What is talent?

[Victor Pross]

Question:

If human beings are born tabula Rasa, what is to account for what is called TALENT? Why is it that some people are born with the ability to draw or play a musical instrument? It’s an ability that can be noted early in childhood and that some children are clearly well advanced to that of other children. They go on to be artists, [if they chose] while others can’t draw to save their lives. And they never will, no matter how much they try. The same goes for playing a musical instrument.

Is talent innate? What is talent?

Putting it this way: we all learn how to ride a bike, speak a language, tie a boot lace, spell, cook, operate a computer, perform surgery, etc, etc—but why not drawing--and drawing well? Hell, drawing is pegged a 'God-given' talent. Why is that? Forget the mystical thing--what is being noted is something unique and rare.

It's this subject that greatly interests me, and I have never come to any solid conclusions on it. What do you think?

Edited November 4, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Chris Grieb]

I think the brain may have stronger areas that cause differences in talent. I think a talent can be encouraged by your environment. I am thinking of Mozart but I suspect there are others in music. Infants show all kinds of differences. Some have stronger hearing. Others may have better eyesight. I think these innate differences may show in the talents we have. This is a topic that needs more thought.

[Matus1976]

Nobody is born knowing how to play an instrument. All the greatest artists, scientists, and sports players spent many many years pushing themselves in their fields.

See this article - "Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work " - http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/great_1.html

Michael F Dickey

[sjw]

I thought I couldn't draw at all, Then I took an art class and really tried. By the end I came up with a drawing that astounded me. It was all about learning the method. (I have no idea if I retained the ability or not, it's been years since I tried).

Talent is obviously not inborn because what people refer to by "talent" is always man-made. There is no natural selection in play for drawing or playing basket ball.

What nature does give us are physical and mental capacities. Although we can measure these crudely (such as the height of a basketball player), for the most part the only way to discover your true capacity is give it your all. Lance Armstrong had no idea of his capacity for winning the Tour de France until he tried to become the best bike racer he could be. It turned out that his personal best was a best in class, but he couldn't have known that at the beginning, there's just no way to measure it.

Mental capacities are even harder to measure than physical capacities. IQ tests are mainly a measure of acquired skill, not innate capacity. I think that most people who are called "genius" probably had ordinary capacities but just developed them to their utmost. The idea of "inborn talent" stifles development of talent, it makes people stick with what they are already comfortable with instead of growing, on the premise that it's not possible to grow since they don't have the talent for it; a vicious cycle.

Shayne

Edited November 2, 2006 by sjw

[Judith]

I do know, based on personal experience, that some things are easier to learn than others, and I have to assume that people are born with some innate TENDENCIES, at least, or strengths and weaknesses. For example, I've taken up the shooting sports, and I've had to sweat for each step forward I've taken, whereas other people pick up a gun and learn in a matter of a week or two what it took me many months to learn. On the other hand, in the equestrian sports, at least at the beginning, I took to it quite naturally and did things in my third lesson that other people didn't do for months. Why do some people have a tin ear whereas I was able to come home from church at the age of 5 and play the hymns by ear on my little chord organ? All of that suggests to me that, while great ability certainly does take work, the level to which one can rise can be limited by the length of a lifetime; if one has a certain level of innate ability, and someone else has a much higher level of that ability, the same amount of work and dedication will get the second person to a much higher level. Sports, art, music, etc. tend to be rather competitive fields, and the lesser talents are weeded out.

If anyone remembers the Myers-Briggs personality theory topic, experts on that tend to believe that we're born with our personality characteristics pretty much set. I know that I certainly didn't get mine from my parents, and most NT children probably suffer from the indignity of growing up with SJ parents and teachers.

Judith

[Reidy]

As I recall Rand's statements denying innate ideas, this applied only to statable factual knowledge, not to aptitude or sensitivity. Where the the latter - high IQ, perfect pitch, athletic aptitude and so on - come from is a question for empirical psychology, not philosophy. None of these requires knowing facts that you haven't learned, so I don't see a problem for Rand.

Peter

[Ellen Stuttle]

All of that suggests to me that, while great ability certainly does take work, the level to which one can rise can be limited by the length of a lifetime; if one has a certain level of innate ability, and someone else has a much higher level of that ability, the same amount of work and dedication will get the second person to a much higher level.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite Mozart stories, which I'll tell just for the fun of it. Supposedly this incident was attested to by several on-lookers as having really happened.

One of the guests at a party Mozart was attending came up to Mozart and said that he wanted to compose music and he asked Mozart how one goes about writing a symphony.

"Well," Mozart said, "a symphony is pretty complicated. Why don't you start with something easier? A song, or a little dance."

"But you started by writing a symphony!" the man objected.

"Yes," Mozart said; "but I didn't have to ask how to do it."

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

I have been drawing as early as I can remember myself, but I was told by my mother of an incident that I can’t recall: apparently, at the age of three, I was watching the Flintstones on television and took a pencil crayon and paper and started drawing the characters from the show—and it was of such a level to astound my mother. Later on, as I began to attend school, I do recall occasions when a throng of students gathered around me. Of course, I did use my abilities to impress the girls.

Drawing was oh-so easy and came so very naturally to me. I actually remember being dumbfounded as to what people all the fuss was about. Drawing is so easy to do and anybody can do this if they try—that’s what I thought. Of course, if I came across anybody who exhibited talent in other areas—like music—I would be awestruck before that person. It’s something that commands my attention and respect.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Reidy]

Maybe he said this - you don't build a career in showbiz without working on your PR - but his earliest extant compositions are little keyboard pieces, not symphonies. See http://www.classical.net/music/composer/works/mozart/.

The fact that he didn't have to ask entails not that he already knew but that either he knew or he figured it out. Rand would be fine with the latter.

Peter

[Ellen Stuttle]

The fact that [Mozart] didn't have to ask [how to write a symphony] entails not that he already knew but that either he knew or he figured it out. Rand would be fine with the latter.

Sigh. I suppose I should have said that I know that Mozart did not in fact write a symphony -- at age 8 -- as his first composition, but instead less complex compositions -- at 5, 6, 7. But that would rather have wrecked the anecdote, yes? I find the anecdote amusing, never mind that it represents a fudge as to his actual composing history. Furthermore, the full facts of his composing history do nothing to lessen the idea that the guy had "talent."

As to Rand's view of "talent," Peter wrote in an earlier post:

As I recall Rand's statements denying innate ideas, this applied only to statable factual knowledge, not to aptitude or sensitivity. Where the the latter - high IQ, perfect pitch, athletic aptitude and so on - come from is a question for empirical psychology, not philosophy. None of these requires knowing facts that you haven't learned, so I don't see a problem for Rand.

I see no problem with her denial of innate ideas, provided that she did mean her view as only applying to "statable factual knowledge." But there is a quote, where she's speaking of writers being made not born, in which she denies that there's any form of "talent." I don't have the quote immediately to hand, but one of you who has the CD-Rom could probably find it by searching on the word "talent." As to Mozart in particular, her opinion -- as reported by Allan Blumenthal each of the four times I took a psychology course of his -- was that early interest and learning accounted in full for Mozart's ability. (Furthermore, she wasn't much impressed by his ability in any case, since she called his work "pre-music." But she'd have said the same -- that early interest and learning was adequate to account for the skill -- in regard to musicians of whose work she thought more highly.)

Ellen

___

[ray smith]

Hi everybody, this is my first post. i'm a little nervous so please bear with me.

My older brother by 3 years seemed to be like Victor as he could draw very adult looking

characters when very young. He could also look at something and practically draw the scene

without looking at it very many times. This does not answer inate or learned ,but this was such

a interesting subject, it grabbed my attention.

I am a practicing Ojectitivist and am very happy to be a member of this group .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is an item that I usually find missing in Objectivist discussions of talent.

An innate capacity does not just pop into existence at birth and then stop right there, whereas the rest is volitional learning. It develops automatically as the organism develops. An acorn becomes a tree with branches and leaves, although you can't see them in the acorn. Everything biological about a human being grows automatically, like height, eyesight (regardless of the comments in "The Comprachicos," a baby cannot choose not to learn how to see), even the capacity to make initial integrations, yet I constantly see insinuated--and even stated outright--that a capacity doesn't grow automatically.

To be clear, look at this last example. A baby doesn't speak a full language or play chess merely because it hasn't learned how to yet. Biologically, it can't do those things yet. Learning is a part of it, but so is developing. Even if it were able to have the proper number of experiences, there is still some growing to do to be able to understand those things. People who are mentally impaired are referred to has having the mentality of a 2 year-old or 3 year-old. This doesn't mean simply that they stopped learning. It means that they are unable to learn--that their defective brain stopped developing properly.

Talent is like this. An innate capability will develop and get better and better up to a point automatically from simple growth, regardless of the volition of the person having it. The person can choose to use it or not.

I knew a very mediocre conductor in Brazil who fit the following: of all the people for whom I have the most contempt in life, I despise the one who has a huge amount of natural capacity, chooses to exercise it professionally, but does not develop it or do his best out of sheer laziness. He leans on his natural ability to gain power. The conductor I mentioned was that way and it was aggravating to an extreme to play under him. You could see the flashes of genius surge up from time to time, but the rest was petty little power games and neurotic itches. It still makes me angry to think about him--to know that people who are able to do far better use Beethoven and other great composers for such contemptible purposes.

The biological development side of talent is almost denied in Rand (as in her thing about writers being made, not born), but it is present at times. There is a scene in The Fountainhead where Peter Keating has tried to become a painter at the end of his life and Roark felt pity for him on seeing his paintings because he judged that it was simply too late. In order to make a judgment like that, more than choice, and more than morality, had to be involved since anything can be learned at most any age with enough effort. I also don't imagine Rand condemning Keating to being so morally corrupt that it would be impossible for him to choose a different path if he so wished, neither innately nor after a certain amount of time of poor choices. As a matter of fact, in this scene, he was choosing differently.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Raymond,

Our posts crossed. Let me extend a very warm welcome to OL. I hope you enjoy it here. There are many wonderful people. You sound like a wonderful people, too.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Maybe a better way of looking at "talent" is to say that those whom we see as being naturally good at something actually have an innate lack of incompetence.

I suck at math, and always have. I tried very hard in school, but could barely manage to be average at math up until junior high, after which I could no longer rise to the level of average. I'm totally incompetent at it. I'm less naturally incompetent at history, I'm only somewhat naturally incompetent at basketball and music, and I'm almost completely lacking in natural incompetence at visual art.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some quotes from Rand on talent:

The Objectivist—January 1966—"Altruism As Appeasement"

Not all of the intellectual appeasers reach the public arena. A great many of them perish on the way, torn by their inner conflicts, paralyzed by an insufficient capacity to evade, petering out in hopeless lethargy after a brilliantly promising start. A great many others drag themselves on, by an excruciating psychological effort, functioning at a small fraction of their potential. The cost of this type of appeasement—in frustrated, hampered, crippled or stillborn talent—can never be computed.

Here biological capacity is called "brilliantly promising start" and "potential."

The Objectivist—December 1966—"Capuletti"

Among the many values that art can offer, the subtlest one—and, perhaps, the most inspiring—is the sight of talent, talent as such, the spectacle of human ability actualizing its best potential. In the presence of a great achievement, you feel as if you were seeing two art works: one is the object before you, the other is the artist who made himself capable of creating it.

Here biological capacity is called "best potential."

The Objectivist—August 1970—"The Comprachicos"

If, in any two years of adult life, men could learn as much as an infant learns in his first two years, they would have the capacity of genius. To focus his eyes (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to coordinate his muscles for the task of crawling, then standing upright, then walking—and, ultimately, to grasp the process of concept-formation and learn to speak- these are some of an infant's tasks and achievements whose magnitude is not equaled by most men in the rest of their lives.

This is not about talent proper, but it shows a blind spot in Rand's thinking when she excludes growth and development from her observations. For example, Rand sets up a dichotomy that learning how to focus eyes is either innate or acquired, which is incomplete. Focusing eyes is not just learned, it develops automatically during growth, but it is necessary to interact with the environment, too, so it is both innate and acquired. But I don't like to use this kind of terminology on this issue. It is misleading. I would say that it is partially automatic and partially learned, but there is a point at which volition starts gradually entering the picture. Before that time, the development of focusing eyes is completely automatic, just like what happens with any lower animal.

The Objectivist—October 1970—"The Comprachicos"

As an illustration of the consequences of delaying nature's timetable, consider the following. In our infancy, all of us had to learn and automatize the skill of integrating into percepts the material provided by our various sense organs. It was a natural, painless process which—as we can infer by observing infants—we were eager to learn. But medical science has recorded cases of children who were born blind and later, in their youth or adulthood, underwent an operation that restored their sight. Such persons are not able to see, i.e., they experience sensations of sight, but cannot perceive objects. For example, they recognize a triangle by touch, but cannot connect it to the sight of a triangle; the sight conveys nothing to them. The ability to see is not innate—it is a skill that has to be acquired. But the material provided by these persons' other senses is so thoroughly integrated and automatized that they are unable instantly to break it up to add a new element, vision. This integration now requires such a long, difficult process of retraining that few of them choose to undertake it. These few succeed, after a heroically persevering struggle. The rest give up, preferring to stay in their familiar world of touch and sound- to remain sightless for life.

Rand is correct in saying that seeing is a skill that has to be acquired, but also in the case of these people, the physical development has already occurred so the learning does not occur together with the developing capacity. You could also say that seeing is a skill that needs perception of light in order to develop naturally. One premise I would seriously check is her premise that few who receive the benefit of the surgery she mentions "choose to undertake" the task of learning how to distinguish figures and the rest "give up." I would be interested in looking at her source for this, but she gives none.

The Virtue of Selfishness—"The Objectivist Ethics"

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

This remains to be seen. I find the fact of saying that the baby's "emotional mechanism is "tabula rasa" at birth and needs to wait to be programmed by the mind to be very strange, to say the least. Here on OL, I wrote a small essay called "The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion." By using the work of Silvan Tomkins, empirical evidence is provided to show that there are nine automatic valuing affects that develop, then merge with each other and volition as the baby develops.

I think these quotes already show that talent, and the whole area of the role of the innate elements in man, were underdeveloped areas in Objectivism when Rand was alive.

Michael

[Reidy]

A question about what Ellen says in #10. When Rand talked about talent in the sense of an innate knack rather than an acquired, mastered skill, did she ever use the word without scare-quotes? You can't tell from a talk, but, as I recall, she says much the same, with the quotes, in her 1959 intro to We the Living. This would make the passages Michael quotes consistent with the others; "talent" has one meaning (learned ability) and "'talent,'" in quotes, another (inborn ability).

Her claim that nobody is born with aptitude (as distinguished from practiced skill) is plausible in the case of writing but not in music, dance or athletics. Maybe not math or the visual arts either. If she really believed this it might be just another of her eccentricities. The usual examples (woman president, homosexuality, cigarettes) were getting old anyway.

Peter

[Paul Mawdsley]

In order to make a comment about talent, I am going to borrow an idea from another thread. One of the ways we gain control over and manipulate the content of our imaginations is by applying some language learned via systematic study– such as science, philosophy, etc.– as an interface to our intuitive images. Common languages learned socially allow us to manipulate and/or structure the images of our experience and/or imagination. It is a very structured and uncreative way we are able to interpret the world.

The exercise of talent is the manipulation and/or structuring of the images of our experience and/or imagination at a pre-verbal level using a very private and personal language of images and causal operators. This is the level we call intuition or the subconscious. It operates through non-linear processes in which the information from our environment flows through and is shaped by the structures of our psychological identity to create unique integrations and structures which can then be expressed as novel creations in the world. This process has the capacity to create new paradigms.

When one processes the world through the language of the systems, or interfaces, one has studied, the process is linear. One is locked into the structures embedded in the system's language which determines how the information is interpreted. One is locked into processing the world though the paradigms one studied because the meanings and images of that paradigm are embedded in the language. To step outside of any particular paradigm a person must get back to the images themselves undistorted by the operating system language that acts as an interface.

When Rand was writing her fiction she was engaged in the non-linear processes of her imagination. Her psychology and her intuitive understanding of causation shaped how she processed the information from her environment and shaped her early worldview. As she created fictional characters and worlds in her imagination and set them in motion, she was able to creatively explore the underlying nature of human existence. A loop of reciprocal causation would have developed between her interpretations of her environment and the fictional characters and worlds she created. Each perspective fed the growth of the other. She applied what she had learned by paying close attention to the real world to the creation of her fictions. She then applied what she learned from manipulating the identity and actions of her fictional characters to deeper interpretations of her real world situations. Her insight grew in both directions. I think operating directly on the level of images in both directions was the source of her talent.

When she stopped writing fiction, she stopped the motor of her own non-linear processes. She began to see the world through the language of the systems she had created. She began to interpret real world situations through the lens of her fictions without the reciprocal process of reality testing and developing her fictions from the information of real situations. She seemed to flip a switch and say her fictions of human nature were complete. They needed no more development. I think this may have brought an end to the activity of her creative talent. From this point on everything was a matter of interpreting existence from existing systems. She had made a choice that had unwittingly led to her turning off the creative talent that made the creation of her system possible.

It is at this time that she wrote about her epistemology. She wrote only about linear processes. It is no surprise that she didn't identify the processes I am speaking about. She no longer used them. But they are the talent that made the rest possible.

Paul

[sjw]

It is at this time that she wrote about her epistemology. She wrote only about linear processes. It is no surprise that she didn't identify the processes I am speaking about. She no longer used them. But they are the talent that made the rest possible.

Rand created Atlas. So what did you create that gave you such an edge over Rand, such that you could stand back and criticize her so deeply about her "linear processes"? You're either a genius or the opposite of one.

Shayne

[Paul Mawdsley]

Shayne,

You missed my point. What I wrote was not intended to be an attack on her character. It was meant to explore the reality of it. Reality is she developed a brilliant system of thought. Reality is she missed some elements of reality. If you step outside of the interface Rand created, you might be able see what she missed. If you tend to stay within her interface, you will tend to attack anything that doesn't fit the system she created. Why not try to explore ideas without defensive posturing? Your arguments have the look of arguments from intimidation. This stops objective inquiry.

Paul

[Ellen Stuttle]

Paul, I just wanted quickly to indicate that I think you're very onto something. I think the image level was the source of her great power as a novelist and as an inspirer of a "vision" of life. The business of describing her as "Mrs. Logic"...well, yes, in a way. But it was her tapping into a primordial image level (the "archetypal" level in Jungian parlance) that was the taproot of what she could do in fiction. And I agree that she pretty much lost this post-Atlas, that a change occurred and rigidity set in. The subject is one I hope to write about one of these days.

Peter, I also think you're correct in distinguishing the two senses of "talent" as she used that word, one sense with scare quotes (inborn ability) and one without (learned ability). I think the difference of meaning is key to the apparent discrepancies. (I also think that she was just wrong on the musical-ability issue, at least judging from what I heard about what she thought on that subject. Since I don't know of anyplace where she stated her opinion in writing, I'm left with verbal report. I also think that there is a degree of inborn ability with literary skill, although in less direct and obvious ways than seem to be the case with a musical gift.)

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

The way I see it talent is, to a small degree, inborn. However, the talent lies not in talent for a specific thing but in general abilities. Some people are born with extremely well honed fine motor skills. I would say that girls are more likely to possess this trait than boys because I see girls who consider their drawings bad when guys think they're great.

I have a particular talent for playing baseball. Baseball always came naturally to me because I was born with a sturdy bone structure, above average eyes, and have always had excellent eye hand coordination. This made it so that I have always been inclined towards being better at baseball as opposed to someone who is tall with a slimmer bone structure. The development of my muscles, the chosen path of my swing, and the accuracy of my throws are all learned traits and not natural born talent. Because of my genetics I have been inclined towards having talent, because of my work ethic I do have talent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Literary ability comes straight from being able to tell stories and make them up, and even a pleasure in doing that. Some kids do it a whole lot better than others. It is a communication thing in addition to being a conceptual thing. I believe that a part of communication ability is also innate.

Michael

[Kat]

Paul, that was a fascinating analysis. The bi-directional causality model is certainly something to think about.

I think talent is something that comes naturally to a person and with practice and training they can excel at it. Some people are generalists and some people are specialists. The specialists have found their talents and focused in on it, applying hard work, determination, study and practice in order to rise to the top and succeed.

Kat

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Literary ability comes straight from being able to tell stories and make them up, and even a pleasure in doing that. Some kids do it a whole lot better than others. It is a communication thing in addition to being a conceptual thing. I believe that a part of communication ability is also innate.

Michael

Interesting, Michael. I was thinking more strictly in terms of word-use skill than of storytelling skill. The two abilities combine in narrative arts, though not necessarily in equal proportions. That is, some narrative artists are better at one aspect than they are at the other. The quintessential example, IMO, of superlative skill at both is Shakespeare.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I was rereading an essay by Nathaniel Branden in The Virtue of Selfishness, "Counterfeit Individualism," and the thing starts with a very interesting quote:

The theory of individualism is a central component of the Objectivist philosophy. Individualism is at once and ethical-political concept and an ethical-psychological one. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that man is an end in itself, not a means to the end of others. As a ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that man should think and judge independently, valuing nothing higher than the sovereignty of his intellect.

I started thinking about what this approach would sound like if applied to talent, but extending the psychological to the biological.

The concept of talent is a central component of a person's productive ability in Objectivist philosophy. Talent is at once an ethical concept and a biological one. As an ethical concept, talent involves the supremacy of volition, the principle that man has to act by choice to acquire ability, not merely be a passive pawn to the unchosen forces within him. As a biological concept, talent means that, from childhood, man will automatically develop a knack for doing something. As and ethical-biological concept, talent means the virtue of man using the sovereignty of his volitional intellect to develop the unchosen potential within him.

I think that's kinda neat.

Michael