Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent

[Efbe]

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?

[Efbe]

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 have yet to see any definitive evidence of it, 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?

[Efbe]

Piaget's theories are very interesting, but he consistently failed to take into consideration social and environmental factors. From what I remember reading at university of his work, the focus was far more on the development of the child rather than the nature side of it.

As for the twins test, for me it is poor science. Children that are identical are treated differently to those that are not. I think a person's looks do influence how they are treated greatly. But not only that. Identical twins are usually brought up in a very different manner to nonidentical, to regular siblings.

To prove genetics could affect a persons intelligence/talent/natural ability I think you would need to see a potential differentiation in the brains chemistry or makeup from birth that could have an impact on the talents of a person.

[Efbe]

jimmy156 said:

Turn this around though, and its a lot more obvious to see that genetics do have an effect on ability.

As a teacher, you must have seen those students who have all the support at home, try their absolute hardest, produce beautiful revision notes, but are never truly going to do well academically.

Completely yes.
I taught in both state schools and private, though mostly the latter.
Quantity vs quality is the reason some tutoring and schooling just doesn't work.

You can force a child to read for hours upon end, but the hallelujah moment will come in the 30 seconds they really want to read a sentence and see the logic (or illogic) of English and how vowels and consonants go together.

I have never met a child (excepting special needs) that could not progress at the same rate as the rest of the class. I have taight children that ad already been taght very good techniques for learning and approaches to subjects. This was not a talent however, it is still something they had to work for.

[Efbe]

Moonhawk said:

That's why school is a little unfair in many ways. Kids are expected to 'get it' in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time. Sometimes if something isn't taught in a particular way - some kids might never get it. Some may take much longer for things to click and by the time it does, the kid may have already been written off.

I did ok with maths at school (GCSE C grade) but tried it at A-level and dropped out as I just couldn't get my head around it.

I went to Uni on clearing to do a degree in Chemistry on the advice of my Chemistry teacher. Maths finally clicked one day during my degree as I was being forced to use a lot. I had a eureka moment one day and after that it came much easier. I ultimately walked out with a 2:1 in Chemistry and went on to do post graduate research in molecular modelling and quantum mechanics (very maths heavy).

Moonhawk.
Interesting scenario.
I am sure that if you were taught the maths techniques in the same way at GCSE/A-level as you were taught at degree level, then it would have clicked so much earlier for you. It usually is something just as simple as the way an equation is demonstrated. A couple of words here or there, and the teacher listening and watching what the student is doing to see if they follow, or if they need it wording in a different way.

But, had the nature debate been correct, you would have been identified as someone that just could not get maths, however shown in a different way at a young age, then you would have been described as a talented mathematician.

which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.

[Efbe]

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]

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.

[Efbe]

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.

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

[Efbe]

otolith said:

You may find this review interesting;


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC40735...

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

[Efbe]

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.

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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Efbe]

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.

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?

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.

Edited by Efbe on Sunday 5th February 19:42

[Efbe]

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.
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]

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.

[Efbe]

otolith said:

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.

you are picking sports which are largely based on physiology.

Chess vs Piano would be a much better comparison. Could I have been the best chess player in the world? I would argue I could have. But I started too late and did not devote enough time, I did not have the best teachers or techniques in the world, so I was not. Could I have been the best piano player in the world? Same answer again. Yes.


Going back to your earlier post, I think we are basing our arguments on different view sets, The assumption I have drawn from the research I have read is that the architecture between people of the brain when it is first created is too similar to draw a difference.
That intelligence comes from the interaction of the neurons by synapses. Neurons are the same for all people, as are synapses, the difference being which neuron the synapses link between. It is this linking that provides the power of the brain. These pathways are not governed by your genome, they cannot be, as they link between neurons as lightning chooses which tree to hit.
Each time the lightning strikes, environmental differences alter to change which tree is impacted. The same with synapses, though the routes can be re-written with plasticity later on and throughout your life.
If talent were real, then synaptogenesis (the routing of synapses) would be created from your genome. they are not.

[Efbe]

Piersman2 said:

Ok, taking everything you've just said above as true.

What if different people have differing genetically effected paths and links between differing areas of the brain? The brain is not one 'lump' of matter, it's a whole series of areas which are effected by differing stimuli and interconnections which we are still a long way off understanding.

So you may be correct to summise that everyone's brain will build connections in the same manner, but that is a long way from proving that we all are born with brains which will develop the same given the same nurturing.

Why is it that two seeds from the same plant, planted together, will not be identical in growth? Based on your theory they should be identical, same number of stems, branches, leaves, etc...? No one would argue that the process of their growth is fundementally the same at cellular level, but one of them will be grow taller than the other.

differing genetically effected paths - This does not exist. synaptogenesis is not affected by your DNA.

You maybe missing my point on brains building connections. though we all have the same mechanism to build synapses (unless you have a deficiency in which synapses are harder to create, or break down for some reason) each connection that is built is completely unique to you. It is your brain's fingerprint, albeit one that will rewrite itself billions of times throughout your life. And so everyone will be different, no two people will be the same, identical twins will have different ideas, actions and reactions.


Without a link between synaptogenesis and the genome there is no way you could inherit a specific talent. This is my argument around talent distilled down.