Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
Efbe said:
which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
I think it's a mixture of both.Some students do respond to different ways of teaching - and something being taught in the wrong way will hold them back (or will hinder them from 'getting it'). At the same time however - no matter how many different ways something is taught - some people may never get it.
Some people do seem to have a natural gift for things - even from an early age and without really being taught any technique.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 30th January 17:57
It was 1960's nonsense that we are born as blank pages to be written upon. Prior to that people generally had about twelve siblings and it was obvious to everybody that each and every child was different from birth. It seems ridiculous to assume that it does not extend to intelligence or talents.
Efbe said:
I used to be a teacher, I never once saw/met talent/genius in a child.
I don't think Natural ability exists, only Nurture, hard work, circumstance and environment.
The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
I have seen no evidence that brains can operate faster/slower at birth. I have seen some evidence that brain size is correlated to intelligence, but I cannot be sure the brain didn't grow because of intelligence/use, and not the other way around. This link does not indicate talent however.
Is there any proper definitive scientific evidence that shows a person can be born with a specific talent or talent?
True genius exists in perhaps 1% of the entire population, and spotting that genius before the 99% dumb smother it away (think Lisa Simpson), mean you are very unlikely to meet a genius in the normal course of everyday life.I don't think Natural ability exists, only Nurture, hard work, circumstance and environment.
The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
I have seen no evidence that brains can operate faster/slower at birth. I have seen some evidence that brain size is correlated to intelligence, but I cannot be sure the brain didn't grow because of intelligence/use, and not the other way around. This link does not indicate talent however.
Is there any proper definitive scientific evidence that shows a person can be born with a specific talent or talent?
A good rule of thumb for a genius is 25% nature, 25% nurture, 25% money, and 25% luck.
You need good genes, good education in a good neighbourhood, good parents with good tenacity and good pockets, and a good dose of luck to be in the right place at the right time.
ATG said:
We still seem to be a bit short on peer-reviewed material in this thread ...
haha, this was what I was thinking.My issue with the nature debate is I cannot see what could biologically determine a difference in a brain that could present itself in a 'talent'.
What could possibly pre-dispose a brain to be good at piano, or maths, or football or anything else that people can be talented about. Could it be a certain structure presented as the foetus develops that is in exactly the right place to make a certain group of connections easier to form? This would answer the question, but I have seen no evidence of it.
Was hoping people had some scientific reviews/theories that could offer a reason for talent, or even as a distant second greater intelligence.
Efbe said:
ATG said:
We still seem to be a bit short on peer-reviewed material in this thread ...
haha, this was what I was thinking.My issue with the nature debate is I cannot see what could biologically determine a difference in a brain that could present itself in a 'talent'.
What could possibly pre-dispose a brain to be good at piano, or maths, or football or anything else that people can be talented about. Could it be a certain structure presented as the foetus develops that is in exactly the right place to make a certain group of connections easier to form? This would answer the question, but I have seen no evidence of it.
Was hoping people had some scientific reviews/theories that could offer a reason for talent, or even as a distant second greater intelligence.
Efbe said:
What could possibly pre-dispose a brain to be good at piano, or maths, or football or anything else that people can be talented about.
Of those examples, only maths is likely to only reflect the capacities of the brain. Football and piano playing are also going to require amongst other things motor skills. I assume that you wouldn't rule out genetics as a significant prerequisite for most elite basketball players, sprinters or long distance runners, for example. Looking only at the brain, if you believe that the various things that humans are good at have no heritable basis and no variation on that basis, and assuming that you aren't a creationist, how do you think we acquired them as a species?
I would tend to agree that it is unlikely that individuals are born with an innate talent for, say, chess, but I think it is likely that some people are born with a brain more amenable to becoming good at certain types of intellectual activities.
Kawasicki said:
Ok, so someone is born with a larger portion of their brain assigned to visual processing. They turn out to have a talent for clay pigeon shooting. Why is this even a debate?
Not so obvious. You have the chicken ad egg the wrong way around... Neuroplasticity.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/1210...
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/lea...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32225...
Extended practice of visual processing may(according to these any many other articles) increase the size and density of the area of the brain responsible for it.
Again, I do not see any references anywhere to a fundamental difference in the formation of a foetus's brain that could attribute to a specific talent developing.
otolith said:
Of those examples, only maths is likely to only reflect the capacities of the brain. Football and piano playing are also going to require amongst other things motor skills. I assume that you wouldn't rule out genetics as a significant prerequisite for most elite basketball players, sprinters or long distance runners, for example.
Looking only at the brain, if you believe that the various things that humans are good at have no heritable basis and no variation on that basis, and assuming that you aren't a creationist, how do you think we acquired them as a species?
I would tend to agree that it is unlikely that individuals are born with an innate talent for, say, chess, but I think it is likely that some people are born with a brain more amenable to becoming good at certain types of intellectual activities.
I agree that genetics obviously defines a physique, which leads to greater prowess in certain activities. To clarify I am solely talking of brain development, and only normal brain development, not the case of abnormalities that will limit development in certain areas.Looking only at the brain, if you believe that the various things that humans are good at have no heritable basis and no variation on that basis, and assuming that you aren't a creationist, how do you think we acquired them as a species?
I would tend to agree that it is unlikely that individuals are born with an innate talent for, say, chess, but I think it is likely that some people are born with a brain more amenable to becoming good at certain types of intellectual activities.
It is on your final point that I expected to find some scientific backup, but as of yet have failed to do so. I cannot see anywhere a study that has found differences in the brains of foetuses or even babies that could link (or better predict!) the intellectual capabilities of the child/adult.
Furthermore, looking at the structure of the brain, how it develops, connects and grows, I cannot understand how there could possibly be a difference at birth that could impact how intellectually capable a person could grow to be. As I laid out at the start, the structure of the brain at conception seems to be a blank slate, with the connections being made/changed as it develops. It is like a computerchip yet to be programmed.
A nice image here that explains what I am trying to say far better:
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3/baby-an...
The number of neurons stays the same, just the connections are added to as the brain develops.
I can find no reliable evidence that the number of neurons at birth which remains the same throughout your life correlates with intelligence.
Edited by Efbe on Monday 30th January 21:30
This book Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin is an excellent read.
I firmly believe to learn something at the highest level, you need to be constantly learning out of your comfort zone. 10,000 hours should about do it
I firmly believe to learn something at the highest level, you need to be constantly learning out of your comfort zone. 10,000 hours should about do it
Efbe said:
I don't think Natural ability exists, only Nurture, hard work, circumstance and environment.
The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
Absolutely 100% disagree with this. We are not born equal. The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
Everyone is wired a little differently, so nature plays a role in have certain abilities. Of course unless you are exposed to whatever that ability may be, it will never surface.
Take me .. inherently lazy, didn't work at school, never did homework but could still pass exams much to the annoyance of my teachers it would seem. And then computers came along and that was my "thing". Within a few minutes of being sat down at a commodore pet and a glance the manual I was creating all kinds of programs.
Take me .. inherently lazy, didn't work at school, never did homework but could still pass exams much to the annoyance of my teachers it would seem. And then computers came along and that was my "thing". Within a few minutes of being sat down at a commodore pet and a glance the manual I was creating all kinds of programs.
boxst said:
Everyone is wired a little differently, so nature plays a role in have certain abilities. Of course unless you are exposed to whatever that ability may be, it will never surface.
Take me .. inherently lazy, didn't work at school, never did homework but could still pass exams much to the annoyance of my teachers it would seem. And then computers came along and that was my "thing". Within a few minutes of being sat down at a commodore pet and a glance the manual I was creating all kinds of programs.
Take me .. inherently lazy, didn't work at school, never did homework but could still pass exams much to the annoyance of my teachers it would seem. And then computers came along and that was my "thing". Within a few minutes of being sat down at a commodore pet and a glance the manual I was creating all kinds of programs.
Efbe said:
Kawasicki said:
Ok, so someone is born with a larger portion of their brain assigned to visual processing. They turn out to have a talent for clay pigeon shooting. Why is this even a debate?
Not so obvious. You have the chicken ad egg the wrong way around... Neuroplasticity.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/1210...
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/lea...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32225...
Extended practice of visual processing may(according to these any many other articles) increase the size and density of the area of the brain responsible for it.
Again, I do not see any references anywhere to a fundamental difference in the formation of a foetus's brain that could attribute to a specific talent developing.
How about a talent for basketball...can you see that being tall helps? Could you see this fundamental difference in the foetus? Why would the brain be any different?
Efbe said:
... Furthermore, looking at the structure of the brain, how it develops, connects and grows, I cannot understand how there could possibly be a difference at birth that could impact how intellectually capable a person could grow to be. As I laid out at the start, the structure of the brain at conception seems to be a blank slate, with the connections being made/changed as it develops. It is like a computer chip yet to be programmed.
...
There doesn't have to be any difference at birth, if the "coding" is in the DNA for how a newborn brain develops to become an adult brain....
If you think it is like a computer chip waiting to be programmed, consider that some of that input comes from the DNA as it develops.
otolith said:
I've got AP. Seems like it's rarer than I thought. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff