What is talent?

[CNA]

Paul wrote:

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

Good question, Paul. I was the same way, although I am no where near Einstein. Yikes. When it came to math, oh, I was absolutely horrendous as a child. But as I got older, it was found that I had exceptional math skills. But my main problem is is that I am dyslexic, not severe though, and transpose numbers so it makes it a bit difficult for me when doing problems out of a book and so on. I can do it but it may take me some time and rechecking to make sure I am seeing the numbers correctly. Instead of a 13, I may see a 31. I also do this with words such as I am may appear am I. But at any rate, I can figure out a problem in my head relatively easy, depending on the complexity of it. I can sort and organize and remember easier this way. But it was the same with me, horrendous as a child but later found to have exceptional math skills.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

Paul: "Does the notion of talent not contain within it an element that requires consciousness."

Paul,

You make a very good point. Consulting a dictionary I can see that the word “talent” is referred to as a “natural ability” or a “superior, apparently natural ability in the arts or sciences or in the learning or doing of anything.” This description implies a native ability and connotes that it can be cultivated by the one possessing it. When people speak of having a “gift,” they mean that a special ability is bestowed upon one--as by nature---and not acquired through effort. It is no wonder that the term “genius” and “talent” are so often linked as “genius” implies an inborn mental endowment.

-Victor

edit: It also becomes clear as to why Shayne and Johnny were almost offended at the 'ethical ramifications' of the concept of innate talent, because it is so often that one must work hard and long to develop their abilities in order to become successful---and here it is being said that some people can sit back in a lounge chair and do nothing [or so they thought] because nature has bestowed them with “the gift.” However, even those who have the gift [innate talent] have to work bloody hard to achieve their goals in life. I never said otherwise. I hope that is now acknowledged.

To repeat: the dictionary states that the word “talent” is referred to as a “natural ability” or a “superior, apparently natural ability in the arts or sciences or in the learning or doing of anything.” Angie pointed out to me that the "learning or doing of anything" means EFFORT.

**

**

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Thank you for finally explaining that to me. I was getting confused there.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Angie,

@#%&*+#$@!!! I just completed a fairly detailed response to your post, had trouble posting it, and accidentally closed the window I wrote it in. %$%$@%$@@!!

Good night!

Paul

[CNA]

Both Victor and Paul make wonderful points and clarifications.

Angie

[CNA]

Angie,

@#%&*+#$@!!! I just completed a fairly detailed response to your post, had trouble posting it, and accidentally closed the window I wrote it in. %$%$@%$@@!!

Good night!

Paul

Paul,

I am sorry to hear that. I've had problems with that as well. Any feedback, corrections, add-ons, etc., regarding my post I greatly welcome.

Angie

[Paul Mawdsley]

Victor,

What physical talents do you have that don't use your mind?

Paul

(Edit: I skimmed your post and may have misinterpreted what you were saying. Sorry about that!)

Edited December 22, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

What physical talents do you have that don't use your mind?

Paul

(Edit: I skimmed your post and may have misinterpreted what you were saying. Sorry about that!)

Huh? I claim none. Any talent I have, the mind is in there. Oh, read your edit!

[Matus1976]

“I personally would love to hear your explanation as to this kid”

For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community” But seriously, did any of you even read the posts about this kid? Additionally, Einstein never took an IQ test, so any comparisons to him based on that are immediately suspect (thanks to Ellen for emphasizing that point) The articles quoted by Angie say:

“This real-life Dexter became obsessed with medicine at an early age. He memorized medical books and witnessed surgeries, experimenting on animals at home in Himachal Predesh. "We went to the poultry farm, bought a live chicken, he dissected it, and after, we ate it for dinner," says his mother”

As per usual, expertise requires extensive practice, surgery, as any surgeon will tell you, is not different. I just finished reading “Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science” and the author, a surgeon, spent a chapter talking about how great surgeons are made through practice. Undertaking that practice during your developmental years will work to mold your mind and body into one being more amenable to that task. So where is the “Innate Talent” in this kid, was he born with the knowledge of surgery? No, he became obsessed with medicine at an early age and memorized medical text books, watched videos, and PRACTICED on animals. (how many? 1? 10? 100? 1000's?)

“But Akrit did begin to treat some of the hordes who gathered on his doorstep.. He consulted his textbooks, discussed the cases with established doctors and prescribed medicine for more than a thousand people”

In a poor village in India? Prescribing all kinds of snake oil would be considering equally medicinally fascinating. Even so, where is the “natural talent” he consulted his textbooks and discussed cases with established doctors. One can easily understand how such a self re-inforcing effect could rapidly build up his experience to such an extent that he becomes an expert at a young age, something that probably started with him reciting some things he learned when he was even younger from obsessing over medical text books. Seeing thousands of patients in a poor villiage could certainly constitute a great deal of practice, which is always necessary for becoming an expert or genius at something.

“His father, Jaswal, believes he possesses the mind of a master surgeon”

Well at least here is another advocate of the “innate talent” theory.

“ [His Father] Jaswal encouraged him”

Encouraged him? That deserves some investigation.

“isolating his son from other children,”

Isolation is certainly conducive to intensive study and practice.

“However, Akrit’s progress came at a price: frustrated with the perceived lack of support for his gifted son, Akrit’s father became depressed and left the family home last year, telling him not to get in touch until Akrit had found a cure for cancer.”

His father left the home and told his son not to get in touch with him UNTIL HE HAS DISCOVERED A CURE FOR CANCER. Yeah, that’s NOT PRESSURE at all.

“Mustafa suspects that the boy misses the influence of his father, and is used to never being contradicted”

No doubt…

From the ‘Child Surgeon’ link

“He has been shown to have the highest I.Q. of any boy his age in India, a country of over one billion people”

Ha ha, well that must have been about 100 million IQ tests, who did those tests?

“Just how intelligent is Akrit? 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”

Chose not to give him a final rating. CHOSE NOT TO GIVE HIM A FINAL RATING?

I suggest reading the third article Angie posted carefully

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

Of note:

“Not all is smooth sailing for a prodigy though. Starting life with an enormous IQ, which some experts believe is not the best measure of a person’s potential, may not guarantee future success. Studies have indicated that not all prodigies are able to sustain their achievements once they step into adulthood or have to opt for a career. Also they may not mature into leaders in their fields. They could carry on in their specialties in adulthood but never match their childhood achievements.”

I had a laugh at this:

“Golf sensation Tiger Woods was born with a great deal of raw golf ability but it might have gone undetected if it wasn’t for his father’s early detection.”

Raw golf ability? Is there a gene for that? If not for his fathers early detection? His father had Tiger playing golf practically before he could walk.

“he has his own laboratory in Delhi,”

A laboratory his parents setup for him.

I hardly see this kids case as a overwhelmingly unquestionable proof of massive ‘innate talent’ it’s clear that this child is intelligent, and perhaps his ability to memorize is better than average, or even significantly better, or perhaps its significantly better because he started trying to memorize things at a very young age. Additionally it’s likely that the media has over blown the capabilities of this boy, and it is also possible that his altruistic mother, spotting early ability in him, pressures him into focusing his life on serving her altruistic whims, and his father left him and will not return until the poor child comes up with a cure for cancer, thats horrible.

I think Paul’s comment

“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”

is one of the most sensible yet made, but deciphering how much of that ‘develop skills faster’ comes from exhausting practice and how much from easily picking up a complex subject with little effort is something more often lost in our worshiping of innate talent.

- Michael

[Matus1976]

Ellen said:

“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.”

Nobody ever denied that, and to suggest as much is a disingenuous over simplification of my position. I first said that it is irrational to presume that the exact same degree of genetic variation exists within brains as does for bodies, the latter being directly subjected to environmental evolutionary pressures. The evidence suggests that just like most spleens, stomachs, and hearts are very similar to one another, so are brains. Just because we can see a 400% difference in height (shortest person was what, 24" tall?, tallest was over 8' tall?) or skin color doesn’t mean we will see the same extent of difference in ‘innate learning capacity’ amongst the average population (excluding mental deformities) The vast majority of us are born with 10 fingers, some get 12, but how many have 20? Furthermore, the numerous large studies which show that expertise ONLY ever comes from a great deal of hard work and practice, and not just any kind of practice but a particular demanding focused practice which always seeks to exceed previous limitations (studies I have posted numerous times in this thread) show that if ‘innate talent’ plays a role in mental capacity, it is far overshadowed by how much time and effort someone puts into something anyway. I am still waiting for someone to explain how the russian father 'made' two chess grand masters out of his daughters, were they both born with that chess grandmaster gene?

- Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I stated above, when definitions are disclosed, it will be seen that people are talking about entirely different things.

I think the nastiness is from another cause and not disagreement on this issue. Some people just seem to have an innate talent for nastiness.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Some people just seem to have an innate talent for nastiness.

Michael

:yes:

Edit: :yes: :yes: :frantics:

Edited December 23, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael Dickey, re your post #285: A word to the (I hope) wise. If you would like to have any sort of discussion of these issues specifically with me, drop the morals charges flat. They're coin of the realm in various Objectivist venues, but they will get you nowhere except rapidly ignored with me.

I do not know what your exact thesis is, if you have an exact thesis. To the extent I've read your posts (and I've by no means read all of them, and some of those I have read I've only skimmed due to their length), you seem to me to be mixing up a number of issues, and to be emotionally inflamed on the general subject. The same, I'll add, could be said of Victor. You have much more of a scientific mentality than Victor does. And it's possible, if you'd like to have a calm discussion, that we could get somewhere on the scientific issues. But I lack willingness to try if I'm going to be greeted by morals charges.

In any event, I haven't time for further on the substance until after Christmas.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

I have been very much the scientist regarding this subject, insofar as a scientist deals with observable facts. I don’t deny that I have the capacity to feel emotions when it comes to this subject—positive emotions for talent and this kid--but my emotions are subject to the bar of reason. I am NOT emotionally invested in the idea of innate talent and then construct arguments around that—as that would be rationalizations. The only emotion I detect around here is envy [regarding the boy wonder] and smugness. What I lack is the appearance and veneer of a cool rationalist---and gladly. I’ll leave that to others.

-Victor-

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community”

Isn't all that bright and you're judging this on the fact that he wants to help people with illnesses, interesting. If you had an illness that was making your life miserable, I am sure you would also want someone to help you that specializes in the field where you need assistance to live a happier and/or perhaps longer life. But nevertheless you choose to put your life in the hands of a doctor to help you but you have the belief that he isn't all that bright because he wants to help you live a happier longer life. Well, I've got news for you most doctors out there also have that belief to help those that are sick. I am sure your private doctor does. That's one of the reasons why he chooses to see you the next time you go in for a check up.

But seriously, did any of you even read the posts about this kid? Additionally, Einstein never took an IQ test, so any comparisons to him based on that are immediately suspect (thanks to Ellen for emphasizing that point)

The articles quoted by Angie say:

This real-life Dexter became obsessed with medicine at an early age. He memorized medical books and witnessed surgeries, experimenting on animals at home in Himachal Predesh. "We went to the poultry farm, bought a live chicken, he dissected it, and after, we ate it for dinner," says his mother”

As per usual, expertise requires extensive practice, surgery, as any surgeon will tell you, is not different. I just finished reading “Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science” and the author, a surgeon, spent a chapter talking about how great surgeons are made through practice. Undertaking that practice during your developmental years will work to mold your mind and body into one being more amenable to that task. So where is the “Innate Talent” in this kid, was he born with the knowledge of surgery? No, he became obsessed with medicine at an early age and memorized medical text books, watched videos, and PRACTICED on animals. (how many? 1? 10? 100? 1000's?)

No. He was not born with this knowledge. Obviously he has studied but not to the extent that you seem to be thinking he has. I think what you are missing here is that it was exhibited at a very very early age and it comes more "natural/easier" to him and has surpassed others by leaps and bounds.

But Akrit did begin to treat some of the hordes who gathered on his doorstep.. He consulted his textbooks, discussed the cases with established doctors and prescribed medicine for more than a thousand people”

In a poor village in India? Prescribing all kinds of snake oil would be considering equally medicinally fascinating. Even so, where is the “natural talent” he consulted his textbooks and discussed cases with established doctors. One can easily understand how such a self re-inforcing effect could rapidly build up his experience to such an extent that he becomes an expert at a young age, something that probably started with him reciting some things he learned when he was even younger from obsessing over medical text books. Seeing thousands of patients in a poor villiage could certainly constitute a great deal of practice, which is always necessary for becoming an expert or genius at something.

These are the figures as of the date of the video which he was 12 years old at that time. Again, this is something that was exhibited at a very early age, well before the age of 12 as well as his prescribing more than what you call *snake oil.*

Again you are missing the point. You are now talking about a kid that is close to his teenage years where he has progressed through additional studies. I am making reference to the abilities that this child has exhibited even earlier than this. According to the doc that I watched, they raised him as any other child. If I am remembering correctly, it finally hit home that he was different and was progressing extremely fast, learning extremely fast. This is when they attempted to get some type of exposure with him but struggled with it.

I am not talking about a 12 year old that has put in long hours of study. I am talking about a very very young child that is progressing extremely and is surpassing the general population by leaps and bounds and is applying this knowledge that he has. He's exhibited these abilities at a very very early age.

This is something that is coming to him very natural and surpasses the general population by leaps and bounds. I am already aware of time practicing, long hours of study and so forth as I have my own personal experiences with this and excelling and so forth. Right now, I am only talking about the abilities that are exhibited in very very young kids, infants, etc., where 1,000s of hours of study or what have you will not apply, relentlessly being pressured by their parents, etc.

You can't force someone or an infant to understand something if the proper foundations are not laid first.

Jaswal encouraged him”

Encouraged him? That deserves some investigation.

As for Azkrit, they began to encourage him when it finally hit home that he was different and progressing extremely fast which to my understanding was around the age of 2 years old.

Of course you raise your child and try to teach them as they are developing but you work within the abilities of your child that he is exhibiting at that time as well as presenting material that may be slightly above his present ability. There will be much frustration on all sides as well as failure if you present a child with information and material that far exceeds his current understanding and abilities. It would be similar to my giving you a trig book when you don't even understand the foundations of division or multiplications. You're building a foundation.

“isolating his son from other children,”

Isolation is certainly conducive to intensive study and practice.

This one sentence does not present the whole picture and may very well be out of context. What was shown in the doc was quite different. They didn't isolate him as you seem to be suggesting and implying that his dad or whoever completely sheltered him from others, as if he is locked in the basement. If you are studying at that moment, of course you want to be alone. But many accounts from others and his mother as well as himself and showing video of when he was younger, etc., still playing and socializing as a child would which was also an area of discussion in the doc.

“However, Akrit’s progress came at a price: frustrated with the perceived lack of support for his gifted son, Akrit’s father became depressed and left the family home last year, telling him not to get in touch until Akrit had found a cure for cancer.”

His father left the home and told his son not to get in touch with him UNTIL HE HAS DISCOVERED A CURE FOR CANCER. Yeah, that’s NOT PRESSURE at all.

You're missing some very valuable information here. His dad became frustrated and left not even a year before the doc was made. He left when Azkrit was already 12 years old because he couldn't get the exposure for his son. Of course, now he has pressure and this is what he is striving for. But it doesn't account as to why a 10 month old or a 2 year old shows abilities that surpass others by leaps and bounds.

There are many many parents out there that also do the same with their kids --I know a few parents myself that do this and what you are implying--and that is encouragement, pressure, and so forth BUT they do not exhibit these types of abilities.

You cannot force a child or an infant to understand something if they haven't built the proper foundation to get to that point. Again, if you have no understanding of what 2 plus 2 is, you will not understand division, multiplications, and so on. Yet these kids are exhibiting extraordinary abilities to understand complexities at a very early age.

“Mustafa suspects that the boy misses the influence of his father, and is used to never being contradicted”

Of course he misses his father. He stated this in the doc. Again, his father did not leave out of frustration not until the boy was 12 years old. Of course there is pressure there now. But it doesn't account for this boy's abilities at a very early age.

“Just how intelligent is Akrit? 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”

Chose not to give him a final rating. CHOSE NOT TO GIVE HIM A FINAL RATING?

I did not state that he did not have his drawbacks. I stated that he does have weaknesses but he is also 12 years old and still developing. These areas may very well turn into strengths. This team is not the only ones to have tested him. He's had many tests performed. But I have also noticed on some websites that talk about this kid that are very cynical of him and are only presenting the negative aspects of this kid, anything that will downplay his abilities which unfortunately he has also gotten a lot of this from medical students and the like while watching the doc. People that are envious of this kid.

I suggest reading the third article Angie posted carefully

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

Matus, I am not relying on articles that I read over the internet. It does not present the whole picture of this kid. There are some sites that pretty much are only reporting the negative aspects of him, anything to downplay him. He's not perfect. No one is. I am taking what I know from a 4 hour documentary I watched and it came from the horse's mouth. What has been presented in the doc has been contradicted in some reports that I've read on the internet.

Of note:

“Not all is smooth sailing for a prodigy though. Starting life with an enormous IQ, which some experts believe is not the best measure of a person’s potential, may not guarantee future success. Studies have indicated that not all prodigies are able to sustain their achievements once they step into adulthood or have to opt for a career. Also they may not mature into leaders in their fields. They could carry on in their specialties in adulthood but never match their childhood achievements.”

I am not saying this kid is destined for greatness. That is his choice and what he wants to do with it as he gets older. But again you're missing the point. I am not talking about teenagers here or adults. I am narrowing this down to infants and very young kids, some as young as 10 months that are exhibiting abilities that surpass the general population by leaps and bounds such as what has been presented in this kid.

You seem to be focusing only in on him as he's gotten older. I am only asking for an explanation as to why some infants have exhibited abilities that surpass others by leaps and bounds. Yes, practice and so on and encouragement. That is obvious.

Again, you can't force a child or an infant to understand something if they don't have the proper foundation built first. These kids are doing it at lightning speed, at least in the case of Azkrit.

A good example is not understanding what 2 plus 2 is but being forced to understand trig. They are going to be like “what the hell?” But this kid already has built the proper foundation even at a very, very early age, meaning not born with it, but progressing at lightning speed and surpassing others. How do you account for this where long hours of practice, studying, etc., massive pressure from the parents, etc., cannot be applied when it comes to infants and very, very young kids?

Azkrit is able to apply what he has learned and is understanding what he has learned. You can't force someone to understand something and to successfully apply it. You can only work within the foundation that has already been built up. Yeah, memorize it, anybody can do that. But to understand it is a whole other story.

I hardly see this kids case as a overwhelmingly unquestionable proof of massive ‘innate talent’ it’s clear that this child is intelligent, and perhaps his ability to memorize is better than average, or even significantly better, or perhaps its significantly better because he started trying to memorize things at a very young age. Additionally it’s likely that the media has over blown the capabilities of this boy, and it is also possible that his altruistic mother, spotting early ability in him, pressures him into focusing his life on serving her altruistic whims, and his father left him and will not return until the poor child comes up with a cure for cancer, thats horrible.

Again there is a difference between memorizing and understanding. Anybody can memorize but that doesn't mean they understand it. If you understand it, you know what the meaning is and can apply it. This is what this boy has done. He has applied and knows the meaning of the knowledge that he already has.

I will not respond to any posts that are dealing with adults and teenagers. I will respond only to posts that address infants and very very young kids that exhibit these abilities, children who do not merely memorize but understand what they are doing and able to apply it such as this child has done at a very early age.

Angie

[Matus1976]

For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community”

Isn't all that bright and you're judging this on the fact that he wants to help people with illnesses, interesting

Just to clarify, that was just a joke, ya know, objectivists don't care about the poor, etc, so if he cared about the poor, he isnt very smart? That was why the very next two words were "But seriously" (implying the previous ones were not serious.) Obviously the kid is very intelligent by any standard of measure, as I said at the end of my post. I'll respond more later, but I wanted to clarify the above was just a joke!

When one says they want to 'help the poor' they usually mean holding their hands or handing out food, which is all well and good, but as we all know it would be much better if they directed their effort toward eradicating the things that cause poverty or coming up with cures for illnesses or new inventions that make lives easier, like the LifeStraw http://www.lifestraw.com/en/low/low.asp, or in general electricity, materials, etc. The problem is this idea that innate talent plays a dominate role in these things is not only scientifically innacurate, as the numerous studies on genuis and expertise show, but also undermines people's inclinations to try to do something about these things through their own hard work and mind. Because they think that no matter how hard they try, if they didnt have that 'innate talent' they couldnt have done it anyway.

Michael

Edited December 22, 2006 by Matus1976

[Victor Pross]

MATUS: For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community”...

ANGIE: Isn't all that bright and you're judging this on the fact that he wants to help people with illnesses, interesting. If you had an illness that was making your life miserable, I am sure you would also want someone to help you that specializes in the field where you need assistance to live a happier and/or perhaps longer life. But nevertheless you choose to put your life in the hands of a doctor to help you but you have the belief that he isn't all that bright because he wants to help you live a happier longer life. Well, I've got news for you most doctors out there also have that belief to help those that are sick. I am sure your private doctor does. That's one of the reasons why he chooses to see you the next time you go in for a check up.

***

Honey, one can see your bafflement and irritation at a crack like this. Matus takes a cheap shot at this amazing kid because of the altruistic tone this quote conveys. If this is not an example of downplaying and blithely dismissing ability, I don’t know what is. It’s envy, pure and simple. It’s also a fanatical commitment to a misunderstood idea of Rand’s meaning of tabula rasa. Ah, downplaying this amazing hero and ability. And it’s a grotesque irony to be coming from an “Objectivist.”

[Matus1976]

Honey, one can see your bafflement and irritation at a crack like this. Matus takes a cheap shot at this amazing kid because of the altruistic tone this quote conveys. If this is not an example of downplaying and blithely dismissing ability, I don’t know what is.

Its a joke, and the fact that you respond to my comments with out actually reading my post, like where I said

I hardly see this kids case as a overwhelmingly unquestionable proof of massive ‘innate talent’ it’s clear that this child is intelligent

pretty much sums up your debating intentiosn. I SAID BUT SERIOUSLY! HELLO!!! WHAT DOES 'BUT SERIOUSLY' MEAN TO PEOPLE! Lighten up. ITS A JOKE!

[Victor Pross]

For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community”

Isn't all that bright and you're judging this on the fact that he wants to help people with illnesses, interesting

Just to clarify, that was just a joke, ya know, objectivists don't care about the poor, etc, so if he cared about the poor, he isnt very smart? That was why the very next two words were "But seriously" (implying the previous ones were not serious.) Obviously the kid is very intelligent by any standard of measure, as I said at the end of my post. I'll respond more later, but I wanted to clarify the above was just a joke!

When one says they want to 'help the poor' they usually mean holding their hands or handing out food, which is all well and good, but as we all know it would be much better if they directed their effort toward eradicating the things that cause poverty or coming up with cures for illnesses or new inventions that make lives easier, like the LifeStraw http://www.lifestraw.com/en/low/low.asp, or in general electricity, materials, etc. The problem is this idea that innate talent plays a dominate role in these things is not only scientifically innacurate, as the numerous studies on genuis and expertise show, but also undermines people's inclinations to try to do something about these things through their own hard work and mind. Because they think that no matter how hard they try, if they didnt have that 'innate talent' they couldnt have done it anyway.

Michael

Again we hear from you “The problem is this idea that innate talent plays a dominate role in these things is not only scientifically inaccurate, as the numerous studies on genius and expertise show…” yada, yada. You repeat the same argument adding nothing new. The evidence goes to show that there is innate talent. Your attempt to discredit the evidence of this boy as a case example has been roundly refuted by the facts and Angie’s arguments.

Regarding people who give up at the outset because they believe they lack the “gift” for something or other--- that is their problem and mistake. I am approaching this subject as a scientist—I am interested in the fact of innate talent, not it’s ethical import just yet.

-Victor--

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Matus wrote,

**But seriously,** did any of **YOU** even read the posts about this kid?

The "But seriously..." was applied to the sentence above and not to your referencing that you were kidding about this child's intelligence. But what I see here is that it WAS applied to the sentence above in particular that I quoted. Not that your joke was for him but for US on OL and that we were the ones you were holding in contempt and laughing at. If your "but seriously" joke was towards his intelligence as you say it is, those words would have been put with that sentence in particular but it wasn't. The quote above speaks for itself in my view and the true intentions of what your "But seriously" really meant. But let's not get sidetracked with what this thread is really about as I've noticed has taken place already with a few posts.

I look forward to any NEW information or arguments regarding infants and/or very young children that exhibits these abilities such has been seen in Azkrit and I might as well include Sidis in there.

Angie

Edited December 22, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

:yawn:

Some people just seem to have an innate talent for nastiness.

Michael

:yes:

Edit: :yes: :yes: :frantics:

Paul,

I know, bro. The attempt to downplay this boy's advanced ability, his mental endowments--his gift--a gift that is not equally distributed to all--is so crudely obvious. An Objectivist arguing away evidence....man, you live long enough, you can see it all!! This is a very nasty thing indeed.

-Victor

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Matus1976]

Matus wrote,

**But seriously,** did any of **YOU** even read the posts about this kid?

The "But seriously..." was applied to the sentence above and not to your referencing that you were kidding about this child's intelligence. But what I see here is that it WAS applied to the sentence above in particular that I quoted. Not that your joke was for him but for US on OL

I was making fun of an extreme objectivist position.

"For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community” But seriously, did any of you even read the posts about this kid?"

I made a statement, ""For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community”" and then CONTRADICTED IT with "But seriously" IMPLYING directly that the previous statement was NOT SERIOUS. What else could that mean? "But Seriously" means everything else that follows IS SERIOUS.

Should I have wrote,

"For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community” But seriously. <-- period here? That makes no sense and is completely grammatically incorrect

"For starters, the kid isn’t all that bright, “Today, I am very much happy to have an opportunity to serve the poor community” ha ha, just kidding. BUT SERIOUSLY... etc. [NEW SENTANCE]

and that we were the ones you were holding in contempt and laughing at. If your "but seriously" joke was towards his intelligence as you say it is, those words would have been put with that sentence in particular but it wasn't.

Fine please re write the above sentance and include a negation of theme of a sentance in that very same sentance, and do it off the top of your head and casually in a few seconds, which is all the thought I devoted to this joke anyway.

The quote above speaks for itself in my view and the true intentions of what your "But seriously" really meant. But let's not get sidetracked with what this thread is really about as I've noticed has taken place already with a few posts.

yes, you devilishly clever armchair pyschologists have found me out!!! I Actually ENVY genuis indian 12 year old doctor boy! Cmon. This is rediculous, do you REALLY think I dislike this boy and ENVY him in a way that would make me attack him? You dont know squat about me as I am new to this forum but people familiar with me from RoR and SOLOHQ know I think no such thing. In truth you simply misintereted a dumb joke, which was probably conveyed in a manner lacking of clarity by me in the first place (not unheard of on the internet), ah but that must not be the answer, it must be that I am secretly some talent killing egalitatiran?

Yes, that is why I posted in late november on my blog a thanks to all the great inventors and creators of the world "Damascus Blades and Inventors changing the world" In my July post on the "Abdication of Volition" I wrote specifically -

"Can I help but think that an obvious implication of this is that they are saying the greats of humanity are weird and crazy drug addicts, while the average persons are really healthy and sane. The greats failed and gave in to their cravings, the mediocre and average, were strong and resolute. Of course there is nothing wrong with not wanting to achieve great things, it is after all your own life and you get to live it as you please. But to attack and belittle those who do, who have made all the great things that have made our lives so easy, pleasurable, and enjoyable, and to attribute their accomplishments to anything besides their hard work, dedication, and massive effort is not only beyond outrageous and insulting, it is entirely factually incorrect. Only the post modern scientific nihilist would assert that values are unimportant, that human emotions are deterministic and materialistic, that the great achievers of the world were slaves to cravings, that knowledge has no intrinsic value, and that rational intelligent beings dont seek it because they live on earth and desire to survive and prosper on it, but only to get high. "

In my March 17 post on the television show "American Inventor" I wrote

At the turn of the century inventors were the foundation of everything that propelled the human standard of living through the equivalent of eons of progress, people knew this, and inventors of that time were respected and admired. Edison, Tesla, Marconi, Westinghouse, etc. These are names many people recognize (even if they confuse their contributions) but during the middle part of the 20th century attitudes toward inventors changed, and admirers of Rand would be hard pressed to not find the association between the change in morality and attitudes on capitalism with the outcasting and mocking of independent motivated ambitious inventors. Today, if I tell people I am an 'inventor' they are likely to react with mockery or disapproval. Now I don't particular care what people think of what I am doing unless they are intelligent and can make rational constructive criticisms and help me in my goals, but what I do care about is undermining the source of progress, promulgating the distaste and mockery that is directed at independent innovators, since this destroys the foundation of all future progress and robs me of the benefits I might enjoy from the minds of other ambitious productive intelligent innovative people.

And finally inNovember 2005 I posted

This thanksgiving I want to give homage to those who truly deserve our thanks. I would like to thank the people whose hard work and tenacity have made our lives as enjoyable and fulfilling as they can be today. The people who have freed us from farming 16 hours a day and chopping wood until our hands bled. The people who have tamed fire, electricity, germs and atoms. The people who fought and died for our liberties in conflicts with men who have sought to enslave us to Gods, Kings, and our brothers. All those who have succeeded in creating the great societies of the world and to all those who struggled in obscurity and died while trying, names we will never know, and to all those who still struggle. I thank you.

Do you think that the person who said and thought these things is ENVIOUS and seeks to attack and diride all the greatest contributors to the world? Why am I going through all this trouble and boring everyone with these links? You give me a hard time because you think I was mocking you objectivsts on OL with my Jokes, while you sit here and accuse ME OF LYING. If you think I am lying, absolutely no further discussion is possible or worthwhile between us.

Michael

Edited December 23, 2006 by Matus1976

[Matus1976]

Thanks Michael, I noticed that right away I think it's all fixed now.

[Victor Pross]

Matus,

Yes, we know so little of you except the positions you take and the views you hold. We know you are a lover of all that is good and of life. I suppose the below quote speaks for itself:

"Today, December 8th, is the anniversary of John Lennon's death. He was shot and killed on December 8th, 1980. It's too bad for 4.5 million Vietnamese people that he wasn't killed about 10 years earlier."

Wishing an innocent man death. It must be his "thought crimes" that turns your gut, right? Very charming.

But then you say:

"Did Lennon have a major influence on public opinion? I don't know, how do we quantify such a thing?"

So why do you wish Lennon death ten years earlier than the actual date of his murder?

Well, this is the subject of a different thread. Nuff said.

***

Edited December 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Matus1976]

Matus,

Yes, we know so little of you except the positions you take and the views you hold. We know you are a lover of all that is good and of life. I suppose the below quote speaks for itself:

"Today, December 8th, is the anniversary of John Lennon's death. He was shot and killed on December 8th, 1980. It's too bad for 4.5 million Vietnamese people that he wasn't killed about 10 years earlier."

Wishing an innocent man death. It must be his "thought crimes" that turns your gut, right? Very charming.

But then you say:

"Did Lennon have a major influence on public opinion? I don't know, how do we quantify such a thing?"

So why do you wish Lennon death ten years earlier than the actual date of his murder?

Well, this is the subject of a different thread. Nuff said.

***

Victor, you do not respect Kat's property enough to leave a thread she killed dead. How charming and mature. Nice red herring too, completely obfiscating the fact of your vicious personal attack against me being a completely egregious mis interpretation of a simple joke. That fact that you were so ready to jump on that incorrect interpretation speaks much more about the nature of your mentality than mine. If you wish to continue to discuss my opinions of Lennon petition Kat to re-open the thread, if not, respect her, as I did, and drop it.

Matus