What is talent?

[Matus1976]

Well Jonathan, I am glad to see there is some pretentious abrasiveness on this forum after all to warrant the moderator’s criticisms. Assuming you are right then, Jonathan, how come you are not great? Were you born so retarded that you can not pick up an instrument and pluck a string, or so dumb that you can not read and write? Is your brain unable to form long term memories or even to recognize patterns, like an idiot savant? Are you a moron, idiot, retard, imbecile or what?

I have not one single time ever advocated that because a person is capable of great things that they owe it to themselves or to society to do them. No one has the moral obligation to do absolutely everything they can to be great. That implies you have some obligation that you owe the world for your own existence. If you want to be great and work toward doing great things that is your own prerogative. To think they have some moral obligation is hardly more than the modern secular equivalent of original sin. To attribute your lack of greatness, however, to some abstract mystical fundamental inability because you weren’t ‘born’ with the right stuff is extremely intellectually dishonest. If you have ever thought ‘Well no matter how hard I try I couldn’t do it’ then you have committed this ultimate lie to yourself.

As to why I am not great, if you had actually read any of the posts or thought for 10 seconds about what I was saying, instead of looking for an opportunity to jump out and pat yourself on the back for trying to insult someone, you would have noticed that, for starters, to even become an ‘expert’ at something requires about 20,000 hours of effort, or about 10 years. See Scientific Americans excellent article on the subject - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...r=1&catID=2 which again presents plenty of scientific evidence supporting what I have been saying. How many hours are required to be a great genius? Probably more like 50,000. To become a genius at something requires devotion to virtually that one thing and nothing else for a large part of your life, I have no interest in becoming the greatest weldor to walk to face of the earth, nor the greatest 3d animator, I intend only to become good enough at the things I study in order for them to be useful for my long term goals. So you make the extremely incorrect assumption that because one *could* be great they ought to be, that because I think (and the evidence backs me up) almost anyone can be a genius at almost anything that I must become a genius at something, or that I would even want to become the greatest of any particular thing.

If you can only contribute abrasive attempts at insult please do not bother to contribute. Were you born with that ability or have you been developing it with effort over time?

I was not aware that Rand’s philosophy, which advocated the idea that all the great advances of humanity have come from the singular intransigent effort of a minority or great, motivated, hard working individuals staying true to their ultimate ideals (which the scientific evidence backs) was replaced with the mystical notion of the great god kings born in material form on earth and blessing us with their innate greatness.

Michael F Dickey

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

This thread is called “What is Talent”—not “What Talent IS.” I stand by this. I am asking questions and seeking answers. For me, the answer is not "a given."

For me, talent can be said to be a “raw material” that can be honed when one consciously decides to become a craftsman of these materials. There is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities, and I've come to understand that Rand was particularly referring to conscious thought with her tabula rasa proclamation. Of course, it's what we choose to do with those abilities that determine our course.*(1) That's where knowledge comes in. That man is born tabula rasa means only that he doesn't have knowledge at birth. In this case, I agree with Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

Knowledge begins with sense experience--but there's nothing to say that different capacities can't be innate. And it is this “capacity” which we may call talent—talent usually being a word employed to refer to creative capacities. Drawing is a skill with various components—one of those components being eye and hand coordination. I think what's “innate” is probably more mental capacity than talent, but nothing hinges on the question philosophically.**(2) So maybe a better word is “capacity.” For example, I understand that there is both a cognitive and a physical aspect to music that form sensitivity to pitch, meter, and rhythm. Such a person can take these sensitivities and utilize them to improvise or imitate musical ideas. The sensitivities themselves are the raw talent, the “raw material.” Their utilization is essentially mental capacity. Of course the application of training serves to improve both.***(3)

Here, I’ll remove the example from speaking personally. I tried to tell you of my own capacity to draw at a very young age that Wowed the adults around me. Something unique was there. But a different example. There is a friend of mine whose mom has told him that since infancy, whenever music was being played, he would pay attention--very keenly. When he was around two years old, his family took him to a wedding of a relative where the wedding march was played. The next day he was playing the wedding march on a little toy keyboard. It was amazing. Ability wasn't the right word to use, but from the beginning he exhibited great sensitivity to music.****(4) This is NOT characteristic of everybody. So I don't think I'm tossing reason or reality, but rather, I'm an observer of it--esp. as a visual artist. And my observations are not mystical and I never said hard work doesn't factor in a life! My god, you should know about my personal struggle.

In any event, I think that there are piles of evidence to show that people are NOT born equally—metaphysically. On this matter, the Egalitarians would argue with me.

Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from Post on "Talent." thread on Solo Passion website (2006-06-15 05:13) by Jennifer Iannolo. The original passage reads as follows:

(1)

For me the analogy is that of raw materials being honed when one consciously decides to become a craftsman of said materials.

. . .

To me there is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities, and I've come to understand that Rand was specifically referring to conscious thought with her

tabula rasa

statement. Of course, it's what we choose to do with those abilities that determines our course.

** Plagiarized from Post on "Talent." thread on Solo Passion website (2006-06-15 03:39) by Penelope. The original passage reads as follows:

(2)

That man is born tabula rasa means only that he doesn't have

knowledge

at birth. Knowledge begins with sense experience. But now talent, there's nothing to say that different capacities can't be innate, at least to some degree. I don't think your example proves that though. Drawing is a skill with various components--knowing how to look at things and see their line and shading components, being able to translate what you see into hand movements that would result in a drawing, etc. All of those could very well depend on acquired knowledge, albeit knowledge acquired at a very very early stage. The music example is a bit better, but even there I think what's innate is probably more mental capacity than talent, but nothing hinges on the question philosophically.

*** Plagiarized from Post on "Talent." thread on Solo Passion website (2006-06-15 04:34) by Adam Buker. The original passage reads as follows:

(3)

In music there is both a cognitive and a physical aspect to music that form a sensitivity to pitch, meter, and rhythm. Such a person like myself can take these senitivities and utilize them to improvise or imitate musical ideas (this is true of trained and untrained musicians alike). The sensitivities themselves are the raw talent. Their utilization is essentially mental capacity. The application of training serves to improve both.

**** Plagiarized from Post on "Talent." thread on Solo Passion website (2006-06-15 04:44) by Adam Buker. The original passage reads as follows:

(4)

My mom has told me that since infancy, whenever music was being played, no matter what I was doing, I would pay attention. When I was around two years old, my family took me to a wedding of a relative (it was the first wedding I had ever been to). The next day mom hear me playing the wedding march on a little toy keyboard someone bought me as a present. Ability wasn't the right word to use, but my mom and dad have made clear to me that from the beginning I exhibited great sensitivity to music.

For initial identification of these plagiarisms, please see here. OL extends its deepest apologies to Jennifer Iannolo, Penelope and Adam Buker.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

If you are really interested in the subject of the differences of inborn capacities between different human beings, I suggest the best place to look would be child prodigies. They display a vastly different capacity talent-wise from the rest of humanity. I also would look at the mentally impaired. They also show a huge difference in talent.

I find it amazing that Objectivists can look at evidence like that and blank it out, then try to attribute a false position to the person who does acknowledge the existence of phenomena like child prodigies and those with mental disorders. These people exist and they are measured, irrespective of the opinions of anyone.

As far as the controversy goes, the existence of mental differences does not eliminate the component of effort. I know of no one who has ever proclaimed this. So why argue against it? Can you or anyone provide me with such a person. I certainly am not one.

Actually, philosophically speaking, the notion that all men are born biologically equal in mental capacity is a collectivist and egalitarian notion taken to a metaphysical level. It is pure rationalization and is not based on anything observed. Fortunately there is oodles of evidence demonstrating innate mental differences between individuals for those who wish to look.

Here is a Wikipedia link: Child prodigy. There is some interesting information on PET scans. That's a starter for facts.

(Michael D - I was not referring to you in specific. I will answer your questions later.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

If you are really interested in the subject of the differences of inborn capacities between different human beings, I suggest the best place to look would be child prodigies. They display a vastly different capacity talent-wise from the rest of humanity. I also would look at the mentally impaired. They also show a huge difference in talent.

I find it amazing that Objectivists can look at evidence like that and blank it out, then try to attribute a false position to the person who does acknowledge the existence of phenomena like child prodigies and those with mental disorders. These people exist and they are measured, irrespective of the opinions of anyone.

It’s amazing. MSK was writing his post as I was writing mine. I see that he stresses the word CAPACITIES as I did. As for MSK observing Objectivists attributing a false position to those of opposing views—to ascribe ME as a mystic is truly laughable. Folks, look at the evidence indeed!

[Johnny]

I'm a musician/songwriter...

To clarify, I wasn't making a qualitative judgment of one over the other, no way!! Not those two, for sure!

I was trying to point out the different means to the end(s), both beautiful and brilliant.

Of course and I would never dispute they arrived at their works of art through different paths. But I think the crux of the conversation on this thread is, is it due to any innate differences or was the fact Mozart and Beethoveen were different composers because of different environmental factors?

[Johnny]

There are many books about innate intelligence and child prodigies. Citing them to us is not evidence they are correct in their assumptions. There are also mounds of scientific journals that have not come to the conclusion there is any such thing as a natural talent. So honestly, citing a book or an author is not quite as good as citing them and then presenting their arguments in your own words.

[sjw]

I find it amazing that Objectivists can look at evidence like that and blank it out, then try to attribute a false position to the person who does acknowledge the existence of phenomena like child prodigies and those with mental disorders. These people exist and they are measured, irrespective of the opinions of anyone.

This point of yours is just absolutely ridiculous. I have stated over and over again that there are indeed inborn capacities (something the mental retardation makes clear but the child prodigy case does not, there you are just being circular again). This kind of distortion of my position makes me disinclined to address any of your other points: before I respond to your points, maybe you'd better actually try to read what points I've made.

Shayne

[sjw]

It’s amazing. MSK was writing his post as I was writing mine. I see that he stresses the word CAPACITIES as I did. As for MSK observing Objectivists attributing a false position to those of opposing views—to ascribe ME as a mystic is truly laughable. Folks, look at the evidence indeed!

What's amazing is that *I* was the one that stressed the concept of CAPACITIES and now you guys are taking the credit.

Shayne

[Johnny]

It’s amazing. MSK was writing his post as I was writing mine. I see that he stresses the word CAPACITIES as I did. As for MSK observing Objectivists attributing a false position to those of opposing views—to ascribe ME as a mystic is truly laughable. Folks, look at the evidence indeed!

What's amazing is that *I* was the one that stressed the concept of CAPACITIES and now you guys are taking the credit.

Shayne

And unless someone suffers from a genetic disease that results in retardation like Down Syndrome, there is very little difference in the mental capacities between healthy adults. And none of that speaks to any such thing as "natural talent".

[Victor Pross]

But Johnny, child prodigies are observable facts—except for those Objectivists who regard them as a threat—or as fallaciously contrary--to Rand’s position.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We should be careful to remember that a word has more than one definition and that the word "talent" is used (not by Rand, but in the culture at large) to indicate both innate potential and developed capacity. This is a case where a lot of polemics happen over semantics.

Looking for something that's not there is a form of evading reality not adhering to it.

This point of yours is just absolutely ridiculous. I have stated over and over again that there are indeed inborn capacities (something the mental retardation makes clear but the child prodigy case does not, there you are just being circular again). This kind of distortion of my position makes me disinclined to address any of your other points: before I respond to your points, maybe you'd better actually try to read what points I've made.

What part of my post above did you not understand? I suggest a better reading of it before you start slinging around "evasion" and the normal litany of Objectivist insults. If argument is to be just trading insults, then I see no reason for discussing anything.

Michael

[sjw]

But Johnny, child prodigies are observable facts

This is an eloquent demonstration of the problem. You regard a complex abstract conclusion as a "fact". Rand had a concept for people who characteristically make that error. Maybe it's not politically correct to name it.

Shayne

[Johnny]

But Johnny, child prodigies are observable facts—except for those Objectivists who regard them as a threat—or as fallaciously contrary--to Rand’s position.

But Victor, that you would automatically attribute a child prodigy to innate talent is unfounded. Most of these child prodigies are child prodigies becasue they start at such an early age, are deprived of any other activity in their lives, and are quite often psychologically, emotionally or sometimes physically abused by a parent to perform well and to practice all the time, and quite frankly aren't really all that impressive as a 'genius' only for say the fact considering their young age they are a genius. In fact we don't call them geniuses but rather "child prodigy" and for a very good reason. Because if we hold a "child prodigy" up to the standard of an adult considered a "genius" in his particlur field, the child prodigy is considerably less accomplished. Mozart wrote Twinkle Twinkle Little Star at age 6. Tell me you're really that impressed if an accomplished Classical musician at age 45 wrote something similar? You wouldn't be. Only the fact Mozart was playing piano and forced to do so by his father day in and day out did he arrive at writing music on that level.

Often times as well stories of child prodigies are exaggerated for dramatic purposes and personal biases. There is very little science in the term "child prodigy".

[sjw]

What part of my post above did you not understand?

I didn't claim to misunderstand your post. I claimed that you ignored mine when you accused me of evading the fact that we differ in capacities--ridiculous when I was the first one here to use that term to refer to that fact.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't claim to misunderstand your post. I claimed that you ignored mine when you accused me of evading the fact that we differ in capacities--ridiculous when I was the first one here to use that term to refer to that fact.

Shayne,

Do you have any problem with the fact that the word "talent" has more than one meaning?

Michael

[sjw]

And unless someone suffers from a genetic disease that results in retardation like Down Syndrome, there is very little difference in the mental capacities between healthy adults. And none of that speaks to any such thing as "natural talent".

You're right that "capacity" is a radically different concept than "talent". Michael K. and Victor seem to be comfortable equating them somehow, but I totally disagree with that. "Talent" refers to something far more concrete, like a talent for writing, or a talent for music, or basketball; "capacity" refers to non-man-made and more abstract potentials for action and growth.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Johnny, you know nothing of me. I have been studying Objectivism for fifteen years, and I don’t come at the question of talent [or anything else] without an Objectivist frame work, but I do have a greater allegiance to myself and reality over Ayn Rand.

You said: You regard a complex abstract conclusion as a ‘fact’

Johnny, do you think I’m a wet-behind the ears pup when it comes to Objectivist epistemology? The “complex abstraction” regarding child prodigies sprang from observable facts, thus the concept—we are not talking about 'God' here.

Let me ask you this: you have been doing some cheery-picking among the posts here, but I’m curious to know of how you account for my musical friend plucking the wedding march tune [age two] and my own—observable—leap at being able to draw at so young an age. Why was that? And since we are both employing the word “capacities” here, are we still on opposing sides? What’s the nature of our disagreement—if any? Do you still think I’m a mystic?

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

[Do you have any problem with the fact that the word "talent" has more than one meaning?

We need a word to refer to the alleged inborn ability to perform certain concrete skills. And we need a word to refer to the fact that we are all ultimately limited by nature. I call the former "talent" and the latter "capacity". I have no heartburn with claiming someone has a "talent for basketball", but when they really mean "inborn talent for basketball", I do. I'd agree with saying he had certain capacities he utilized to his utmost, such as being tall, or some as-yet-unconceptualized mental capacities, from which he developed his "talent". Talent is mostly man-made. It's like all other man-made things: starting from raw materials (in this case, capacities), man remakes the world in his image, in this case, himself in the image of his own ideal.

Shayne

[Johnny]

Johnny, you know nothing of me. I have been studying Objectivism for fifteen years, and I don’t come at the question of talent [or anything else] without an Objectivist frame work, but I do have a greater allegiance to myself and reality over Ayn Rand.

Um....ok. Did I ever presume to know anything about you more than what you have written in this thread?

You said: You regard a complex abstract conclusion as a ‘fact’

No I didn't say that. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Johnny, do you think I’m a wet-behind the ears pup when it comes to Objectivist epistemology?

Hey Victor, seriously what's with the chip on your shoulder attitude? Am I not allowed to disagree or give an opposing viewpoint without having to deal with being belittled or subjected to statements of incredulity?

The “complex abstraction” regarding child prodigies sprang from observable facts, thus the concept—we are not talking about 'God' here.

Of course! I'm not saying we can't define what a child prodigy is or say it is not a concept we can make from observable facts. I'm saying considering what someone goes through to become a child prodigy, it is not at all evidence of natural or innate talent.

Let me ask you this: you have been doing some cheery-picking among the posts here, but I’m curious to know of how you account for my musical friend plucking the wedding march tune [age two] and my own—observable—leap at being able to draw at so young an age. Why was that? And since we are both employing the word “capacities” here, are we still on opposing sides? What’s the nature of our disagreement—if any? Do you still think I’m a mystic?

Sorry Victor you lost me here. I never called you a mystic. But I don't think anecdotal evidence of your friend playing the "wedding march" at age 2 and you being able to draw at an early age tells anything at all about natural talent. How could it? And could you explain why?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

When people say that a person has an inborn talent for basketball, I don't think they are referring to some metaphysical state of basketball that a child can be born into. Obviously this is a man-made game so any ability at basketball per se presupposes that the rules are first learned. I think people are talking about high motor capacity, tallness, good aim, etc., that are needed to be able to play basketball with proficiency.

As I asked, do you have any problem with the fact that the word "talent" has more than one meaning?

If not, why not learn the second definition, i.e. what people are really talking about, rather than attributing them with something false and calling them evaders?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

At so young an age to play a discernable tune is—by denotation—my claim [and example] of what I call “natural talent”—natural talents that not all people are born with. Later on, that child may go on to be the next…fill in the blank. Context, folks, context: at the age of 45, it’s not impressive at all. At the age of two, it’s amazing.

[sorry if I made a mistake in quoting you, J].

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

what people are really talking about, rather than attributing them with something false and calling them evaders?

Now that's rich. I point out specifically where you attributed a position contrary to what I actually said to me and object to you claiming I was evading the facts, and without flinching or apologizing you turn around and make this generalized and unsubstantiated claim about me on the same things.

Incredible.

Shayne

[sjw]

At so young an age to play a discernable tune is—by denotation—my claim [and example] of what I call “natural talent”—natural talents that not all people are born with. Later on, that child may go on to be the next…fill in the blank. Context, folks, context: at the age of 45, it’s not impressive at all. At the age of two, it’s amazing.

Why do you say "folks" when you mean to talk to one person?

And since when is an impressive feat proof of inborn talent? We spent a few hours here and there teaching our kid how to read and do a little math and he skips a grade. Something tells me that culturally, our level of expecations about what children are capable of is pretty low.

Shayne

[Johnny]

At so young an age to play a discernable tune at so young an age is—by denotation—my claim [and example] of what I call “natural talent”—natural talents that not all people are born with. Later on, that child may go on to be the next…fill in the blank. Context, folks, context: at the age of 45, it’s not impressive at all. At the age of two, it’s amazing.

[sorry if I made a mistake in quoting you, J].

Victor it is amazing that a child prodigy devoted so much time at such an early age, and for whatever reason had the dedication to spend so much of their time and forego the other things that most children do such as play with friends, which didn't take time away from practicing a skill. But this is not evidence of natural talent. If the child prodigy is spending a lot of time learning a skill, one would expect they reach a certain accomplishment from all of that hard work. We as adults are impressed when we see a child prodigy because we ourselves at that early of an age did not have the environmental factors (such as a demanding parent for example) that pushed us to practice so hard. We as adults are impressed because most children do not exhibit such a level of accomplishment only because most children are busy playing in the sandbox or chasing down bugs or doing household chores or whatever. Child prodigies can be attributed to environmental factors, of just sitting down and practicing A LOT as opposed to some kind of assertion he was just born to be good at a particular skill.

[Victor Pross]

Johnny,

TOTAL context: the example I gave was of myselF: at the age of three, I began to draw, and it was as such to astound adults, placing me in a class of my own. I was an anomaly. So at the age of three, how much “time” do you think I spent on drawing to reach the level I was at—such as it was.

More over, I didn’t have “demanding” parents, I loved to draw. It came to me naturally, and I was the local star. Hated and loved, in fact [but that's a different story].

Anyway, a definition of “child prodigy” does not mean 'countless hours at practice to hone a skill' or having 'demanding parents'. Why did you paint that in as if it were a given everywhere?? I said ages two and three--in drawing and music. Where's the devoted time? Why do you need to clutter the cognitive landscape with all these other examples--just observe the astonishing phenomena of gifted children with natural talents? The examples that were given are exceptional. What is going on with these kids?

Victor

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross