XM5ER]

Toaster said:

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

Not true. The brain does change through external input (of course it does, how else do you think we learn).

The "knowledge" taxi drivers study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253...

[Toaster]

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

Not true. The brain does change through external input (of course it does, how else do you think we learn).

The "knowledge" taxi drivers study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253...

Ok perhaps a better worded reply: I did not say that the brain does not respond to external stimulus, I said its not like a muscle, I also said that there are multiple intelligences for example IQ, Emotional, etc whilst an individual may get stimulus in a particular way being taught Math does not guarantee they will get smarter at Math in fact there may be limited to no increase in cognitive ability.

Regarding a child or adult's reasoning for gaining stimulus as you say then look to Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution theory.

[popeyewhite]

XM5ER said:

I think we are now talking about three different things. Genius in the sporting arena as opposed to intelligence.

The OP concerns genius, not intelligence. You first mentioned 10,000 hrs, which is most often examined from a sports basis.

XM5ER said:

The idea that all kids are the same...

I don't think I've inferred that, in fact I acknowledged that talent exists and some people learn more quickly and at different stages than others.
What I will say is people need to understand the clear difference between genius, which is most often developed over a lifetime, and talent, which is an innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task. Perhaps a better question as the OP might be "Are people born experts?".

I'm not sure of your point about kittens and puppies, what you observe isn't personality - it's behaviour. As a dog ages you may think you are able to detect individual personality traits but it's still pretty hard to ascertain conscientiousness, extroversion or neuroticism in an animal!

[Efbe]

popeyewhite said:

XM5ER said:

I think we are now talking about three different things. Genius in the sporting arena as opposed to intelligence.

The OP concerns genius, not intelligence. You first mentioned 10,000 hrs, which is most often examined from a sports basis.

XM5ER said:

The idea that all kids are the same...

I don't think I've inferred that, in fact I acknowledged that talent exists and some people learn more quickly and at different stages than others.
What I will say is people need to understand the clear difference between genius, which is most often developed over a lifetime, and talent, which is an innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task. Perhaps a better question as the OP might be "Are people born experts?".

I'm not sure of your point about kittens and puppies, what you observe isn't personality - it's behaviour. As a dog ages you may think you are able to detect individual personality traits but it's still pretty hard to ascertain conscientiousness, extroversion or neuroticism in an animal!

Just looking at the idea that talent is a "innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task". As opposed to an overall better intelligence, reaction speed, memory etc.

This is broadly what I have been mostly discussing in this thread, trying to find evidence for and against it.
I have not found a single supporting piece of scientific evidence that supports the idea of talent, other than what I feel are misplaced studies on twins, siblings etc. To explain, these really don't tell us anything given the complexity of people's upbringing, relationships, differences in people’s attitudes to twins and society's attitude towards twins.

So the science I have been looking for is around the genome, DNA, effects on talent in specific areas, what can possibly happen and the mechanisms of the brain, how it develops etc.

I have found bits and pieces of research on DNA & the brains development, all of which has supported the idea that innate talent cannot exist.

[XM5ER]

Toaster said:

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

Not true. The brain does change through external input (of course it does, how else do you think we learn).

The "knowledge" taxi drivers study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253...

Ok perhaps a better worded reply: I did not say that the brain does not respond to external stimulus, I said its not like a muscle, I also said that there are multiple intelligences for example IQ, Emotional, etc whilst an individual may get stimulus in a particular way being taught Math does not guarantee they will get smarter at Math in fact there may be limited to no increase in cognitive ability.

Regarding a child or adult's reasoning for gaining stimulus as you say then look to Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution theory.

What is clear from various responses and papers and general study is that the OP is largely incorrect in that talent and/or genius is a mixture of nature (genetic and epigenetic), nurture (implicit and explicit learning) and motivation (Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution).

As an aside, a friend of mine is a PhD Psychology who has studied a great deal in behavioral psychology and psychopathy in leadership. That person is strongly of the belief that thereis only one kind of intelligence and that it can pointed in any direction (i.e. EQ is learned, implicitly or explicitly, and based on IQ).

[XM5ER]

popeyewhite said:

XM5ER said:

I think we are now talking about three different things. Genius in the sporting arena as opposed to intelligence.

The OP concerns genius, not intelligence. You first mentioned 10,000 hrs, which is most often examined from a sports basis.

XM5ER said:

The idea that all kids are the same...

I don't think I've inferred that, in fact I acknowledged that talent exists and some people learn more quickly and at different stages than others.
What I will say is people need to understand the clear difference between genius, which is most often developed over a lifetime, and talent, which is an innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task. Perhaps a better question as the OP might be "Are people born experts?".

I'm not sure of your point about kittens and puppies, what you observe isn't personality - it's behaviour. As a dog ages you may think you are able to detect individual personality traits but it's still pretty hard to ascertain conscientiousness, extroversion or neuroticism in an animal!

The word personality is a shortcut for a collection of behaviours, but I think you know this and the point stands really that these behaviours that make personality are inheritable.

For your other points, I don't think we are disagreeing more a quote formatting thing and a generally PH combative assumption to replies.

[XM5ER]

Efbe said:

Just looking at the idea that talent is a "innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task". As opposed to an overall better intelligence, reaction speed, memory etc.

This is broadly what I have been mostly discussing in this thread, trying to find evidence for and against it.
I have not found a single supporting piece of scientific evidence that supports the idea of talent, other than what I feel are misplaced studies on twins, siblings etc. To explain, these really don't tell us anything given the complexity of people's upbringing, relationships, differences in people’s attitudes to twins and society's attitude towards twins.

So the science I have been looking for is around the genome, DNA, effects on talent in specific areas, what can possibly happen and the mechanisms of the brain, how it develops etc.

I have found bits and pieces of research on DNA & the brains development, all of which has supported the idea that innate talent cannot exist.

That brings us back to the point I made about the politics of this science. It is a mine field that goes back beyond eugenics and anyone who publishes science that evidences a position that certain "innate abilities to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task" are inheritable tends to be viewed as a eugenicist and potentially racist. Hence you wont find much published science.

[popeyewhite]

XM5ER said:

The word personality is a shortcut for a collection of behaviours

I'm afraid that's not the case, but it explains your previous reply. Nothing quarrelsome about my approach, I just prefer accuracy when discussing a subject I'm qualified in.

[XM5ER]

popeyewhite said:

XM5ER said:

The word personality is a shortcut for a collection of behaviours

I'm afraid that's not the case, but it explains your previous reply. Nothing quarrelsome about my approach, I just prefer accuracy when discussing a subject I'm qualified in.

Fair enough the lay person's definition of personality is "The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character:
‘she had a sunny personality that was very engaging’"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perso...

As opposed to wiki
"Personality is a set of individual differences that are affected by the development of an individual: values, attitudes, personal memories, social relationships, habits, and skills.[1][2] Different personality theorists present their own definitions of the word based on their theoretical positions.[3] The term "personality trait" refers to enduring personal characteristics that are revealed in a particular pattern of behaviour in a variety of situations."

[Efbe]

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

Not true. The brain does change through external input (of course it does, how else do you think we learn).

The "knowledge" taxi drivers study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253...

Ok perhaps a better worded reply: I did not say that the brain does not respond to external stimulus, I said its not like a muscle, I also said that there are multiple intelligences for example IQ, Emotional, etc whilst an individual may get stimulus in a particular way being taught Math does not guarantee they will get smarter at Math in fact there may be limited to no increase in cognitive ability.

Regarding a child or adult's reasoning for gaining stimulus as you say then look to Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution theory.

What is clear from various responses and papers and general study is that the OP is largely incorrect in that talent and/or genius is a mixture of nature (genetic and epigenetic), nurture (implicit and explicit learning) and motivation (Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution).

As an aside, a friend of mine is a PhD Psychology who has studied a great deal in behavioral psychology and psychopathy in leadership. That person is strongly of the belief that thereis only one kind of intelligence and that it can pointed in any direction (i.e. EQ is learned, implicitly or explicitly, and based on IQ).

XM5

The position I have reached is solely due to the research I have read. I am more than willing to change my opinion should I see scientific evidence of another possibility.

However I have yet to see a description of how genetics(including epigenetics) could produce a specific innate talent related to intelligence. Either through research, or just a potential idea that would be supported with the research that has been done already.

[popeyewhite]

XM5ER said:

Fair enough the lay person's definition of personality is "The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character:
‘she had a sunny personality that was very engaging’"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perso...

As opposed to wiki
"Personality is a set of individual differences that are affected by the development of an individual: values, attitudes, personal memories, social relationships, habits, and skills.[1][2] Different personality theorists present their own definitions of the word based on their theoretical positions.[3] The term "personality trait" refers to enduring personal characteristics that are revealed in a particular pattern of behaviour in a variety of situations."

Wiki is incorrect. A personality trait is not necessarily revealed in a pattern of behaviour. 'Personality' and 'personality trait' are two terms the usage of which is generally miles apart.