Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
Efbe said:
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.
It's a contentious issue, certainly. For instance just because a child is better at one thing than another, or many others, does that make them talented? Or are the others simply slower to develop? Efbe said:
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.
See my reply above as to why you may not be finding it in the literature.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.
XM5ER said:
See my reply above as to why you may not be finding it in the literature.
Some nobody comments on black African IQ and can no longer find work... https://www.rt.com/news/210059-watson-dna-nobel-ra...
That sort of thing?
grumbledoak said:
XM5ER said:
See my reply above as to why you may not be finding it in the literature.
Some nobody comments on black African IQ and can no longer find work... https://www.rt.com/news/210059-watson-dna-nobel-ra...
That sort of thing?
It is the mechanics of how a talent could be possible. How one part of the brain could be more favourable to a certain specific skill in one person than another. It is also the genome project. Either angle could provide an answer.
But this doesn't get away from my problem that every piece of research I have found shows that the pathways chosen through synaptogenesis are not influenced by the genome.
There are pieces of research being carried out to determine how the general speed of synaptogenesis(creation of links between neurons) or neuroplasticity(rewriting of these links throughout your life) can be changed, though not in specific areas, but nothing on how the routing can be. It is the routing that would have to be influenced, or an improvement in speed/response of one very specific part of the brain that would be required for talent.
Without this, I just don't see How. If we did find this, it would completely and radically change everything we know about the brain, learning and our abilities.
grumbledoak said:
XM5ER said:
See my reply above as to why you may not be finding it in the literature.
Some nobody comments on black African IQ and can no longer find work... https://www.rt.com/news/210059-watson-dna-nobel-ra...
That sort of thing?
. Sadly he's an extreme illustration of why the subject is contentious (he was pretty stupid though).Edited by XM5ER on Friday 10th February 22:54
Efbe said:
No I don't think there is an issue with this research. This is not eugenics, nor am I trying to find a link with overall intelligence.
It is the mechanics of how a talent could be possible. How one part of the brain could be more favourable to a certain specific skill in one person than another. It is also the genome project. Either angle could provide an answer.
But this doesn't get away from my problem that every piece of research I have found shows that the pathways chosen through synaptogenesis are not influenced by the genome.
There are pieces of research being carried out to determine how the general speed of synaptogenesis(creation of links between neurons) or neuroplasticity(rewriting of these links throughout your life) can be changed, though not in specific areas, but nothing on how the routing can be. It is the routing that would have to be influenced, or an improvement in speed/response of one very specific part of the brain that would be required for talent.
Without this, I just don't see How. If we did find this, it would completely and radically change everything we know about the brain, learning and our abilities.
Undoubtedly a fascinating subject. Don't forget neuroplasticity is a relatively recent discovery as is our growing understanding of DNA is transforming our undstanding almost every day. I still contend that most scientist will steer clear of publishing certain conclusions in such a politically charged area. Don't forget how long Darwin deliberated about publishing On the Origin of Species.It is the mechanics of how a talent could be possible. How one part of the brain could be more favourable to a certain specific skill in one person than another. It is also the genome project. Either angle could provide an answer.
But this doesn't get away from my problem that every piece of research I have found shows that the pathways chosen through synaptogenesis are not influenced by the genome.
There are pieces of research being carried out to determine how the general speed of synaptogenesis(creation of links between neurons) or neuroplasticity(rewriting of these links throughout your life) can be changed, though not in specific areas, but nothing on how the routing can be. It is the routing that would have to be influenced, or an improvement in speed/response of one very specific part of the brain that would be required for talent.
Without this, I just don't see How. If we did find this, it would completely and radically change everything we know about the brain, learning and our abilities.
XM5ER said:
Efbe said:
No I don't think there is an issue with this research. This is not eugenics, nor am I trying to find a link with overall intelligence.
It is the mechanics of how a talent could be possible. How one part of the brain could be more favourable to a certain specific skill in one person than another. It is also the genome project. Either angle could provide an answer.
But this doesn't get away from my problem that every piece of research I have found shows that the pathways chosen through synaptogenesis are not influenced by the genome.
There are pieces of research being carried out to determine how the general speed of synaptogenesis(creation of links between neurons) or neuroplasticity(rewriting of these links throughout your life) can be changed, though not in specific areas, but nothing on how the routing can be. It is the routing that would have to be influenced, or an improvement in speed/response of one very specific part of the brain that would be required for talent.
Without this, I just don't see How. If we did find this, it would completely and radically change everything we know about the brain, learning and our abilities.
Undoubtedly a fascinating subject. Don't forget neuroplasticity is a relatively recent discovery as is our growing understanding of DNA is transforming our undstanding almost every day. I still contend that most scientist will steer clear of publishing certain conclusions in such a politically charged area. Don't forget how long Darwin deliberated about publishing On the Origin of Species.It is the mechanics of how a talent could be possible. How one part of the brain could be more favourable to a certain specific skill in one person than another. It is also the genome project. Either angle could provide an answer.
But this doesn't get away from my problem that every piece of research I have found shows that the pathways chosen through synaptogenesis are not influenced by the genome.
There are pieces of research being carried out to determine how the general speed of synaptogenesis(creation of links between neurons) or neuroplasticity(rewriting of these links throughout your life) can be changed, though not in specific areas, but nothing on how the routing can be. It is the routing that would have to be influenced, or an improvement in speed/response of one very specific part of the brain that would be required for talent.
Without this, I just don't see How. If we did find this, it would completely and radically change everything we know about the brain, learning and our abilities.
I do find it remarkable that we can suppose about the theories of how the universe was created, the smallest of particles, create theories for time travel, multi-dimensional theories, calculate the age of the universe and know so much about the stars around us, but we don't now the basic question of how we work.
I did see some research that basically stated our minds are more than the sum of our brains. essentially they had found new energy particles in our brains in tubules that persisted after death. I posted it in the paranormal thread to wind people up with the possibility of life after death :P
However what I feel we are battling with talent is not a new research idea, or concept, but ourselves. Our own old-wives tale that tells us talent exists. It's nice for us to believe in it, it lets me think its okay that someone else has achieved more than me, or is better at something. It lets me get away with giving up, or not being the best.
I have been told I am talented, many many times. But I don't think I am. What I can do, is because I worked at it, because of the way I approached it, because of who my parents were, and what I did in the first years of my life.
Talent is just an excuse
Efbe said:
Is there any proper definitive scientific evidence that shows a person can be born with a specific talent or talent?
You can certainly infer it from evolution. The reason we're here and that life exists as we know it is because of random genetic variance between individuals (along with inheritance of genetic traits and preferences for one trait over another in an environment and/or circumstances). It therefore follows that it's inevitable that some people will be better at certain tasks than other tasks, purely because we're all different.It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture of course; how do you know whether Roger Federer's hand eye coordination is innate, or he just always enjoyed hand eye coordination based tasks and got better at them over time? We don't know really. What we do know though is that everyone is different. I don't have time to look into it properly, but given from the known flaws in IQ tests (doing the tests is a skill you can learn), I'm sure that psychologists have devised methods of testing innate intelligence and innate presence of other traits.
popeyewhite said:
RobM77 said:
I'm sure that psychologists have devised methods of testing innate intelligence and innate presence of other traits.
They have, though psychometric tests all suffer from the same shortcomings (understanding of question, nuance, subjective assessment etc). Test for traits (behaviours) generally examine...traits that already exist. There are a number of theories that look at how people learn - from child development up to gifted musicians. These theories apply on the basis that learning is the key to development. Some people, very few, are undoubtedly born with an ability to perform better in a given field than others. Most people who are at the top of their profession, trade, sport etc have taken years of patient training to get there. Nature vs Nurture? I'd go 80% nurture.I agree though, from the studies I've seen (even the Jamaican sprinting phenomenon) a huge amount of any success is nurture. For some reason, people love to talk about natural talent. Senna for example is always hailed as naturally talented, but he was obsessed with driving his go kart as a kid, and he even said when running that he thought about the grip of his shoes like the tyres on the track. Apparently as soon as he got out of any racing car he'd write an A4 sheet on potential improvements, and worked tirelessly with engineers to realise them. I think perhaps it's easier for people to believe that someone got further than them through natural talent, so no fault of their own as the loser, than it is for people to accept that those who get far often just simply work harder.
RobM77 said:
It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture of course; how do you know whether Roger Federer's hand eye coordination is innate, or he just always enjoyed hand eye coordination based tasks and got better at them over time? We don't know really.
The neural pathways associated with ball tracking weren't there before birth. The skill is learned.popeyewhite said:
RobM77 said:
It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture of course; how do you know whether Roger Federer's hand eye coordination is innate, or he just always enjoyed hand eye coordination based tasks and got better at them over time? We don't know really.
The neural pathways associated with ball tracking weren't there before birth. The skill is learned.RobM77 said:
popeyewhite said:
RobM77 said:
It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture of course; how do you know whether Roger Federer's hand eye coordination is innate, or he just always enjoyed hand eye coordination based tasks and got better at them over time? We don't know really.
The neural pathways associated with ball tracking weren't there before birth. The skill is learned.There is not a possible way that knowledge could have existed before conception, or that there could be a pre-disposition to a specific task in the brain.
If we return to your above mention of physical variation, a good example that I've just thought of is how the Russians select their fighter pilots. I've heard that they put them straight into a centrifuge and discover how good they are at handling g forces. The majority of 16 year olds in Russia will not have had any exposure at all to training to handle g forces. A variation in their ability is seen across the board - some can even fly fast jets without g suits apparently. Likewise, I've often heard it said of exceptional athletes that even if they hadn't had any training, they naturally have large heart muscles, lungs, hands, feet etc. Most people who reach the top (Bolt, Phelps, etc) will have these facets along with strong nurture arguments too. I'm sure that for every Usain Bolt there are scores of Jamaican kids who've worked just as hard and been through the same culture of sport that they have in their schools, but most don't make it and it needn't be for lack of trying. I did a lot of running at school, but my best mate could destroy me in a 100 metre sprint - he was just naturally quick.
RobM77 said:
If we return to your above mention of physical variation, a good example that I've just thought of is how the Russians select their fighter pilots. I've heard that they put them straight into a centrifuge and discover how good they are at handling g forces. The majority of 16 year olds in Russia will not have had any exposure at all to training to handle g forces. A variation in their ability is seen across the board - some can even fly fast jets without g suits apparently. Likewise, I've often heard it said of exceptional athletes that even if they hadn't had any training, they naturally have large heart muscles, lungs, hands, feet etc. Most people who reach the top (Bolt, Phelps, etc) will have these facets along with strong nurture arguments too. I'm sure that for every Usain Bolt there are scores of Jamaican kids who've worked just as hard and been through the same culture of sport that they have in their schools, but most don't make it and it needn't be for lack of trying. I did a lot of running at school, but my best mate could destroy me in a 100 metre sprint - he was just naturally quick.
Interesting regarding the Russians, and quite correct. The genome is obviously going to be a huge impact on your physique.This has no bearing on the brain however, well not for a specific talent anyhow.
Efbe said:
Interesting regarding the Russians, and quite correct. The genome is obviously going to be a huge impact on your physique.
This has no bearing on the brain however, well not for a specific talent anyhow.
Surely though our mental abilities have evolved just as our physical abilities have? Natural selection is responsible for everything. Each talent, whether it be driving fast or playing chess, has a series of mental traits that contribute to success in it. There may not be a set of 'driving genes', but surely there must be sets of genes that determine ability in judgement, multi-tasking, spatial awareness, sense of balance, courage, confidence etc? I'd be fairly sure that a 5 year old Lewis Hamilton would have beaten a 5 year old RobM77 in tests of those traits. The story of human evolution is as much about the brain as it is the body.This has no bearing on the brain however, well not for a specific talent anyhow.
RobM77 said:
No, but was there a pre-disposition to learn the skill?
I'm not sure I follow. Our brains are a largely blank map before we are born, they are basically concerned with maintaining homeostasis. New movements create new neural pathways where none existed before. In fact new-ish research shows mirror neurons may do this using deliberate observation. This we can show through the use of fMRI and EEG. But a "pre-disposition"? Unlikely. Maybe neural pathways are established quicker in some people, but current research hasn't hinted at this (up to last year, anyway). Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff