Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent

[Efbe]

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.

I think I have now formed an opinion of nature/nurture on overall intelligence for which I have described previously. I did set up this thread as a bit of a straw man, hoping to be shot down scientifically on the Nurture only theory, and though I can see genetic components that will facilitate a greater intellectual potential, it would seem nurture plays a majority role in the relationship between nature/nurture. Obviously this relationship is quite impossible to define with our current knowledge, but we can say the routing of synapses are led by nurture which provide the pathways for the way our brain works, yet nature provides the sustenance for the brain, hormones to trigger our body and all the inputs the brain receives.


Ok then,. so lets look at talent, specifically for an F1 driver, and what can be nature/nurture.
I would think the main attributes that can contribute to a driver and eye-sight, response time (RT), understanding of dynamics of the car, sensitivity to physical input and driving knowledge/experience?.
If we assume that there is a "talent" that a driver has or doesn't have it has to be related to one or all of these. The three that are brain related are RT, dynamics and driving knowledge/experience.
RT does have a correlation with the DAT1 genotype which controls the production of dopamine, therefore hereditary. Though if this were the talent, then it would be the same talent for every sport. It would not specifically be the talent for an F1 driver.
The understanding of the car, knowing the right thing to do when you get a certain feeling, experience and knowledge of driving an F1 car are the attribute that make you a great driver.
is there a suggestion that these are hereditary?

[Dr Jekyll]

Efbe said:

The understanding of the car, knowing the right thing to do when you get a certain feeling, experience and knowledge of driving an F1 car are the attribute that make you a great driver.
is there a suggestion that these are hereditary?

Certainly not. But the attributes that enable the driver to gain that understanding are hereditary. Otherwise you could train a chimp to drive an F1 car.

[otolith]

Efbe said:

Ok then,. so lets look at talent, specifically for an F1 driver, and what can be nature/nurture.
I would think the main attributes that can contribute to a driver and eye-sight, response time (RT), understanding of dynamics of the car, sensitivity to physical input and driving knowledge/experience?.

Reaction time, eyesight, yes. Also; General intelligence. General memory. Information processing and decision making speed. Spatial awareness. Visual memory. Risk tolerance/aversion. Hand eye coordination. Fine motor control. Muscle fibre type, muscular strength and endurance. Cardiovascular adaptability. Heat tolerance. Pain threshold. Height and build.

[Toaster]

fesuvious said:

With the same effort, one person with talent will always have an edge over an untalented but devoted person.

Its just the way it is. Yes, mastery can be achieved through graft, but natural talent will always have an edge.

There is no such thing as natural talent.

[deeen]

Toaster said:

There is no such thing as natural talent.

You mean anybody can learn to make toast?

[Toaster]

fesuvious said:

Dear God, you actually believe that?

Yes Mozart studied hard for 4 years I guess.

You missed out the part of his father was also a composer and teacher, so the environment he grew up in had nothing to do with his abilities, or at least thats what some would have you beleive.

[Toaster]

deeen said:

You mean anybody can learn to make toast?

of course, whether its eatable or burnt mess doesn't really matter its still Toast

[PugwasHDJ80]

Toaster said:

fesuvious said:

With the same effort, one person with talent will always have an edge over an untalented but devoted person.

Its just the way it is. Yes, mastery can be achieved through graft, but natural talent will always have an edge.

There is no such thing as natural talent.

yes there is

take racing drivers, for instance

The very best racing drivers having amazing sense of balance and incredible reaction times.

The balance is dictated, mostly, through your inner ear which is what you are born with. You can't train a sense of balance- you CAN train HOW to balance on something (ie a tightrope etc), but that's a case of using your sense of balance to learn to do something. Hence why some people learn quicker than others (and some people never do)/

Reaction times are incredible complex- but we do know that they are vey much dependant on how fast our synapses can fire- and this is different between people because of their genetics.

You can also look at sprinters- you have a specific gene in your body that dictates how much fast twitch muscle fibre you can build- i have this gene switched on, so can build lots of strong, fast muscle (should i choose to do so), I could therefore potentially be the worlds strongest man, but i could never be the next mo farah! The latter has lots of slow twitch, efficient muscle fibres.

You can always maximise what your genetics start you off with (and therefore way outperform someone with more appropriate genes), but you can't get away from nature.

[Moonhawk]

Toaster said:

You missed out the part of his father was also a composer and teacher, so the environment he grew up in had nothing to do with his abilities, or at least thats what some would have you beleive.

It probably had a bearing - but he was probably naturally inclined to be good at music too.

In much the same way that strength, stamina etc varies in humans - so too will the abilities that make somebody good at music.

Yes - somebody with enough dedication and training may be able to become reasonably good at music - just as some people with enough dedication and training may be able to run reasonably fast - but that still wont make them a Mozzart or a Usain Bolt.

[Dr Jekyll]

Moonhawk said:

Yes - somebody with enough dedication and training may be able to become reasonably good at music - just as some people with enough dedication and training may be able to run reasonably fast - but that still wont make them a Mozzart or a Usain Bolt.

But how fast is reasonably fast? There is a vast range between decent club runner and Usain Bolt, or even Olympic games back marker and Usain Bolt. Could someone with the right build for their athletic discipline get to compete in the Olympics through dedication and training but without particular talent? I'm taking about qualifying, not Eddie the Eagle wildcards.

[cymtriks]

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?

[Dr Jekyll]

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?

But what you can do with your feet, and your hands, and to some extent your eyes, is partly down to nurture. If muscles have evolved to become better suited for whatever the individual tends to use them for, why not the brain?

[Efbe]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Toaster said:

fesuvious said:

With the same effort, one person with talent will always have an edge over an untalented but devoted person.

Its just the way it is. Yes, mastery can be achieved through graft, but natural talent will always have an edge.

There is no such thing as natural talent.

yes there is

take racing drivers, for instance

The very best racing drivers having amazing sense of balance and incredible reaction times.

The balance is dictated, mostly, through your inner ear which is what you are born with. You can't train a sense of balance- you CAN train HOW to balance on something (ie a tightrope etc), but that's a case of using your sense of balance to learn to do something. Hence why some people learn quicker than others (and some people never do)/

Reaction times are incredible complex- but we do know that they are vey much dependant on how fast our synapses can fire- and this is different between people because of their genetics.

You can also look at sprinters- you have a specific gene in your body that dictates how much fast twitch muscle fibre you can build- i have this gene switched on, so can build lots of strong, fast muscle (should i choose to do so), I could therefore potentially be the worlds strongest man, but i could never be the next mo farah! The latter has lots of slow twitch, efficient muscle fibres.

You can always maximise what your genetics start you off with (and therefore way outperform someone with more appropriate genes), but you can't get away from nature.

These are physiological differences.

As we are describing in this thread, talent is an aptitude for something from your brain.

F1 is a difficult example as I tried to explain previously due to physiological inputs. Though I do find it funny the reason for the differences between the best racing drivers in the world is not in their training, approach, techiques etc, but just a "natural ability" that we can't explain, can't be explained or quantified. To me this sounds a bit of a religious argument!

Music is a much better example, as physiologial differences have marginal bearing on ability.
Do you think Mozart's talent meant he could just open a piano one day and play concertos? Or was it that his father the composer trained him from the age of 3, several hours a day every day so music became his first language. Beethoven was similar, his father and grandfather being prominent and accomplished musicians.

Just describing the differences between people as being due to talent is rather pointless. Where is the evidence a talent can exist that can make you better at music than someone else. Without this evidence, talent may as well be "God's will".

[Efbe]

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 - nurture
Languages - nurture
Ability to talk, make toast, drive, play a violin, all nurture.

[grumbledoak]

Efbe said:

Just describing the differences between people as being due to talent is rather pointless. Where is the evidence a talent can exist that can make you better at music than someone else. Without this evidence, talent may as well be "God's will".

Just because we don't have a proven theory for things we observe doesn't mean they aren't there, or that we must conclude that it is God's Will. Only that we don't fully understand it.

The Universe is quite spectacularly indifferent to us understanding it.

[Efbe]

grumbledoak said:

Just because we don't have a proven theory for things we observe doesn't mean they aren't there, or that we must conclude that it is God's Will. Only that we don't fully understand it.

The Universe is quite spectacularly indifferent to us understanding it.

We know a great deal about the brain. So give me a non-proven theory then that falls in line with what we know already.

[grumbledoak]

Efbe said:

We know a great deal about the brain. So give me a non-proven theory then that falls in line with what we know already.

I don't need to do that. As I have said, babies all come out different. I am happy to assume that extends to other attributes until shown otherwise.

How about the other way around? Dyslexia - it's all down to crap parents and fashionable teaching methods, isn't it?

[Efbe]

grumbledoak said:

I don't need to do that. As I have said, babies all come out different. I am happy to assume that extends to other attributes until shown otherwise.

How about the other way around? Dyslexia - it's all down to crap parents and fashionable teaching methods, isn't it?

IIRC, dyslexia is most likely(a current theory ) due to neuronal migration problems caused by a combination of specific genomes.

It would fall into the bucket I was trying ot avoid of abnormalities in the brain... caused by physiological issues including but not limited to deficiencies in the sustenance(etc) of the brain.

[grumbledoak]

Efbe said:

IIRC, dyslexia is most likely(a current theory ) due to neuronal migration problems caused by a combination of specific genomes.

Interesting that your explanation is nature for a deficiency and nurture for a talent.

Personally I believe that our natural variation gives us predispositions and limits. A predisposition plus nurture will angle someone toward greatness, but there's hard work and luck in the final reckoning too.

ETA - I suspect that theories concerning dyslexia are skirting a couple of unwelcome elephants in the room.

Edited by grumbledoak on Sunday 5th February 15:49

[otolith]

Efbe said:

Just describing the differences between people as being due to talent is rather pointless. Where is the evidence a talent can exist that can make you better at music than someone else. Without this evidence, talent may as well be "God's will".

If you assert that there is no heritable variation in the capability of human brains, can you explain your theory for how we came to have those capabilities at all?