Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent

[Efbe]

Absolute pitch does not correlate to musical ability. There is research to prove this.
Musical pitch can be taught.

otolith said:

I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA.

How does this research fit with your model?

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...

that is incredibly interesting

I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!

[Efbe]

otolith said:

Efbe said:

Absolute pitch does not correlate to musical ability. There is research to prove this.
Musical pitch can be taught.

Relative pitch can be taught in most people, and you can approximate AP if you have RP and a lot of practice, but it's not the same as untrained children having it. The attempt to train true AP in adults which showed that some people could do it also showed that the ability to learn to do it varied and depended on the individual's auditory working memory - for which there is evidence of heritability. I raised it not because it is fundamental to musical ability in general, but because it is a specific aspect of sound processing which appears to vary intrinsically between individuals. If that, why not other attributes?

Efbe said:

otolith said:

I think you are assuming that genetics can only impact gross brain morphology and the formation of a blank canvass, after which everything is determined by environment. But every protein controlling every aspect of how the brain works is transcribed from a bit of DNA. Every process taking place within your brain for the entire duration of your life is mediated by mechanisms ultimately encoded in DNA.

How does this research fit with your model?

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/impe...

that is incredibly interesting

I can't remember if I touched on this before, I think I did, but anyhow... What I would assume these genes do is change the architecture of the neurons and synapses themselves. possibly changing the speed or the way they communicate.
Should this be true, then it would affect all areas of the brain, changing the overall intelligence, not just a specific talent. It would also mean I could turn my brain up!

That would depend how and where and when they are expressed, though. We just don't have a good enough mechanistic understanding of how genetics and environment interact in the development of mind. I suspect that a brain which has the potential to be a great chess player has the potential to be lots of other things too, but I wouldn't like to guess whether it is the same sort of brain which has the potential to be a great composer or a great painter. Or if it does have those potentialities, whether at some point in its development, perhaps because of environment, perhaps in an essentially random manner, perhaps even in utero, it forks in a way which precludes those other possibilities. I don't think, however, that given an equal environment we would all grow up with the same abilities.

Well thanks Otolith, it's been an interesting thread

You partially broke down my straw man, and you are quite correct that we just don't know enough about this subject at all yet to be confident in any answer.
Given what we know so far there seems to be a possibility there could be a genetic influence on intelligence, though whether the variance is enough to amount to any real difference is another matter, so far complete research has shown no signs of this, but emerging research may show us something different.
In terms of specific talents there is currently nothing to support this idea, and whilst there may just be something we have not found yet, I will stick to my guns that a specific(rather than general) talent cannot be inherent, it has to be taught.

If you do come across any more research on this I would very much like to see it!

[Efbe]

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

Ash, Kind of. Nature is essentially what you have when you are conceived and what your DNA will control and make for you.

You are given your nose by nature. the shape and size is in your DNA, there isn't a lot you can do about it.
Nurture would be any external input on you. so yes talking to a unborn baby would be included as nurture. If a child is left to their own devices to learn, this would still be nurture.

[Efbe]

popeyewhite said:

XM5ER said:

I think we are now talking about three different things. Genius in the sporting arena as opposed to intelligence.

The OP concerns genius, not intelligence. You first mentioned 10,000 hrs, which is most often examined from a sports basis.

XM5ER said:

The idea that all kids are the same...

I don't think I've inferred that, in fact I acknowledged that talent exists and some people learn more quickly and at different stages than others.
What I will say is people need to understand the clear difference between genius, which is most often developed over a lifetime, and talent, which is an innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task. Perhaps a better question as the OP might be "Are people born experts?".

I'm not sure of your point about kittens and puppies, what you observe isn't personality - it's behaviour. As a dog ages you may think you are able to detect individual personality traits but it's still pretty hard to ascertain conscientiousness, extroversion or neuroticism in an animal!

Just looking at the idea that talent is a "innate ability to perform slightly better than a cross section of your peers at a given task". As opposed to an overall better intelligence, reaction speed, memory etc.

This is broadly what I have been mostly discussing in this thread, trying to find evidence for and against it.
I have not found a single supporting piece of scientific evidence that supports the idea of talent, other than what I feel are misplaced studies on twins, siblings etc. To explain, these really don't tell us anything given the complexity of people's upbringing, relationships, differences in people’s attitudes to twins and society's attitude towards twins.

So the science I have been looking for is around the genome, DNA, effects on talent in specific areas, what can possibly happen and the mechanisms of the brain, how it develops etc.

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.

[Efbe]

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

XM5ER said:

Toaster said:

AshVX220 said:

Don't have time right now to read through the whole thread (will catch up on it again later). But a quick thought while it's in my head.

Is the brain much like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger/larger (therefore smarter) you become?

If so, if someone spends a lot of time talking to the child in the mothers womb, not about anything specific, just random chat may do enough to exercise the feotus' brain and cause it to develop faster? If so, this would be considered "nurture", rather than nature I guess.

Also, maybe a lack of "nurture" in some cases (parents that don't care) may force a child to seek out stimulus on it's own, therefore increasing their own intellect, would this be considered "nature"? And if so, why would some children seek out the stimulus, while others are just happy to be ignored and do bugger all?

The Brain is nothing like a muscle and there are multiple intelligences something that has been pointed out is that despite repeated attempts no or limited improvement may be made cognitively or physically.

Not true. The brain does change through external input (of course it does, how else do you think we learn).

The "knowledge" taxi drivers study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253...

Ok perhaps a better worded reply: I did not say that the brain does not respond to external stimulus, I said its not like a muscle, I also said that there are multiple intelligences for example IQ, Emotional, etc whilst an individual may get stimulus in a particular way being taught Math does not guarantee they will get smarter at Math in fact there may be limited to no increase in cognitive ability.

Regarding a child or adult's reasoning for gaining stimulus as you say then look to Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution theory.

What is clear from various responses and papers and general study is that the OP is largely incorrect in that talent and/or genius is a mixture of nature (genetic and epigenetic), nurture (implicit and explicit learning) and motivation (Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self attribution).

As an aside, a friend of mine is a PhD Psychology who has studied a great deal in behavioral psychology and psychopathy in leadership. That person is strongly of the belief that thereis only one kind of intelligence and that it can pointed in any direction (i.e. EQ is learned, implicitly or explicitly, and based on IQ).

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.

[Efbe]

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?

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.

[Efbe]

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.

very true.
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]

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.

No, but was there a pre-disposition to learn the skill? As far as I'm aware, we don't have sufficient evidence to prove it either way. Given what we know about evolution though, I think it's very likely that a pre-disposition to certain tasks is indeed genetic. Yes, the key thread through all sports people like Federer is usually determination and obsession, but I'm sure an element of it must be genetic, because most traits vary to some degree, which is how evolution works. Without that variation we wouldn't be here.

As discussed in this thread we do have that knowledge/evidence.
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.

[Efbe]

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]

RobM77 said:

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.

Rob

As popeye has briefly mentioned above, there is no evidence your genome can have any impact on your talents, which are created through the links(synapses) created between your neurons (synaptogenesis) after you are conceived.

there is a study looking into the effects of your genome and the speed of synapse speed/reaction which in it's early stages indicates a potential for differences, which would be expected, as this has provided part of the route of evolution.
The main part of evolution however is the number of neurons in your brain, this is where we differ from primates, dogs and Donald trump. However though you may expect more neurons would give you an adge over someone else, this is not the case, due to a relatively small variation in neuron numbers between humans, there is no correlation between neuron numbers and intelligence.

So potentially synapse speed could affect overall intelligence, this is an emerging field, though indicative results show the difference created would not be meaningful to impact intelligence. However conclusions cannot be drawn here yet. However neuron number does not. (brain size is a function of this, but it gets more complicated, because the more you use it, the bigger it gets due to supporting structures)

This could mean the concept of IQ being innate is rubbish too