Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
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.Whilst training and dedication can get you so far - if you don't also have a natural talent, you are probably never going to get close to Usain Bolt.
Some people are just not built that way and no amount of training or dedication will overcome it - genetics definitely play a large part.
Efbe said:
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.The Universe is quite spectacularly indifferent to us understanding it.
And... "We know a great deal about the brain..."... really? I think there is a great deal more we don't know... why do some people get dementia, and others not? Why do some people remember names and faces easily, and I struggle? Why am I good at English, but bad at learning other languages?
We know so little about the brain that there is no theory that fits everything we know already for most differences in brain function (e.g. ADHD, why some people grow out of it and some don't), so how can I give you one?
The evidence is there for a genetic element to brain function, both in general (the fact we evolved to this point), and specific (study of identical twins brought up separately).
You said you put up a "straw man", you've had the answers, so what gives?
fesuvious said:
And why some people, no matter how hard they work never become as good as others.
Despite working as hard, or harder
Not at all.Despite working as hard, or harder
If I work really hard to learn Japanese I will not learn very much.
If you gve me a "Learn Japanese" book I will learn much faster.
If I live in Japan, have a tutor with me 24x7 and spend my entire life learning the language I will be great.
If I have learned several languages before, spent a life time learning how to learn new languages, studying diferent types of languages and the construction of them and then do the above I will be the best.
This is not talent, this is the route you have taken to get to a certain point and the dedication required.
If two people do the same thing, one missing a few seconds of a lesson compared to the other could make all the difference.
grumbledoak said:
Interesting that your explanation is nature for a deficiency and nurture for a talent. 
There are efficiencies as well as deficiencies
otolith said:
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?Edited by Efbe on Sunday 5th February 19:42
fesuvious said:
To deny natural talent exists is a position I find unfathomable.
Its impossible to prove or disprove.
But people witness it in others throughout their lives.
It can be disproven by showing there are no means in conveying talent.Its impossible to prove or disprove.
But people witness it in others throughout their lives.
It can be proven by showing there is, testing the difference in the brain of whatever is causing resulting differences in the talent ability and correlating this.
This is science.
"Talent" in others is an easy way of not trying. Hard work, dedication, the right circumstances, upbringing, environment, supporting skills and physiology is the real difference.
Efbe said:
It can be disproven by showing there are no means in conveying talent.
No, it can't. We know the means is genetics via DNA. Just because we cannot fully explain the process yet does not mean it doesn't exist.For comparison, when Darwin and others proposed the theory of evolution, they could not show any "means" by which it could be "conveyed". Did that "disprove" evolution?
You're still committing the basic logical fallacy: "I don't know it so it doesn't exist"
Efbe said:
Our brains are actually very similar to that of chimpanzees, there is obviously variation through evolution, largely limited to brain size the inputs that go into our brains and non-neuron cells such as progenitors.
But the functionality of our brains is well in excess, and the difference is down to our genome. We have greater cognitive ability than our ancestor species. How did we acquire that, if not through heritable variation between individuals?Edited by Efbe on Sunday 5th February 19:42
Efbe said:
It can be disproven by showing there are no means in conveying talent.
But 'talent' is likely just a manifestation of a combination of certain physical and mental attributes.Somebody who is 'talented' at music for example might have good hand/finger coordination (for hitting the right keys on a piano at the right time), good pattern recognition (for reading music) etc.
The pre-disposition for these things are likely to be encoded into our DNA - just as our physical attributes of hair colour, handedness etc are.
So whilst there may be not 'talent' gene per-se, a combination of certain genetically encoded factors may well manifest itself as something we call 'talent' (we must of course remember that 'talent' is largely a human construct anyway and is somewhat subjective). Something is only really considered 'talented' if other people find it pleasing or of particular merit.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 5th February 22:23
otolith said:
But the functionality of our brains is well in excess, and the difference is down to our genome. We have greater cognitive ability than our ancestor species. How did we acquire that, if not through heritable variation between individuals?
Our brain is 45% larger than man 1mn years ago. 320% larger than a chimps.This is the main difference. Just as a bigger CPU has more capabilities, so does a brain.
The other is our inputs as I described. Our eyesight, ears, mouth etc allow us to see, communicate, understand. Our hands enable us to manipulate items, which is the corner stone of learning. Combine these and we are able to put 2+2 together to start learning and developing. A dolphin has a larger brain/more neurons, but no hands, can't interact with objects, so can't start the learning process we go down.
The architecture has changed too though hardly at all from early man. The metabolism of our brain, it's plasticity and the number of neurons we are born with. I discussed neurons at the start of this thread, and the lack of correlation with intelligence, also neural plasticity, and also briefly metabolism. None of these account for the differences in intelligence between people, and certainly don't account for talents.
This is how humans have developed their cognition.
Even if we could define a difference between people based on their architecture, it would not give us an explanation for talent. There is no one part of our brain that deals with music, the whole thing does. You cannot have denser neurons, more plasticity or faster synapses in one part and not another. So if you are to be talented at one thing, you would be talented at everything.
The fact that you don't know the neurological mechanism for a given phenotype doesn't mean that it cannot be heritable. And you can't say that we have evolved these capabilities by means of the things we can measure while simultaneously saying that the things we can measure don't explain the variation. So what is your proposed mechanism for the emergence of these mental capabilities given that you don't believe they are subject to natural selection?
Efbe said:
this is all a little thin on science though isn't it. Anecdotal is nice and all, but not really useful.
There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect. I don't think it does.
I'd agree, and so would the weight of psychology research. At least the stuff that's concerned with expertise, whether it's music, mathematics, art or sport... . Being flippant - Mozart may well have been playing to an audience at 4, but someone sure as hell showed him how to. There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect. I don't think it does.
Never posted in this section before but the talk of natural talent led me to want to post.
I am completely in the camp of natural talent is a thing.
John Daly a case in point. He has a natural gift for hand-eye coordination and motor skills far beyond the average person.
For those saying natural talent isn't a thing, how would you describe athletes such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps?
I am completely in the camp of natural talent is a thing.
John Daly a case in point. He has a natural gift for hand-eye coordination and motor skills far beyond the average person.
For those saying natural talent isn't a thing, how would you describe athletes such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps?
Flipfloptrader said:
.For those saying natural talent isn't a thing, how would you describe athletes such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps?
Natural talent is not a 'thing' genes play a small part but when names of great athletes are used to say 'there you go,' natural talent exists ignores the fact that you are observing mastery of a skill. what you don't see is what the individual did to get there, and that is shear hard graft, and adaptation through training. No one is born with greatness.Toaster said:
Natural talent is not a 'thing' genes play a small part but when names of great athletes are used to say 'there you go,' natural talent exists ignores the fact that you are observing mastery of a skill. what you don't see is what the individual did to get there, and that is shear hard graft, and adaptation through training. No one is born with greatness.
All the other people you are competing with can put in the same amount of graft too. You aren't going to be world class at anything without working your arse off - but you can work your arse off, have the best of guidance and opportunity, and still be beaten by someone who is simply genetically advantaged over you and just as hard working and lucky. In many sports, without the right kind of body to start with you will never be a professional, let alone a world champion.
otolith said:
All the other people you are competing with can put in the same amount of graft too.
You aren't going to be world class at anything without working your arse off - but you can work your arse off, have the best of guidance and opportunity, and still be beaten by someone who is simply genetically advantaged over you and just as hard working and lucky. In many sports, without the right kind of body to start with you will never be a professional, let alone a world champion.
You are right and wrong You aren't going to be world class at anything without working your arse off - but you can work your arse off, have the best of guidance and opportunity, and still be beaten by someone who is simply genetically advantaged over you and just as hard working and lucky. In many sports, without the right kind of body to start with you will never be a professional, let alone a world champion.
the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talent they grew in to it Toaster said:
You are right and wrong the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it
Could Bernie Ecclestone have been an NBA centre? Could someone with the height and frame of Geoff Capes be a current F1 champion? Could Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have achieved equal success in each other's disciplines? Different sports suit different bodies, and while there are certainly things you can change, there are others you can't. the wrong bit is 'without the right kind of body' so an example here is where through adaptation the lactate turn point can be changed, so someone who is world class only becomes world class because physiological conditioing has taken place. in other w words this is Nurture not nature. through the Nuturing the fundamental nature of the individual has changed.............they were not born with talant they grew in to it Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff