What is talent?

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Whoops!

Johnny wrote: ‘[but Victor], that you would automatically attribute a child prodigy to innate talent is unfounded. Most of these child prodigies are child prodigies because 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 particular 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.”

Shayne, I attributed words to you by mistake, but you and Johnny struck me as a tag team. Let me ask you this: Do you agree with the above? Do you still hold to your views seen below? Has this discussion and Angie’s findings give pause for thought on this subject?

Shayne: "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."

AND:

*Victor I'm not going to get into who said what here. Plenty of people here are alleging that talent is inborn. I'm answering your question by pointing out that there is no evidence for that claim, and that there is tons of evidence that what people refer to by "talent" is really just hard work.

AND:

*There are also studies that demonstrate how the physical structure of the brain is modified by the individual's own choices. And anyways, you can't have a legitimate study of "people with high innate musical ability" unless you've already demonstrated "innate musical ability". I asked for facts and you gave me circular logic.

More from Johnny:

“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.”

Any pause for new thought on this subject?

**

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Michael: Thank you.

Victor: No I have nothing else to add, except that I disclaim your interpretations of what I say as usually being irresponsible distortions that are a waste of my time to correct.

Shayne, I attributed words to you by mistake, but you and Johnny struck me as a tag team.

So, since you chose to wrongly lump two totally different people into the same pile, in your philosophy, your mistake becomes my fault.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LOL...

Victor,

Er...

Shayne knows Objectivism cold. When we disagree, it is on interpretation, some exception or temperament, but never on knowledge.

In compensation, that other person you mentioned has not been so enterprising in his studies, but he can get there someday with effort.

In your comparison as it stands, you sort of put a ninth degree black belt karate expert together with a street gang member. If nothing else, this is a pretty entertaining comedy of errors...

Michael

[CNA]

There are many reasons why I've chosen not to get involved with this thread. The insults that have been thrown by ALL parties involved is one of the reasons. But there are a few things I want to point out now.

Shayne states this:

No I have nothing else to add, except that I disclaim **your interpretations of what I say** as usually being irresponsible distortions that are a waste of my time to correct

Shayne is stating that Victor's interpretations of what he says are irresponsible distortions as usual. But in a prior post of Shayne's, he does the exact same thing he is condemning Victor for. Shayne has done this on other threads as well. One that comes to mind right now, if I am remembering correctly, Shayne did this with a post of Mike's on the Lepers thread.

Shayne is also making assumptions that Mike does this:

Michael **doesn't like plain and direct speaking** going on in his "living room", while he lets total **fabrication and lies and continued insults get slung at a "guest" who prefers to remain silent pass without comment.**

It's very difficult to get into someone's head and do their thinking for them, let alone interpret and assume their views regarding an issue, views that have never been expressed by that party as Mike later states that he himself was unaware that he himself held that view. Shayne seems to know Mike better than Mike knows himself.

Also where are the lies and the fabrications?

Regarding insults, yes, there have been many insults thrown from ALL parties involved. I find it interesting that Shayne is condemning Victor and Mike for throwing insults and/or making interpretations but Shayne in the same breathe has done the same thing here as well as on other threads towards Mike and Victor. Shayne states that Victor is irresponsible and that he is a liar. Shayne can throw insults and make his own interpretations and not be condemned for it. But when someone does it to Shayne, Shayne condemns them for it.

Mike later states in this post:

I am unaware of total fabrications and lies, etc., as complained, and am also unaware that I dislike plain speaking (you learn something new everyday, so maybe it's time to refresh on Socrates: "Know thyself!").

As stated above that Shayne knows Mike better than he knows himself, Shayne is making interpretations and assumptions of the views Mike holds which according to Mike is false as clearly stated above by Mike. So Shayne is also guilty himself of irresponsible distortions, assumptions, and his own interpretations.

Shayne states:

You both owe me an apology.

Shayne is demanding for an apology from both Victor and Mike for being guilty of the above; whereas, Shayne is also guilty of it. Since Shayne is demanding an apology from Victor and Mike, an apology from him is also warranted towards Victor and Mike.

Angie

Edited December 19, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

LOL...

Victor,

Er...

Shayne knows Objectivism cold. When we disagree, it is on interpretation, some exception or temperament, but never on knowledge.

In compensation, that other person you mentioned has not been so enterprising in his studies, but he can get there someday with effort.

In your comparison as it stands, you sort of put a ninth degree black belt karate expert together with a street gang member. If nothing else, this is a pretty entertaining comedy of errors...

Michael

Michael,

Er, Victor what? OY, come on, let’s stay focused on the issue. My point stands: Advanced Objectivist student Shayne disagreed with the question of innate talent that there is now abundant evidence of. Who cares if Shayne is better versed than Johnny in Objectivism? What has that to do with the arguements and disagreements that followed this thread? The point remains: Shayne took opposition siding with Johnny against the idea of innate talent. Shayne should acknowledge certain overwhelming evidence that lend support to what you and I [among others] have been arguing--that's the issue. I want to hear what he has to say in the face of this new evidence---as in the specific case of this Indian boy. Let’s bottom line this: Shayne was wrong. Why doesn’t he acknowledge it, like a responsible intellectual—an advanced black belt Objectivist?

Victor

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

You wrote:

No I have nothing else to add, except that I disclaim your interpretations of what I say as usually being irresponsible distortions that are a waste of my time to correct.

Of course you have nothing to add, what could you add? Oy, that is laughable. My “interpretation” you say? I directly quote you, Shayne! So what interpretation are you speaking of? You take opposition to the question of innate talent---that is a well acknowledged fact of your stance. This is not an "interpretation." I did not “interpret” your arguments--you don’t grant the idea of innate talent. It's that simple. Well, you are wrong. The point here is not some evasive loop hole you seek by charging "distortion" on my part—it has to do with intellectual integrity. You know it, I know it, and Michael knows it.

Quote: “Akrit Jaswal (11) from Nurpur in Himachal Pradesh is a child prodigy. As per the US-based Gifted Development Centre where his psycho-evaluation was done in 2001, it was found that he had an IQ level that beats that of Einstein.”

This Indian kid is too far advanced for so-called “environmental factors” or “hours and hours of practicing”. Regarding his mother, she stated in the video that by the age of 10 months to a year this kid was talking, walking, and writing already. That is amazing. By the age of 5, he was reading Shakespeare and he understood it. Is this not an overwhelming case for the question of innate talent? Should not the question of Tabula Rasa be revisited? Shayne, you disagree with the idea of innate talent, is that correct? You don't grant the existence of innate talent. Did I INTERPRET you right? How do you account for this kid? Speak up.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Evidence in favor of innate ability:

Today, I caught bullpen for a sophomore starting pitcher at University of Washington. This pitcher has a wicked splitty that when it's coming towards home plate "drops off the table" (has a sharp downward break) about five feet from the plate. A split finger fastball (long name for splitty) is thrown by placing the ball between your index and middle fingers, if you were to draw a line from one finger to the other on the ball it would be just above the equator of the ball. Because this guy's fingers are so long, he is able to wrap his fingers around the ball enough that he can pinch them together a little bit at the end. This makes it so the ball slips out from between his fingers, but is still held in place partially by his finger tips when he throws. Because the back part of the ball slips out of his hand (up and forward) and the finger tips release slightly later it puts more than the usual forward spin on the ball. This causes it to drop harder.

He does not control the length of his fingers, the fingers give him more skill. Innate ability?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Some thoughts on talent:

When I do something I have become good at, not because I have a talent for it, but because I have dedicated the time to develop the skills and discipline that it requires, it takes mental energy to maintain motivation for that activity. When I do something I am good at because I have a talent that naturally evolved into a high skill level, the activity is self-perpetuating. Those things I have a talent for seem to flow naturally from the orientation of my psyche. Those things I have developed the skills for, without the underlying natural talent, seem to require that I go against the natural flow of the orientation of my psyche. It is as if my psyche were driven by a flywheel that is oriented in a particular direction. Doing things in line with its orientation actually maintains and even accelerates its spin. Doing thing out of its alignment requires me to put energy into turning it and maintaining its unnatural orientation.

One of the problems I have noticed on this thread is the assumption that developing the skills and the discipline to be good at something is the same as being talented at it. It is possible to have a talent for something without developing a high skill level. It is also possible to develop a high level of skill for something one is not particularly talented at. If skill level is something distinct from talent, and we are equating measures of skill level to measures of talent, then it is of no surprise that our studies cannot conclude that talent is a real attribute separate to skill level. It is possible we are not correctly identifying what we are measuring.

If you can develop high levels of skill whether or not you begin with talent, how can we tell the difference between the talented and the untalented? Theoretically, talented people should develop the skills faster, all other things being equal. Also, talented people should be able to develop their skills to a higher level with the same practice, discipline, and motivation as non-talented people. I wonder if any of the studies that have been mentioned have identified the difference between talent and the skill level attained. And I wonder if talent has really been isolated by these studies.

Paul

[sjw]

Victor, I neither agree with you nor with the pathetic straw man you've built up and scrawled the name "Shayne" on. All you just demonstrated, again, is that all you can do with regard to my comments is misinterpret them. Yes, I can explain the kid, no I will not explain to you. And that makes me intellectually dishonest in your book--so again you lump things into wrong piles. What philosophy was it that you held again? It certainly doesn't resemble Ayn Rand's. With her philosophy, we group things by essentials, not by Victor's whim.

[CNA]

Victor, I neither agree with you nor with the pathetic straw man you've built up and scrawled the name "Shayne" on. All you just demonstrated, again, is that all you can do with regard to my comments is misinterpret them. Yes, I can explain the kid, no I will not explain to you. And that makes me intellectually dishonest in your book--so again you lump things into wrong piles. What philosophy was it that you held again? It certainly doesn't resemble Ayn Rand's. With her philosophy, we group things by essentials, not by Victor's whim.

Shayne,

I personally would love to hear your explanation as to this kid at the age of 11 or 12 having an IQ that surpasses that of Einstein as well as the other tremendous milestones this child has presented at the age of 10 months, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years old and performing his first successful surgery as well as watching him at the age of 11 perform molecular experiments with Phds surrounding him. One of the Phds was talking to him about ion channels in DNA and the genome and the Phd had made a comment that it was more of a neurological disorder. The 11 year old genius corrected the Phd in front of all the other doctors and said, "Actually it's gastroenterology." Talk about humiliation for this Phd that has spent his entire life studying in the field of medicine and an 11 year old knows more than he does and actually corrects an error in knowledge. This 11 year old at that time knew more about this specialty in the field of medicine than this doctor and actually corrected the Phd. Considering that this is an area that even baffles world renowned scientists and Phds, I would thoroughly enjoy hearing your answer to explain as to why this child at the age of 11 has an IQ that surpasses that of Einstein other than the evidence that has been presented and that is self evident. The boy also stated in the doc that he studies one hour a day, still plays with his friends and was shown numerous times out and about with friends playing, spending time with family and so on. But he puts aside one hour a day to study and that's it.

I still find it interesting that there is still much of the passive aggressive jabs here and there. Too much game playing on this thread from ALL and the evasion of the purpose of this thread. But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

Angie

Edited December 19, 2006 by CNA

[CNA]

LOL...

Victor,

Er...

Shayne knows Objectivism cold. When we disagree, it is on interpretation, some exception or temperament, but never on knowledge.

In compensation, that other person you mentioned has not been so enterprising in his studies, but he can get there someday with effort.

In your comparison as it stands, you sort of put a ninth degree black belt karate expert together with a street gang member. If nothing else, this is a pretty entertaining comedy of errors...

Michael

This is a general statement. In my eyes, there is a huge difference between an individual that has learned Objectivism from a book and has memorized it and/or perhaps has taken the ideas of Rand's further in their own mind versus an individual that has come to the convictions on their own based on their own experiences, their own observations, their own conclusions with no outside help from a book. The latter is the individual that is the 9th degree black belt in Objectivism.

Angie

Edited December 19, 2006 by CNA

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

I haven't looked at the links yet, but details unseen, the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind. One little question: What supposedly was Einstein's IQ? Insofar as I'm aware, he was never given an IQ test.

Ellen

___

[CNA]

But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

I haven't looked at the links yet, but details unseen, the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind. One little question: What supposedly was Einstein's IQ? Insofar as I'm aware, he was never given an IQ test.

Ellen

___

To my understanding as well, Ellen, Einstein was never tested but they estimated his IQ to be just above 160. I know it is hard to believe as I was also a bit of a skeptic when first watching the program. But the more I watched it, the more my jaw hit the floor. Just listening to this kid talk to these scientists, even correcting some of these doctors, watching him perform a surgery, tests, giving a quick education with other Phds around to medical students, etc., I was absolutely floored. This kid is absolutely phenomenal and it is mind boggling. The program was on The Learning Channel, The World's Smartest Boy.

Angie

Edited December 19, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

I haven't looked at the links yet, but details unseen, the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind. One little question: What supposedly was Einstein's IQ? Insofar as I'm aware, he was never given an IQ test.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

Einstein's IQ test or not...This is a sidebar incidental and it doesn’t erase what is demonstrability factual about this kid—that being what has been cited by Angie and the observed reports.

-Victor-

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

That’s right, Angie honey. That Shayne is a so-called “black belt” Objectivist just might be his problem. Instead of having his eyes focused on reality, [Objectivists remember what that concept means, right?] he has a vacant gape upon a memorized Objectivist paradigm. Ayn Rand said man is born tabula Rasa therefore any observed facts to the contrary must be ignored--and those who present them must be snickered at. How do you meet my challenge, Shayne? You substitute the charge of a false “interpretation” of your argument to a creation of a “straw man” of your arguments—adding nothing new. It's one word for some other. Wow.

Look, do you or do you not grant the existence of the innate talent? If one follows this thread, one sees that you clearly don’t—and neither do you now have an explanation for this wonder boy who crashes the very edifice of your stance. What's more, Objectivism is—foremost--an acknowledgement of reality and a respect for the facts of reality. I love Ayn Rand—but I love the truth more. So what philosophy do I ascribe to? In this example: Ayn Rand's philosophy.

-Victor-

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

You do not need a wonder boy to prove that people aren't born tabula rasa talent wise. For christ sakes, you can prove that people aren't born tabula rasa in talent by using almost any specimen out there. A person is born without an arm, they will have to work WAY harder than I will to be good at baseball baseball is a talent.

I'm 5'10, if I wanted to play professional basketball, I would have to work way harder than my friend who's 6'6. He would have to work much harder to play baseball because he has a larger strikezone to cover. I may be completely off base here, but for every tiny little genetic difference that is present in a human that manifests itself physically (height, bone structure, hand size) comes a different talent or lack of talent. I can't play the guitar, my fingers are short and thick and I have an extremely hard time reaching different strings and making sure my finger is on only one string. I could do it, but it is harder. People have different innate abilities based on their physical differences.

Am I missing something here? This seems fairly obvious.

P.S. What's with all the ad hominems? Seems two people that subscribe to the same basic belief system could keep from attacking each other personally all over some stupid specific of the belief system.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Einstein's IQ test or not...This is a sidebar incidental and it doesn’t erase what is demonstrability factual about this kid—that being what has been cited by Angie and the observed reports.

-Victor-

Victor, what is it that you think is "demonstrability factual" about this kid? I've now read all the articles, and additional material linked to the Wikipedia entry. The kid is very bright, and shows a knack for medicine. He isn't a miracle worker. I'm of the opinion that there are genetically affected characteristics such that some people start out ahead of where others start in regard to various abilities. I think I made this opinion clear in earlier posts on this thread. But you and Angie are sounding rather as if you think this kid is some sort of superhuman. And when people report, so and so has a higher IQ than Einstein, that's bad science reporting. We don't know what IQ Einstein would have measured at. Nor is there any reason to think that his IQ would necessarily have measured higher than many who didn't accomplish what he did. IQ alone isn't genius. There are plenty of Mensa members who have accomplished nothing to speak of except passing the Mensa exam. And I notice that not one of the articles gave a figure for this child's measured IQ, or stated what tests were used.

A couple of the reports I thought were fairly good though, as journalistic science reporting goes. One of those says:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/akritjaswal.html

Team Focus, the UK's leading I.Q. analysts agree to test him. For Akrit this was to prove a disappointment. His exceptional results in verbal and numeracy tests were countered by poor practical tests, particularly in the area of pattern matching. Because of this wide range of results Team Focus chose not to give him a final rating.

In the same report this comment is made by one of the professors, Professor Djamgoz, with whom Akrit is studying in Britain:

" He is generating ideas based upon what he knows, in an idealistic sort of way, without being in full grip of reality, withou[t] knowing how difficult it is to turn the ideas into practical realities".

Another report, the longest, I thought gave a fairly good overall discussion of the issue of child prodigies. (It's in particular talking about child prodigies in India; it's for an Indian newspaper.)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040828/saturday/main1.htm

But even in that report, no specific figure or testing method is mentioned. It simply states with no documentation:

"he had an IQ level that beats that of Einstein."

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I may be completely off base here, but for every tiny little genetic difference that is present in a human that manifests itself physically (height, bone structure, hand size) comes a different talent or lack of talent. I can't play the guitar, my fingers are short and thick and I have an extremely hard time reaching different strings and making sure my finger is on only one string. I could do it, but it is harder. People have different innate abilities based on their physical differences.

Am I missing something here? This seems fairly obvious.

I think you're quite ON base there, Jeff (advertently using the baseball pun which you maybe used inadvertently). I didn't read all the posts on the thread prior to when I entered it in the final stages of the earlier discussion, but I think what was causing the trouble was that, although some of the posters would accept that there are such physical differences in regard to, e.g., height, speed, coordination, hand reach, and such like, they denied any such relevant-to-skill-acquisition differences specifically in the brain. Personally, I think it would be very odd indeed if there weren't genetically affected differences from human brain to human brain, given that there are such differences in every other organ of the body.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Angie,

My Socrates remark was tongue-in-cheek. I think you realized that, but it wasn't clear. And my amusement was because Victor stepped on a bunion without even realizing it.

On all the animosity that this discussion has generated, let me state that between Shayne and Victor, I like them both. They have vastly different temperaments that lead them to express themselves from two opposite ends and these temperaments do not mix well. One ingredient that is missing in both is a willingness to look at where the other is coming from--like cats and dogs.

I could go into their strengths and weaknesses, but that is one hornet's nest I don't want to open at this point. I will leave it at this. Both, taking into account their different temperaments, are consciously engaged in using their own minds to the best of their ability. I like that. A lot. I wish they could see it in each other, but I have hope that this will come with time.

From my experience as a conductor and events organizer, I can state with certainty that getting these two temperaments to live in harmony is not easy. But one can benefit greatly from the other. So I see this clash as an opportunity--or an exercise in futility. Time will tell.

Jeff,

There is one really weird aspect to Objectivism that you will encounter in the subculture. Often common sense gets thrown right out the window. I personally have come to the conclusion that Objectivists do not make very good biologists and, from some of the really goofball pronouncements I have read, I conclude that the orthodoxy even sees biology as a threat to the philosophy.

You will find four types of attitudes regarding Rand's more dubious statements (tabula rasa, her theory of emotions as stemming only from ideas, etc., even the affair with NB). Two are on one side, so to speak, and two are on the other, with a line of gradation that runs through them.

Type 1. On one extreme end, this person worships Rand, so what she said or did was absolute truth and THE GOOD and could not be otherwise. This person will twist facts all around to fit reality to Rand's statements, blank out contrary facts and, in general, bend arguments into logical pretzels. This is a person who claims that man's mind is completely blank at birth, that the development of eyesight is not automatic, but volitional, etc. Rand cannot be seen as wanting in any fundamental area.

Type 2. This person is on a more rational level. He holds such high regard for Rand, and her achievements and thinking that he prefers to give her benefit of the doubt in her dubious statements. He generally explains them by attributing specific definitions to concepts that are not always present in Rand's writings, but allows her statements to make sense. This is a person who will conflict with another over innate talent, for example, but when the definitions are finally disclosed, it will be seen that what he means by the term "talent," or even "innate" at times, is not the same as what the person he is conflicting with means.

Type 3. This person is on a more rational level, too. He, too, holds high regard for Rand, her achievements and thinking, but thinks Rand was wrong, contradictory or extremely unclear in some of her concepts and acts. The line between this type and Type 2 is very fuzzy. As one approaches the other, the difference is more of an emotional attachment to Rand or Objectivism, or differences in the notion of how greatness should be viewed and treated. Type 3 is also more tolerant of shortcomings than Type 2.

Type 4. This person hates Rand and Objectivism. He holds up one of Rand's dubious statements or acts as absolute proof that Objectivism is worthless, and then dismisses all the ideas as without merit.

Your description of your mother's attitude toward Rand's affair with NB falls into Type No. 4, for a good example.

It is a good idea to keep some kind of categorization of people like this in mind when you read or discuss Objectivism. Just because a person learns the philosophy, that will not automatically make him fall into a specific category. That choice is more fundamental than learning philosophy and comes from how he approaches life in general.

A fanatic will be a fanatic and a reasonable person will be a reasonable person, regardless of which philosophy or religion he adopts. This characteristic will determine how he interprets it. He can change, but like I said, that will be on a very deep level that goes beyond judging the merits of a philosophy or religion. He can use them to aid his choice, but he cannot replace that choice with them.

So just because a person is an Objectivist, that does not automatically make him good person.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

I haven't looked at the links yet, but details unseen, the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind. One little question: What supposedly was Einstein's IQ? Insofar as I'm aware, he was never given an IQ test.

Ellen

___

I have a different question: Does IQ measure what was Einstein's distinctive talent?

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

Re post #244 in response to Jeff: well said. You have identified the psychological categories we have all witnessed so often with regard to Objectivism. It's a helpful mental framework. How objective, if not necessarily Objectivist, of you.

Paul

[CNA]

I'm running short on time so this will be fairly quick. As to Jeff's statement, yes, it is self-evident and is obvious. But it's been expressed on this thread to the contrary by various individuals on this thread and this is why I am curious as to their explanations with the new evidence of this child's milestones and achievements. As to Ellen's comments, I am basing what I know on the film that I watched and the information came from the horse's mouth so to speak rather than trinkled down information from individuals that said so and so and so and so, etc. I am not claiming that this child is a superhuman. I am stating that this kid is phenomenal to be at such a young age and have these kinds of achievements, even at the age of 10 months and so on. As to the tests performed, I can watch the program again and tell you the doctor that did the testing on him as well as the tests that were performed. According to the film, the doctor that did the testing is also world renowned. It seems that they put this kid through the wringer in an attempt to disprove it so they brought in many world renowned scientists, etc., which they found this kid is the real deal. As I stated, I am not claiming that he is a superhuman. I'm just asking for an explanation from various individuals who hold to the contrary as to innate talent and so forth with the new evidence that has been presented in this child.

Angie

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I still would thoroughly enjoy hearing Shayne's explanation with the evidence that has been presented as to why this child at the age of 11 was tested and showed an IQ that surpassed Einstein's.

I haven't looked at the links yet, but details unseen, the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind. One little question: What supposedly was Einstein's IQ? Insofar as I'm aware, he was never given an IQ test.

Ellen

___

I have a different question: Does IQ measure what was Einstein's distinctive talent?

Paul

No, it doesn't, as I already touched on in my further comments pertaining to the IQ issue (post 242). Einstein needed to be smart to accomplish what he did, yes, but smart wasn't enough. And plenty of others with higher IQ according to some IQ test or other would no way have been capable of his achievements. He had the physicist's way of visualization, for one thing, and to a high degree. But I think the most particular ingredient in Einstein's case was his having what's sometimes been called in the literature about him "a good nose" (there's even a caricature of him I've often seen which depicts a profile view with the nose exaggerated). He had a keen sense of what the fundamental lineaments of the basic problems in the physics of his day were -- and he was at a fortunate time in history from the standpoint of doing something of major importance with that keen sense, because it was a juncture when certain problems were prominently in need of being addressed. In a word, an ability for "essentialization" might best summarize Einstein's "distinctive talent," specifically "essentialization" at physics, being good at which of itself requires certain sorts of skills.

To write of someone, in this case the child Akrit we've been talking about, that he (or she) has a higher IQ than Einstein is, really, to say nothing whatsoever of substance about that person's abilities except that he (or she) is smart. Smart at what, and in what ways? And to repeat, lots of people are smart without the needed additional ingredients. Akrit's skills aren't even in the same area as Einstein's -- though he might be good at learning physics as well as biology and medicine, if physics were his area of interest. But the ways of thinking in the two areas aren't quite the same: overlap, but differences too.

Ellen

___

[CNA]

Once again I am short on time but want to say a few things as I have a bit of time now. Oh, boy, where do I start?

First I want to say that I was of the opinion that lined up more closely with Ayn Rand's as well as Shayne's and I think one or two others on this thread where their views also seemed to line up more closely with AR's, Shayne's, my own, I think maybe Johnny's, IF I am remembering correctly as it's been some time since I read this thread. Now I am not saying that all these individuals hold the same belief. I am just stating that to my understanding and what I've read, my view was more aligned with theirs to varying degrees. I even told Shayne in private that my views were more aligned with his. I also told Victor in private that my view differed from his own. But I am very open to new evidence, new knowledge that may prove otherwise. Well, my view has now changed. There is a huge difference between adults showing extraordinary talent/abilities and a very young child, as young as 10 months showing tremendous milestones such as what has been seen in this Indian boy. I do agree to the obvious that some kids reach milestones sooner than others or what have you but MOST do not reach these kinds of milestones at the age of 10 months.

Jeff made some interesting points but the difference is is that these are kids that have been exposed much to environmental factors, pressure from parents and/or long hours of practice and so forth versus a 10 month old or a 3 year old that is already showing extraordingary capabilities. In a 10 month old, the environmental factor theory is pretty much tossed out the window as well as the pressure from the parents or long hours of practice and so forth. Jeff made reference to his height and basketball. He knows that it would be difficult but he could do it with much practice and may very well define this skill more. There are many professional basketball players that did not fit the so-called norm in what is considered a suitable height for players.

Wikipedia:

The shortest player ever to play in the NBA is Muggsy Bogues at 1.60 meters (5 ft 3 in). Other short players have thrived at the pro level. Anthony "Spud" Webb was just 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m) tall, but had a 42-inch (1.07 m) vertical leap, giving him significant height when jumping. The shortest player in the NBA today is Earl Boykins at 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m). While shorter players are often not very good at defending against shooting, their ability to navigate quickly through crowded areas of the court and steal the ball by reaching low are strengths

Jeff gave a few examples but also gave an example of an individual that had no arm but was able to compensate through time and effort, finding new ways of dealing with their disability. Humans can be extraordinarly resilient and resourceful, especially kids. Regarding myself, most things have come very easy for me and would excel with relative ease as well as my own experiences with a number of IQ tests over a short period of time which I do not want to go into here.

Making a general observation is fairly easy to do to come to a conclusion regarding older individuals that show more talent or ability in a certain area. But I think what is at issue here and anyone correct me if I am wrong is that the issues were raised regarding environmental factors, long hours of practice and/or study, pressure from outside sources, laziness, etc., will play a part as to how far and to what extent the individual will rise. It seems as to what I've read up to this date that mostly what was being talked about on this thread were about older children, adolescents, and adults as there was not much evidence of a child as young as 10 months showing tremendous capabilites and surpassing others by leaps and bounds in their own milestones.

But in reference to older children to adults is now beside the point as I have been presented with new evidence and new knowledge of a very young child who was tested to have an IQ higher than that of 160 (this is where the reference came in as to Einstein's IQ as this is what THEY *estimated* Einstein's to be, despite of his never being tested) and this child is only 12 years old. But even before this, years before being tested, showed tremendous capabilities that was heavily pronounced and stood out above the rest. At the age of 10 months, this child was already talking, walking, and writing. Was reading Shakespear at the age of 5, although has been reported elsewhere that it was actually at the age of 3 years old and understood what he was reading. At the age of 7 watched him perform a surgery on an 8 year old girl which took roughly an hour for him to complete and the surgery was successful. There are other milestones this child has had that I am not remembering now that was documented at a very very young age.

According to what I watched on TLC, he does have weaknesses as Ellen also noted. This boy is extremely intelligent. He is a phenomenal kid just as Einstein was phenomenal. But one huge drawback for this kid and his intelligence is that he lacks much experience as Ellen also noted and was also brought up in the show, that he is not fully connected to reality and bringing these ideas of his into reality. This is where his lack of experience is coming into play. But he is also very young and these weaknesses may very well turn into strengths as he ages. Of course, as he gains more life experience, his views will also change, his approaches, etc., will change.

But I think what is at issue here is weeding out environmental factors, pressure from parents, long hours of study, etc, which I have no doubt that this also plays a role as I also have experience in this regard with hours of practice, study, and so on. I am not arguing this point. It just seems that everyone is trying to nail it down even further to the point the theory of environmental factors, long hours of study, pressure, etc., eventually will be tossed out. Well, what I saw on this program with this kid, the evidence and knowledge that was presented, it tosses the above theories out the window as this kid has shown tremendous abilities as early as 10 months old. I once held the view that was more closely lined up with Rand's. But now that I have been presented with new evidence and knowledge, and most of all saw it with my own two eyes and not told about it or read about it, I have changed my view. This is one kid I will definitely be watching as he truly fascinates me.

There is more I would like to add such as a little bit of research I did regarding William James Sidis which has been claimed to have had an IQ of 250 to 300 which I will include a quote from Wikipedia as well as my wanting to re-read what I wrote above to make clarifications of my thoughts or anything that may be confusing but unfortunately I am running out of time. Since this Indian child sparked much curiousity from me, I've done some research not into adults or even teenagers that show extraordinary ability but into infants where the theory of environmental factors and/or hours of study and/or pressure from parents could very well be thrown out the window such as in the case of the Indian boy and Willima James Sidis who supposedly could read the New York Times at the age of 18 months. At the age of eight, invented his own language as well as many other achievements, accomplishments. But according to what I have read so far, Sidis did not fair very well as he grew older, not intellectually but socially and eventually withdrew from public life.

Wikipedia quote on William James Sidis:

Parents and upbringing

Sidis was born to Russian Jewish immigrant parents, Boris Sidis, Ph.D., M.D. and Sarah Mandelbaum Sidis, M.D. on April 1, 1898 in New York City. Boris emigrated in 1887 to escape political persecution, while Sarah's family fled the pogroms about 1889. Boris attended Harvard University and his Ph.D. was finally mailed to him when he refused to submit a thesis and attend the oral examination. He then taught psychology at Harvard, worked as a psychiatrist, and published numerous books and articles. Sarah received no formal education (other than Boris's tutelage), but passed the New York Stateboard examinations with honors, and became one of a handful of women to earn a medical degree in the 19th century. However, she gave up her own medical career to assist in William's education. William was named after his godfather, Boris's friend and colleague, William James.

Instead of the disciplinary punishment so common to education, Sidis's parents believed in nurturing a precocious and fearless love of knowledge, an unusual idea in the early 20th century, for which they received much criticism. Nevertheless, young Sidis could read the New York Times at 18 months, and at the age of five he "knew something of Russian, French and German" (North American Review, 1907, #184, 887-888). By age of eight, he invented his own language, Vendergood. Some of his other early accomplishments supposedly include:

Started feeding himself with a spoon at eight months.[1]

Cajoled by Boris, Sidis learned to pronounce alphabetic syllables from blocks hanging in his crib.

At six months, William said his first word - "door". He later explained to his mother why he liked that word - "Door moves. People come."

At seven months he pointed to Earth's moon and called it, "moon."

Learned to spell efficiently by one year old.

Started reading The New York Times at 18 months.

Started typing at three. Used his high chair to reach a typewriter. First composed letter was an order for toys from Macy's.

Read Caesar's Gallic Wars, in Latin (self-taught), as a birthday present to his Father in Sidis's fourth year.

Learned Greek alphabet and read Homer in Greek in his fourth year.

Learned Aristotelian logic in his sixth year.

At the age of four, Sidis learned Russian, French, German, and Hebrew, and soon after, Turkish and Armenian.

Calculated mentally a day any date in history would fall, at age six.

Learned Gray's Anatomy at six. Could pass a student medical examination.

Started grammar school at six. In three days he was moved to the third grade, and he graduated from grammar school in seven months.

Wrote four books between ages of four and eight. Two on anatomy and astronomy are lost.

Passed Harvard Medical School anatomy exam at age seven.

Passed MIT entrance exam at age eight.

Corrected E. V. Huntington's mathematics text galleys at the age of eight.

His father attempted to enroll him at Harvard at eight (going on nine).

Before he was 10 years of age, he was perusing Albert Einstein's theories -- checking for possible errors.

At age 10, in one evening, corrected Harvard logic professor Josiah Royce's book manuscript: citing, "wrong paragraphs."

Mastered higher mathematics and planetary revolutions by age 11.

In 1910, at age 11, lectured Harvard Mathematical club on "Four-Dimensional Bodies."

[edit] Chronology

1898- Born on April 1.

1908- Enrolled at Tufts College for a year, took mathematics classes.[2]

1909- Became the youngest student ever to enroll at Harvard College at age 11. (He was classified as a Special Student until being reclassified as a Senior in 1913.)

1910- Began taking a full-time course load at Harvard College.

1914- Graduated from Harvard, cum laude, in June at age 16.[3] Shortly after graduation, he told reporters that he wanted to live the perfect life, which to him meant living it in seclusion. He granted an interview to a reporter from the Boston Herald, which published his vows to remain celibate and to never marry, and a statement that women do not appeal to him (although he later developed a strong affection for a young woman named Martha Foley[4]). Later (in 1914 or 1915) he enrolled at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University.

1915- After a gang of Harvard students threatened to beat him up, his parents secured a job for him at Rice Institute (now Rice University) in Houston, Texas as a professor of mathematics. He was also going to work towards his doctorate. He arrived at Rice in December at age 17.

1916- Departed Rice after being persistently teased and kidded by the students he was instructing (who were older than he was). Then gave up what may have been a promising career in mathematics and enrolled at Harvard Law School.[5]

1919- Withdrew in good standing from Harvard Law School in his last year.[6] Later arrested after a socialist May Day parade turned into a melee.

1923- His father died of a cerebral hemorrhage at age 56.

1944- Died of a cerebral hemorrhage on July 17 at age 46.[7]

William James Sidis -- full article Wikipedia

Angie

[CNA]

Ellen,

When I get more time, I will sit down and watch the program again and get the name of the doctor that performed the evaluation and IQ test as well as the kinds of tests that were used to conduct the exam. I'm not sure when I will be able to get the time. But if it comes down to it, I will just fast forward to this section of the doc and get the information for you.

Angie