Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
Efbe said:
There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect.
It does.Efbe said:
.... yet is it quite easy to argue that a brain is a blank slate ready for connections to be made.
Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist
) are present at birth?
If he is suggesting that, he's right.Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist
) are present at birth?Have kids, find out for yourself. A lot is hard wired from birth.
otolith said:
It's taken me a while to get around to (skim)reading through that, and it is interesting, but... I just don't think analysis of twins is a reliable methodology. MZ twins are always treated differently than DZ twins and non-twin siblings. I have limited experience of teaching twins, as it is obviously quite rare, but I would expect them to be treated in such a way as to expect similarities as par for the course. This of course will impact how they grow up and increase the propensity for similarities in outcomes.
There is lots more in there, some in not enough detail, which I will go away and see if I can find out more on.
In reply to many other posters on here... From what I understand, the operation of the brain comes not from the neurons in your brain, but from the synapses between them.
When you are born you have a set number of neurons that stay with you for life. I have not seen a correlation between number of neorons and intelligence. I have seen a correlation between brain size and intelligence, however there are many other factors influencing this, an intelligent brain will have larger/more glial cells amongst others which help sustain the brain. Moe are produced when you use your brain more, so the correlation between brain size may well be a result of intelligence and brain usage rather than a cause.
DNA does not determine the paths of the synapses. I have seen no evidence of correlation between DNA and the speed of Synaptogenesis (creation of the synapses/pathways between neurons) in a healthy brain.
Therefore I cannot see how DNA could influence the synapses.
I am happy to be proven wrong!
Edited by Efbe on Thursday 2nd February 19:09
cymtriks said:
Efbe said:
There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect.
It does.Efbe said:
.... yet is it quite easy to argue that a brain is a blank slate ready for connections to be made.
Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist ) are present at birth?
If he is suggesting that, he's right.Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist
) are present at birth?Have kids, find out for yourself. A lot is hard wired from birth.
Both nature and nurture will have an impact on each individual's development, to say it's exclusively either one or the other though is so obviously wrong it beggars belief that anyone could think so.
Efbe said:
otolith said:
It's taken me a while to get around to (skim)reading through that, and it is interesting, but... I just don't think analysis of twins is a reliable methodology. MZ twins are always treated differently than DZ twins and non-twin siblings. I have limited experience of teaching twins, as it is obviously quite rare, but I would expect them to be treated in such a way as to expect similarities as par for the course. This of course will impact how they grow up and increase the propensity for similarities in outcomes.
There is lots more in there, some in not enough detail, which I will go away and see if I can find out more on.
In reply to many other posters on here... From what I understand, the operation of the brain comes not from the neurons in your brain, but from the synapses between them.
When you are born you have a set number of neurons that stay with you for life. I have not seen a correlation between number of neorons and intelligence. I have seen a correlation between brain size and intelligence, however there are many other factors influencing this, an intelligent brain will have larger/more glial cells amongst others which help sustain the brain. Moe are produced when you use your brain more, so the correlation between brain size may well be a result of intelligence and brain usage rather than a cause.
DNA does not determine the paths of the synapses. I have seen no evidence of correlation between DNA and the speed of Synaptogenesis (creation of the synapses/pathways between neurons) in a healthy brain.
Therefore I cannot see how DNA could influence genetics.
I am happy to be proven wrong!
Hmm. We may not know all of the the mechanisms, but it's your DNA which determines that you have a human brain rather than a dog brain or a chimpanzee brain. There are mental disorders with significant heritability. And I return to my general point that if what our brains do were not both heritable and variable, we would not have acquired them via natural selection.
Efbe said:
otolith said:
It's taken me a while to get around to (skim)reading through that, and it is interesting, but... I just don't think analysis of twins is a reliable methodology. MZ twins are always treated differently than DZ twins and non-twin siblings. I have limited experience of teaching twins, as it is obviously quite rare, but I would expect them to be treated in such a way as to expect similarities as par for the course. This of course will impact how they grow up and increase the propensity for similarities in outcomes.
There is lots more in there, some in not enough detail, which I will go away and see if I can find out more on.
In reply to many other posters on here... From what I understand, the operation of the brain comes not from the neurons in your brain, but from the synapses between them.
When you are born you have a set number of neurons that stay with you for life. I have not seen a correlation between number of neorons and intelligence. I have seen a correlation between brain size and intelligence, however there are many other factors influencing this, an intelligent brain will have larger/more glial cells amongst others which help sustain the brain. Moe are produced when you use your brain more, so the correlation between brain size may well be a result of intelligence and brain usage rather than a cause.
DNA does not determine the paths of the synapses. I have seen no evidence of correlation between DNA and the speed of Synaptogenesis (creation of the synapses/pathways between neurons) in a healthy brain.
Therefore I cannot see how DNA could influence genetics.
I am happy to be proven wrong!
Plasticity of course plays a major factor, but there are any number of "healthy" brains that have "wiring" issues from birth.
I enjoy having Syneasthesia- it massively helps with Maths (numbers have colours and shapes in my head- they always have) but is a problem in other ways. This was not nurture but nature.
Indeed the nature v nurture debate is really the "wrong" questions as it is not one or the other- what you are espousing is the blank slate theory.
This has been widely accepted as being incorrect https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2cACDAAAQBAJ&a...
Kids are different from birth, pre any nurture. The "Blank page" stuff is rubbish.PugwasHDJ80 said:
DNA does determine the path of synapses- it certainly determines which parts of the brain are wired to others during prenatal development. Neurons and synapses are at least as critical as each other.
Plasticity of course plays a major factor, but there are any number of "healthy" brains that have "wiring" issues from birth.
I enjoy having Syneasthesia- it massively helps with Maths (numbers have colours and shapes in my head- they always have) but is a problem in other ways. This was not nurture but nature.
Indeed the nature v nurture debate is really the "wrong" questions as it is not one or the other- what you are espousing is the blank slate theory.
This has been widely accepted as being incorrect https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2cACDAAAQBAJ&a...
Very interesting.Plasticity of course plays a major factor, but there are any number of "healthy" brains that have "wiring" issues from birth.
I enjoy having Syneasthesia- it massively helps with Maths (numbers have colours and shapes in my head- they always have) but is a problem in other ways. This was not nurture but nature.
Indeed the nature v nurture debate is really the "wrong" questions as it is not one or the other- what you are espousing is the blank slate theory.
This has been widely accepted as being incorrect https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2cACDAAAQBAJ&a...
I was actually initially thinking about just talents, and whether it is possible to have a specific talent(excluding physical changes that would help) through genetics.
From this I was just wanting to think about healthy brains, though as you have quite correctly pointed out, issues in wiring can have positive effects on an area.
My understanding of how the routes of the synapses are created is on a demand basis. A connection between two neurons is required, so the synapse is created.
There are of course many many factors that this simplistic view ignores. The issue we have in determining how these are working is if the way they work is due to the demand of the emerging brains intelligence and performance, or genetic makeup.
I would actually suggest it is a combination, for instance hormone creation in the body will have a great impact on the brain. genetic links between glands is obvious and proven. Therefore at least some nature must exist. Even so, from what I have read, these other factors would not specifically determine a brains structure, but would 'encourage' a certain direction to be taken.
If this is correct then it would be nature providing the sandbox and general direction, with nurture doing the vast majority of work to create the intelligence of the person.
But. Without an abnormality (and I am only wanting to look at healthy normal brains) this would mean IQ is not genetic. Talents solely reliant on the brain would also not be genetic.
Efbe said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
DNA does determine the path of synapses- it certainly determines which parts of the brain are wired to others during prenatal development. Neurons and synapses are at least as critical as each other.
Plasticity of course plays a major factor, but there are any number of "healthy" brains that have "wiring" issues from birth.
I enjoy having Syneasthesia- it massively helps with Maths (numbers have colours and shapes in my head- they always have) but is a problem in other ways. This was not nurture but nature.
Indeed the nature v nurture debate is really the "wrong" questions as it is not one or the other- what you are espousing is the blank slate theory.
This has been widely accepted as being incorrect https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2cACDAAAQBAJ&a...
Very interesting.Plasticity of course plays a major factor, but there are any number of "healthy" brains that have "wiring" issues from birth.
I enjoy having Syneasthesia- it massively helps with Maths (numbers have colours and shapes in my head- they always have) but is a problem in other ways. This was not nurture but nature.
Indeed the nature v nurture debate is really the "wrong" questions as it is not one or the other- what you are espousing is the blank slate theory.
This has been widely accepted as being incorrect https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2cACDAAAQBAJ&a...
I was actually initially thinking about just talents, and whether it is possible to have a specific talent(excluding physical changes that would help) through genetics.
From this I was just wanting to think about healthy brains, though as you have quite correctly pointed out, issues in wiring can have positive effects on an area.
My understanding of how the routes of the synapses are created is on a demand basis. A connection between two neurons is required, so the synapse is created.
There are of course many many factors that this simplistic view ignores. The issue we have in determining how these are working is if the way they work is due to the demand of the emerging brains intelligence and performance, or genetic makeup.
I would actually suggest it is a combination, for instance hormone creation in the body will have a great impact on the brain. genetic links between glands is obvious and proven. Therefore at least some nature must exist. Even so, from what I have read, these other factors would not specifically determine a brains structure, but would 'encourage' a certain direction to be taken.
If this is correct then it would be nature providing the sandbox and general direction, with nurture doing the vast majority of work to create the intelligence of the person.
But. Without an abnormality (and I am only wanting to look at healthy normal brains) this would mean IQ is not genetic. Talents solely reliant on the brain would also not be genetic.
Think of like cities towns and roads. At birth genetics decide the location of the main cities and towns. It then forms the Motorways and A Roads between those parts. Development creates new minor (and ocaasionally major) roads as well as occasional new towns (neurogenesis).
the most recent reasearch (and i would urge you to look at the book i linked to- its a scientific discussion on developmental neuropsychology) is that nature and nurture are EQUALLY important. People with very high IQs must be both developed and born.
Efbe said:
I just don't think analysis of twins is a reliable methodology. MZ twins are always treated differently than DZ twins and non-twin siblings. I have limited experience of teaching twins, as it is obviously quite rare, but I would expect them to be treated in such a way as to expect similarities as par for the course. This of course will impact how they grow up and increase the propensity for similarities in outcomes.
The review does raise that possibility that identical twins have a more similar environment that non-identical twins as a confounding factor, however I don't think it's enough to entirely invalidate the methodology. It's just one of the approaches the review talks about, though.http://thetalentcode.com
"talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
"talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
Toaster said:
http://thetalentcode.com
"talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
People are born with genetic potential - whether they go on to develop it is another thing entirely. I have no doubt that there is a child somewhere who has the innate potential to be a better F1 driver than anyone currently on the grid - and that they will never get to drive a racing car. Motor racing is an extreme example, because the pool of people who even get to try it is minute. Athletic potential has a large genetic factor (muscle fibre composition, cardiovascular performance) and a lower socioeconomic bar to entry, but still, if you aren't in the right environment you'll never find out what your body could be made to do."talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
People are talented at different things.
If everyone could be programmed the same we would all be top level footballers on £300k a week.
For example, a girl in my class was ridiculously good at drawing from a very young age, whereas most of our class were rubbish/average.
Yet at running she was terrible and didn't win cross country once. I won every week.
Ronnie O'Sullivan can play snooker with both hands equally well, why can't everybody in the world if it's as simple as just programming them.
Simple answer - because the human brain is so complex nobody really fully understands it.
If everyone could be programmed the same we would all be top level footballers on £300k a week.
For example, a girl in my class was ridiculously good at drawing from a very young age, whereas most of our class were rubbish/average.
Yet at running she was terrible and didn't win cross country once. I won every week.
Ronnie O'Sullivan can play snooker with both hands equally well, why can't everybody in the world if it's as simple as just programming them.
Simple answer - because the human brain is so complex nobody really fully understands it.
otolith said:
Toaster said:
http://thetalentcode.com
"talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
People are born with genetic potential - whether they go on to develop it is another thing entirely. I have no doubt that there is a child somewhere who has the innate potential to be a better F1 driver than anyone currently on the grid - and that they will never get to drive a racing car. Motor racing is an extreme example, because the pool of people who even get to try it is minute. Athletic potential has a large genetic factor (muscle fibre composition, cardiovascular performance) and a lower socioeconomic bar to entry, but still, if you aren't in the right environment you'll never find out what your body could be made to do."talent isn't born its grown'
There is a great deal of truth in this if you take an athlete physiological adaptations are made in order for the individual to progress, now you may haver the mental toughness to be an Olympian but unless you can adapt physically to be an elite competitor ambition is all that remains but for every X number of people who want to make it to the very pinnacle only one makes it.
Whilst there may be a predisposition for greatness it has to be developed, its not a natural innate 'thing' you are born with
Zoon said:
People are talented at different things.
Not so simplistic if you had a group of 'talented' athletes or footballers from a development squad you would not be able to pick one of them and say in three years this person has so much talent they will be world class. Talent is developed its not innate Toaster said:
Not so simplistic if you had a group of 'talented' athletes or footballers from a development squad you would not be able to pick one of them and say in three years this person has so much talent they will be world class. Talent is developed its not innate
But you have pre-filtered them. It's likely they all have the innate potential to succeed, you've eliminated a lot of the variation. otolith said:
But you have pre-filtered them. It's likely they all have the innatepotential to succeed, you've eliminated a lot of the variation.
But even then you often have 100% fall out rate, we all have innate potential. Does pre-filtering work, maybe, maybe notI am not an artist I cannot draw.....yet somehow I can draw a square box a place a triangle on top draw some more dodgy boxes in the main square box and people will recognise that its an image of a house.....so yes I can draw and yes it is an artistic impression. I can play golf the ball goes in many directions would I win the ryder cup, well I have never trained or tried to improve but that ball goes a heck of a distance........in the wrong direction
fesuvious said:
For the difference between hard grafted for mastery and unassailable raw talent see the fraction of a second in laptime between Hamilton and Rosberg.
Now, without training to keep sharp, either party drops off.
Talent without nurture and training will drop off, but always remain.
Mastery due to graft will drop off, and eventually fall to the levels at the beginning.
Humans, aint created equal.
No such thing as Unassailable raw talent, also you cannot unlearn something you have learnt so whilst you are in part correct performance drops when practice stops or age/injury/focus changes the individual will always have more skill than they did at the 'beginning' Now, without training to keep sharp, either party drops off.
Talent without nurture and training will drop off, but always remain.
Mastery due to graft will drop off, and eventually fall to the levels at the beginning.
Humans, aint created equal.
Edited by Toaster on Friday 3rd February 10:25
I should have added most sports have a form of Istvan Bayli Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model http://canadiansportforlife.ca/learn-about-canadia... On the face of it the lTAD model looks perfect but it cam from one man and one sport it does make some good points but it also has some flaws and more research is required.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff