What is talent?

[Victor Pross]

Angie: 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.

A slavish wallflower to her boyfriend she is NOT. I like that.

[CNA]

Angie: 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.

A slavish wallflower to her boyfriend she is NOT. I like that.

You are absolutely correct. But it looks like I have now changed my view as I was presented with some pretty powerful evidence in this Indian boy which was so fascinating to watch. So many things that have been well documented with him at a very very early age, testimony from family, friends, as well as others. Difficult to deny when you are seeing it with your own two eyes. As I said to you in private, watching the doc, they raised him as every other parent would. But at a very early age, he just started progressing extremely fast and this is when his parents became aware that he was special and they started to encourage him, started taking him places to get some kind of exposure and have struggled with this until now. I was hoping that there would be more information on him on the internet so I could provide more links. But truly this is something that needs to be watched, your own observations, the evidence that is presented, etc. If anyone here has TLC, watch out for this program. It's extremely interesting.

Angie

Edited December 20, 2006 by CNA

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

Angie,

Please don't feel under any obligation to do that. I'd be curious to hear, if you have the time. But the basic point I was making on the IQ issue is that the comparison of the kid to Einstein isn't good science and is actually silly. It's a sort of thing which occurs with Einstein in particular, people using his name as a sort of icon standing for "brilliant." And IQ level, however it's measured, would just indicate that someone is bright; it wouldn't say anything about particular gifts and developed abilities. I'm in no way doubting that Akrit is plenty smart. And I'm not one in any case who doubts that there are genetically affected factors in ability.

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

Angie: Environmental factors really have nothing to do with height. Yes, humans can overcome their natural disadvantages like Mugsy Bogues (sp?) but that doesn't mean that their natural disadvantage doesn't exist. Humans can overcome obstacles, but if you're at a natural advantage or a natural disadvantage that means that you're not tabula rasa.

[CNA]

Hi Jeff,

I didn't state that environmental factors included height as that is completely obvious. I also didn't state that obstacles couldn't be overcome as well as advantages and disadvantages. The post encompassed some of what has been brought up in this thread already which has been environmental factors, long hours of study, and so forth. Read my post again. It is in reference to extremely young kids such as the Indian boy at the age of 10 months or Sidis at the age of 18 months where there is no long hours of study, environmental factors are greatly minimized and so forth yet have exhibited tremendous abilities.

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

Angie,

Please don't feel under any obligation to do that. I'd be curious to hear, if you have the time. But the basic point I was making on the IQ issue is that the comparison of the kid to Einstein isn't good science and is actually silly. It's a sort of thing which occurs with Einstein in particular, people using his name as a sort of icon standing for "brilliant." And IQ level, however it's measured, would just indicate that someone is bright; it wouldn't say anything about particular gifts and developed abilities. I'm in no way doubting that Akrit is plenty smart. And I'm not one in any case who doubts that there are genetically affected factors in ability.

Ellen

___

Thank you, Ellen. I very much appreciate that as the doc is 4 hours long. I agree but I think it was more in reference for viewers to get an idea of this boy's intellectual abilities versus a number that has been plastered on him. Plus he seemed to be very curious himself as to where he stood intellectually. You know, something to help get a better perspective of it, considering he is so young.

Angie

[CNA]

Humans can overcome obstacles, but if you're at a natural advantage or a natural disadvantage that means that you're not tabula rasa.

Hi again,

I found this interesting as there has been quite a few things for me where when first engaging in it, it was very awkward and wasn't natural to me. But after some time, I found it was something I greatly excelled at and then came very natural to me; such as skiing or dancing as well as math. When it came to math in high school, oh, my, it was horrendous. But when something happened in my personal life and over a very short period of time which I don't want to go into here as to what it was, come to find out I have exceptional math skills and excel in this area. Also my chosen profession, stenographer, is another example where at first it was awkward and not natural, stumbled with it and thought at times if this truly was a career I shouldn't have pursued. But I stayed on it, determined, well, it is very natural for me and have excelled at this as well. That was documented when I left my college after 6 years of both academic study as well as skill and speed building. I left college typing 260 words per minute which is few and far between amongst students at that college and also nailed the writing portion of the state exam with only 14 errors, coming back that I had 99.9 percent accuracy when writing 225 words per minute over a sustained period of time. I have even thought about honing this skill even further and entering speed competitions where the competition is set at 280 words per minute.

But when first engaging in this, it most definitely did NOT come natural to me and stumbled with it at first and thought about pursuing another field. But I stayed on it and have excelled at this as well. I am extremely happy that I made the decision to stick with it, although I had my doubts, as it has given me a wonderful career, pays extremely well, much flexibility, my own boss, etc. So disadvantages or advantages, what you think doesn't come natural to you doesn't mean that it is not a natural talent or an exceptional ability. Sometimes although awkward or what seems to not come natural may very well be an area you greatly excel at and surpass others.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

MSK: 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.

I might have responded to something MSK said misunderstanding the spirit in which he wrote it. If so, sorry. I have been annoyed over the breezing over of this compelling evidence as displayed in the links Angie supplied. I would like a serious discussion of this boy and its relationship to the question of innate talents --without all the trepidation of whether to do so is “in line” with Objectivism. Let’s keep the eyes focused on the evidence and reality.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

___

ANGIE: Thank you, Ellen. I very much appreciate that as the doc is 4 hours long. I agree but I think it was more in reference for viewers to get an idea of this boy's intellectual abilities versus a number that has been plastered on him. Plus he seemed to be very curious himself as to where he stood intellectually. You know, something to help get a better perspective of it, considering he is so young.

Angie makes a valid point. Any discussion of Einstein’s IQ merely concretizes--by underscoring this kid’s brilliance—something that can be too abstract: ‘Gee, this kid is really smart.’ Well, what does that mean? Every parent thinks their kid is smart. Let me ask you, what sounds more compelling and clear: “I have a lot of money!” OR: I have 25 million dollars!” Hey, if we could move away from any emotional ejaculations or irrelevant nit-pickings masquerading as a philosophical conversation, we all could learn something very important about the topic of this thread as inspired by the fact of this Indian boy. Why are we casual and dismissive of this mind boggling kid?

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

[A remark in advance. I signed on, already having written the following post before I read further posts which have appeared. I'll send it as is, but then make an additional quick reply to Victor.]

Folks, I'm probably going to be too occupied with Xmas activities and other circumstances for the immediate future to get back on-line for more than a few minutes here and there for the next several days. But I've been feeling that maybe I threw Angie off-track in terms of my views on Akrit Jaswal because of something I wrote in my initial post on the subject. I said:

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.

Angie, I think, formed the idea that my primary suspicion pertained to the IQ issue. I hope I've said enough to explain that what I found problematic there was the (apparent, from what Angie wrote) idea that IQ of itself would mean anything whatsoever about Akrit's abilities, aside from his being smart -- with the linked problem, as I explained in a post responding to Paul, that, no, I don't think IQ is the distinguishing feature of Einstein's genius.

Where I probably misled Angie was by continuing straight from the statement that "the reports raise numerous eyebrows of scepticism in my mind" to the "little question" (which was only an incidental question from my standpoint) about IQ. The details I in fact was referring to in being suspicious were these: the report of Akrit's having performed "surgery" when he was...7? (6 or 7), and his supposedly "understanding" Shakespeare.

Angie had provided only a few indications at that point. Her report sounded to me like breathless amazement at a child who, I thought, if he WAS as reported would have to be on the order of an extra-terrestrial implant or a bizarre (scientifically outside the bounds) "mutant." Indeed, I immediately thought of a novel I love by Doris Lessing, The Four-Gated City, in the last visionary part of which there are bizarre mutations -- picked up in further work of hers -- among them a child of, if I remember correctly, 12 who's more advanced than most of the scientists of the day.

Re the "surgery" issue, the image Angie's description conjured in my mind was of major surgery -- thoracic or abdominal (or orthopedic with some animal larger than a small bird or mammal). Yeah, I thought, COME ON. A child, overseeing anesthetic, etc., actually knowing enough about internal anatomy! Tell me another. But as it turns out, the "surgery" wasn't in that league; it was separating a couple fingers fused by burn scars. Possible, if circumstances were just right, at Akrit's reported age.

Re the "understanding Shakespeare": meaning what? That a precocious child could read Shakespeare at 5, I can believe. But "understanding"? In what sense? I do not believe that the most precocious 5-year-old could truly "understand" the emotional issues in Romeo and Juliet, let alone Hamlet, let alone King Leer.

The claims sounded, in short, way overstated beyond possibility. The details in the web reports I then read sounded a lot more plausible.

I hope this clarifies where I was coming from.

And...

If I don't have time to sign on again before Christmas: Merry Christmas, those of you who celebrate Christmas.

Ellen

And a PS: Michael, I thought your breakdown of 4 "types" of response to Rand was quite good. Bravo.

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Angie makes a valid point. Any discussion of Einstein’s IQ merely concretizes--by underscoring this kid’s brilliance—something that can be too abstract: ‘Gee, this kid is really smart.’ Well, what does that mean? Every parent thinks their kid is smart. Let me ask you, what sounds more compelling and clear: “I have a lot of money!” OR: I have 25 million dollars!” Hey, if we could move away from any emotional ejaculations or irrelevant nit-pickings masquerading as a philosophical conversation, we all could learn something very important about the topic of this thread as inspired by the fact of this Indian boy. Why are we casual and dismissive of this mind boggling kid?

Victor, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a "discussion of Einstein's IQ merely concretizes [...] something that can be too abstract." Instead, I think that it feeds into, unless it's knowledgeably done, public ignorance on issues of Einstein in particular and IQ in general. And, you know, if I were inclined to take offense, I would do so at your apparent description of my responses as "emotional ejaculations or irrelevant nit-pickings masquerading as a philosophical conversation." However, in the spirit of my previous post (#260): Merry Christmas, Victor.

"And to all a good night."

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Angie makes a valid point. Any discussion of Einstein’s IQ merely concretizes--by underscoring this kid’s brilliance—something that can be too abstract: ‘Gee, this kid is really smart.’ Well, what does that mean? Every parent thinks their kid is smart. Let me ask you, what sounds more compelling and clear: “I have a lot of money!” OR: I have 25 million dollars!” Hey, if we could move away from any emotional ejaculations or irrelevant nit-pickings masquerading as a philosophical conversation, we all could learn something very important about the topic of this thread as inspired by the fact of this Indian boy. Why are we casual and dismissive of this mind boggling kid?

Victor, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a "discussion of Einstein's IQ merely concretizes [...] something that can be too abstract." Instead, I think that it feeds into, unless it's knowledgeably done, public ignorance on issues of Einstein in particular and IQ in general. And, you know, if I were inclined to take offense, I would do so at your apparent description of my responses as "emotional ejaculations or irrelevant nit-pickings masquerading as a philosophical conversation." However, in the spirit of my previous post (#260): Merry Christmas, Victor.

"And to all a good night."

Ellen

___

Ellen,

If I understand the underpinning tenor of your post, I gather that the issue of this child and of the brilliance reported to him is nothing more than a "manipulative show business veneer" or out-and-out ballyhoo --reducing this kid to being no different from the snot-nose down the street. Is this estimation of your stance correct?

As for the emotional ejaculations and nit-picking, keep in mind that you are not the only person posting on this thread and that my harsh comments is addressed only to those who are guilty, and if you know yourself not to be included among the guilty---all the better. I wish you happy holidays, and please, let’s continue soon.

Victor

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

If I understand the underpinning tenor of your post, I gather that the issue of this child and of the brilliance reported to him is nothing more than a "manipulative show business veneer" or out-and-out ballyhoo --reducing this kid to being no different from the snot-nose down the street. Is this estimation of your stance correct?

No, it is not, Victor. I recommend re-reading my posts. "This kid" sounds to me, upon looking at the web reports, like a genuinely very smart youngster. He doesn't, though, sound out of the bounds of other prodigies (if that's what you mean by "no different from the snot-nose down the street").

Truly signing off now.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

ELLEN: “I'm in no way doubting that Akrit is plenty smart. And I'm not one in any case who doubts that there are genetically affected factors in ability.”

The theme of the documentary was not to report yet another “precocious” kid—but something extraordinary that has an intellectual community baffled. The child is extraordinary—even if the surgery cited was not triple by-pass heart surgery. Angie reports that “the surgery was a bit more than just a few fingers, it was the entire hand at least what could be seen in the video as there were close ups of it. Her entire hand [the person being operated on] was clutched closed so he separated quite a bit.” Wow. Yeah, I would say he is "plenty smart". Ellen, one can take it that you are either not easily impressed or unduly skeptical—even in the face of overwhelming evidence. And the “evidence” being referenced here is to back up the question of this thread: is there such a thing as innate talent? On that topic—I’m unclear as to where you stand. I say this kid is exhibit A.

Victor

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

General statement:

As to the question if this Indian kid being no different than all the other “garden variety prodigies” Angie has reported that “this kid has demonstrated so much of his abilities that surpasses so many other prodigies out there and is getting world renowned attention for it.” Look, I am simply pressing the issue of this child as a overwhelming case regarding the question of the existence of “innate talent”—the theme of this thread. Really, that's all I'm saying.

-Victor-

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Hi Ellen,

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure as to what you were wanting to convey but what you have said since makes it clear. I knew you hadn't read the links as you stated in your post. There really was no need for me to go into major detail as I provided the links for anyone who was interested to take a look and then they could get the story and a better idea. I just gave a quick rundown of some of the things that was in the show. Unfortunately as I read more of the web reports, they don't go into much detail as the 4 hour doc did obviously which quite a bit was covered.

As for the surgery, I watched the video of it during the doc. In the video of the surgery, you could see that it was the entire hand that was fused together and clutched completely closed. He was able to separate the fingers to the point she was finally able to unclutch her hand so it was more than just a couple of fingers being separated.

As to Shakespeare, there is much more in the doc than what is stated here as well as the web reports. Like I said, it was a 4 hour doc and covered quite a bit of this kid, everything that he has done, many many interviews, videos, Q&A with him, scientists interviewing him, and so forth.

I chuckle a bit, no, he's not a mutant, superhuman, etc. LOL I'm just astounded at what I saw with this kid as opposed to other child prodigies out there. The immense knowledge he has is mind boggling to witness and to watch him interact with scientists, his correcting them while other doctor's saying, you're right, Akrit, it was this and not that, etc. He is definitely interesting. That's for sure. But as I said, I was hoping there was more links about him on the internet to get a better idea of this boy but there seem to not be many that go into much depth. The 4 hour doc was very thorough, very intriguing, quite amazing to watch. I've seen child prodigies before but not like this youngster, at least what I saw in the doc. He blew quite a few people away, including some of the scientists, doctors, medical students, etc. They were just as fascinated and intrigued with him as I am with him. But as time goes on, I am pretty sure this kid will get much more coverage and more people will hear of him.

For me personally, the reference to IQ helped me personally to get a better idea of who he is. I agree that it doesn't show the entire picture of who he is, his abilities, his talents, etc. But it did help me to get a better perspective of him as well as being combined with watching him, the interviews with scientists and so forth.

His lack of experience will hinder his understanding of things such that you've noted with Shakespeare and the complex emotions presented in some. If I am remembering correctly, I don't think they identified which it was regarding Shakespeare. Or if they did, I left the room momentarily to do other things. I haven't watched the video over again as I haven't had time. Even now, I should be heading off to bed as I work early this morning but wanted to address your post.

I also hope you have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

I am suddenly reminded of the movie Good-will Hunting. For those who have not seen it, it is about an extraordinary math genius who is very troubled. But the “wonder boy” in question is a teenager. The film shows his interactions with older and established mathematicians---award winning intellectuals who don’t feel admiration and awe when standing in the presence of this teenager---but instead very different emotions: fear and hostility. I wonder if this Indian boy is due for just such an experience from a community that should be praising him. It makes you think.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Hello one and all:

Well, I think we can all say--for those who care to take an honest look--that Johnny and Shayne are wrong on the question of innate talent. Sorry guys, but your knowledge has expanded and you now have something to think about.

This thread came to life again, for a short while, after a few weeks of sleep, but now it can be put to rest now that Angie has brought forth an incredible case in the person of an Indian boy. We should be thankful for the knowledge of knowing that we can say that innate talent exists, and that human beings are not born Tabula Rasa, not completely and utterly. We still need to learn and expand our skills, this is true, but this was never in dispute, was it?

-Victor-

Edited December 21, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Ya, seems pretty self-evident to me. I wonder what Rand's motives/logic in saying we were all tabula rasa was. Seems to me like she was trying too hard to prove that Laissez fair capitalism if fine for all because everyone has an opportunity. I find it funny that she said everyone was tabula rasa and then had her heroes born without a guilty conscience. (Them being born without it when everyone else wasn't implying that they weren't tabula rasa.)

[CNA]

Angie: Environmental factors really have nothing to do with height. Yes, humans can overcome their natural disadvantages like Mugsy Bogues (sp?) but that doesn't mean that their natural disadvantage doesn't exist. Humans can overcome obstacles, but if you're at a natural advantage or a natural disadvantage that means that you're not tabula rasa.

Hi Jeff,

I have some time this morning and wanted to come back and finish up what I wanted to say regarding this thread. I just wanted to point out some things. Some of your statements are contradictory. When it comes to basketball, that is a game invented by humans so difficult to say if the rules were changed the other way around. But at present and the way the game is set up, there have been many exceptions as I previously put up. Humans can overcome obstacles as we both know. But to claim a natural disadvantage, it would have to be a disadvantage that cannot be overcome. Here is the contradiction. If you overcome that disadvantage, it no longer is a disadvantage. It then becomes an advantage because you profit/gain from overcoming that obstacle. In order to claim a natural disadvantage or advantage, it would have to be insurmountable. So your statement of "Humans can overcome obstacles, but if you're at a natural advantage or a natural disadvantage that means you're not tabula rasa" doesn't prove blank slate or innate talent either way as it is a contradiction. In order to claim a natural disadvantage, you would have to have an example that shows certain people are at a stand still, cannot overcome/surpass the obstacle to get to a higher level no matter how hard they try. This right here would be a chore as you would have to find not in just one person but in many where there are absolutely NO exceptions and is proven over and over again over time.

I'll give you an example of a true disadvantage but is not natural. Spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis such as in Christopher Reeve's case. This is a true disadvantage because as of right now there is no cure and this current condition is insurmountable for these people, making them truly at a disadvantage to others. But as technology progresses, there are new discoveries of how to correct this problem, it will no longer be a disadvantage because it can now be overcome and they will gain/profit in turn making it an advantage for them.

If anyone can answer that last question and coming up with an example of not just one person but in many where they can no longer progress no matter how hard they try, new discoveries, or what have you with absolutely NO exceptions, then you will also be able to prove innate talent versus blank slate which I think would be very difficult. But the show I watched regarding the Indian boy as well as some of the research that I've done on infants where they exhibit exceptional/extraordinary abilities as early as 10 months old pretty much tosses environmental factors, pressure from parents, laziness, and so on out the window. It makes a very very very strong case for innate talent.

As to your reference with the baseball and the pitch and your attributing it to physical differences, I have seen too many times where you will have many different ways of doing something that will achieve the same outcome. So also difficult to say that your physical differences also proves innate talent versus blank slate. To achieve that downward drop, there very well could be many other ways that can get the same result. People are making new discoveries all the time, new ways of approaching things, constantly making progress, figuring out other ways to achieve the same result. So difficult to say that physical differences proves innate talent or blank slate.

As to your reference that you can't play the guitar because of your large hands and thick fingers, Jeff, please do not sell yourself short because what you percieve as being a *natural disadvantage* due to a physical difference or what have you and never being able to be good at the guitar is hindering you from taking on something that you may very well be exceptional at. Not good to have this attitude. There are many many guitarists out there that are successful that are large men with very large hands and thick fingers. A good example of a man with large hands and thick fingers yet was one of the best guitarists in Rock n Roll history was Stevie Ray Vaughan. He also had large hands and thick fingers.

Wikipedia article for Stevie Ray Vaughan

Vaughan's Guitars and Musical Equipment

For guitars, Stevie used some acoustics and a Hamiltone Custom, but he mainly used Fender Stratocasters. His most famous was a Strat with a Brazilian rosewood "veneer" fingerboard fretted with Dunlop 6100 "Jumbo" fretwire; it had "1962" stamped on the neck and body, but "1959" written on the pickups. On this particular guitar, he also had a left-handed tremolo installed and was known as "Number One". It had a D-shaped thick neck that was perfect for his large hands and thick fingers.

My father is another good example. He is a very good guitarist yet he stands 6 foot 3 and weighs in between 275 to 300 pounds. He's not fat. He's a very large statured man. He also has very large hands and thick fingers yet can kick ass on the guitar. Jeff, find the guitar that is right for you and you may very well find that you are exceptional at this. It also may be coordination problems but this also does not prove innate talent or blank slate either way. You can take OT theraphy to help improve your fine motor skills. My son has been in OT since the age of 3 for fine motor skill difficulties. The amount of progress he has made has been phenomenal.

I've been thinking much about this and my little brain has come to the conclusion that there are two ways that I can think of RIGHT NOW that will prove innate talent versus blank slate. One is research NOT into adults or teenagers but in INFANTS that exhibit extraordinary/exceptional abilities at an extremely young age where environmental factors, pressure from parents, laziness, hours of practice and so on, is easily thrown out the window. There is not much influence that can be done in a child that is 10 months old and is so new to the world. They progress extremely quick and show exceptional abilities that quickly surpass others by leaps and bounds such as in the case of Azkrit and Sidis as well as Einstein I am sure. The second one is to find an example not in just one person but in many where they are at a stand still and cannot progress to a higher level no matter how hard they try with NO exceptions and is proven over time. The latter would be more difficult to prove because progress, new discoveries, etc., are always being made. I believe the best way to prove it is to show examples of extraordinary/exceptional abilities in infants where the theories of environmental factors, physical differences, laziness, long hours of study, and so on can be easily tossed out. In this case and their being infants with exceptional abilities that surpass others by leaps and bounds, Azkrit, Sidis, and I am sure Einstein make a very very very strong case for innate talent/abilities.

If anybody can add to this, correct anything, or state the reasons why Azkrit, Sidis, et al, are exhibiting extraordinary abilties as early as 10 months that go against innate talent, I would love to hear it? But as of right now and watching Azkrit in a 4 hour doc and all the evidence that was provided, all the testing, all the new knowledge, and seeing it with my own two eyes, I have changed my view.

Angie

Edited December 21, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

So difficult to say that physical differences proves innate talent or blank slate.

This is a key statement. Physical differences—be it an 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'—is an entirely different issue from the subject of tabula rasa and innate talent. To add to Angie’s thoughts on the subject, let me offer the following point: women have reproductive systems; they have the capacity to give birth to children, while men can’t. This does NOT mean that women therefore have an “innate talent”, a "talent" for giving birth--it merely means that there are physical differences between the sexes; it does not mean that women are at an “advantage” and men at a “disadvantage”—it merely means that men and women are built differently, and the subject of innate talent is distinct. It’s a different issue. As Angie has said, it is “difficult to say that physical differences proves innate talent or blank slate”—it is “difficult” because it is a separate subject matter.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

I'm really confused here, My friend Max has talent at basketball. I have less. If he was my size, we'd probably be even. How is that not innate talent because I am at a disadvantage (or maybe he is at an advantage. It really doesn't matter). Either way, he has more talent because of this. How is that not innate?

Why does something have to be insurmountable for it to be a disadvantage?

I understand that this advantage may not be an advantage in another situation, but even so that doesn't mean it's blank slate.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

When it comes to certain abilities and capabilities “practice makes perfect” and it is also true that repetition, devotion and applying yourself are the foundations to acquiring a skill. Some people—given their physical structure—are better and more apt at given activities than others. I’m saying this is a different matter from the question of talent. Here is my argument: some people seem to be wired at birth and are more apt at a given area—such as math, drawing or music—and it does not matter if they are 5’10 or have fat or short fingers. In many cases, you see “wired-in ability” from the very beginning. Let’s take the question of drawing: I exhibited an advance skill at a very young age and this spot lighted me as far back as I can remember. But this is not to say that what I am doing today is similar to what I was doing at the age of three. Of course there is room for improving on one’s ability. You see, I believe anybody can take a series of drawing classes and later walk away with marginally improved skills, but these people will never be able to paint like Rembrandt. I don’t care if you take a random child and train him from an early age till he’s fifty-years-old. Some people will never paint, compose music, etc, like the masters. Why not? Because they don’t have “the gift.” We are speaking here of something non-tangible and not physical like fat or short fingers or jumping around with a ball.

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 raw materials. There is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities. But I've come to understand that Rand was particularly referring to conscious thought with her tabula rasa proclamation. So we should not be too hard on Rand. Of course, it's what we choose to do with those abilities that determine our course. That's where knowledge and free will comes in. That man is born tabula rasa means only that he doesn't have knowledge [conscious though] at birth. In this case, I agree with Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

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-

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

I'm really confused here, My friend Max has talent at basketball. I have less. If he was my size, we'd probably be even. How is that not innate talent because I am at a disadvantage (or maybe he is at an advantage. It really doesn't matter). Either way, he has more talent because of this. How is that not innate?

Why does something have to be insurmountable for it to be a disadvantage?

I understand that this advantage may not be an advantage in another situation, but even so that doesn't mean it's blank slate.

The point of it is is that it very well may be something you may surpass him in provided long hours are spent practicing, fine tuning, finding better ways to improve your game and in turn just might surpass your friend at. These are some of the arguments that were brought up on this thread and they are legitimate arguments. I've noticed many many differences as I am sure we all have to whatever degree when practicing something all the time, studying, and so on, the same with fitness with agility, flexibility, jumping higher, and so forth. The point is you may perceive a disadvantage at something but with time and effort or what have you and you gain on it and benefit from it, it becomes an advantage. With all of these factors put in such as time practicing, improving, and so on, who is not to say you could also achieve that level that your friend has achieved. This is why it makes it difficult to prove innate talent in adults and even teenagers. We all know that the more you practice the better you will get. Or the more time you study the smarter you will become. You may very well discover something that improves your game tremendously putting you at equal odds with your friend and so forth. This isn't considered a disadvantage because you are now playing at his level or may even surpass him.

The issue of innate talent is a lot more complex than you think it is. Scientists, experts, and so forth still haven't been able to settle this question. It's not as simple as it seems. There are many other factors that need to be taken into account such as long hours of study, pressure from parents and pushing their kids relentlessly, relentless practicing, or could be that you are lazier than the other person, you're not as driven to succeed, and so on.

What I am saying is the best way to prove innate talent is in infants where all the theories that have been presented so far from long hours of study and so on will be difficult to apply to a child as young as 10 months. Jeff, I know this thread is long but I would recommend reading the thread from the beginning to get a better perspective of what is being talked about on this thread. You'll find that the issue of innate talent and all the outside factors that have been taken into account -- it's a lot more complex than you think. It is an issue that even scientists, experts in their field, are having a hard time proving and you will see many disagreements regarding it even amongst scientists. It's not as cut and dry as you think it is. Many many areas need to be taken into account such as some of the theories that have been presented on this thread so far.

Angie

[Paul Mawdsley]

I'm really confused here, My friend Max has talent at basketball. I have less. If he was my size, we'd probably be even. How is that not innate talent because I am at a disadvantage (or maybe he is at an advantage. It really doesn't matter). Either way, he has more talent because of this. How is that not innate?

Why does something have to be insurmountable for it to be a disadvantage?

I understand that this advantage may not be an advantage in another situation, but even so that doesn't mean it's blank slate.

Jeff,

Does the notion of talent not contain within it an element that requires consciousness. The size of your body might give you certain potential advantages in ability but talent level is an expression of the individuals mental ability to capitalize on the physical advantages.

A note about Einstein: was he not a late bloomer in mathematics. How does the concept of talent account for late bloomers like Einstein or Maxwell? It seems to be something different to the child prodigy.

Paul