What is talent?

[Mikee]

I find myself mostly in agreement with Shayne. I've resolved the differences between Shayne and Victor in my own mind as follows:

Humans have evolved with a toolbox of innate potential abilities, mental and physical. The level of a given fundamental ability varies from individual to individual. Some individuals have a high level of aptitude across the board, some have "peaks", abilities above normal for their average ability level. A combination of "peaks" may combine fortuitously to produce an individual with a high degree of potential "talent" at some task. Whereas this person may be average or mediocre at most things at the task where he "peaks" he learns quickly and performs well early on. Positive feedback for this task reinforces the desire to perform this task and he quickly outstrips most others of his same age group. A person with high potential across the board may perform well at many things. No one task stands out to get positive feedback for and this person may do many things well but not spend an inordinate amount of time on just one thing. So nothing stands out as his special talent.

Where Victor is talking about this fortuitous combination of "peaks", Shayne is talking about innate ability at a more fundamental level.

[sjw]

...Struggle which was still, in a way, worth it, because work is work, effort is effort. But they would have never been remotely decent, nor competitive, as musicians.

Sure, merely putting in time and effort is not going to get you the results. Things like spirit, motives, psychology, subtleness of thought, attitudes, character, method (taught or discovered), starting at a young age, etc. matter a lot, particularly at the higher ends of performance. But you're not born with these things, you create them as you go, hopefully with some help from mentors.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Dragonfly wrote:] I'm still convinced that Rand didn't mean by talent something like acquired skill. Why would she put the word between scare quotes, if she thought it was just a synonym for acquired skill?

In the passage which engendered a lot of fuss, it's clear that she did NOT "mean by talent something like acquired skill," unless -- as I said at the time (post #190 of that RoR thread) -- "she was writing a more inept sentence than I can recall ever coming from her pen."

The original AR sentence is:

""No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

If "acquired skill" were substituted for "'talent'" in the sentence, the sentence would read:

"No one is born with any kind of 'acquired skill' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

The "therefore" clause in that context would by pointless.

The only reason I can think of is that she thought that the whole idea of 'talent' (as an innate capacity or predisposition) is an invalid notion.

That is certainly what she seems to be saying in that particular quote. However, it contradicts things she'd said earlier, in contexts in which she used the word "talent" without scare quotes and in which she clearly did mean "innate capacity or predisposition." A lengthy example is the one from Atlas about Francisco, a passage which MSK has quoted in full on some other thread. I don't remember what the other thread was. MSK, could you link to the full passage?

In regard to Rand's making statements on the subject which just don't add up to consistency however one twists them, of course my viewpoint is: Big deal, so she's inconsistent.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In regard to Rand's making statements on the subject which just don't add up to consistency however one twists them, of course my viewpoint is: Big deal, so she's inconsistent.

Ellen,

I am having network problems right now and I have only short bursts of Internet. So this has to be short.

Victor reproduced the Francisco passage in a recent long post above.

As to your statement above about big deal,

THANK YOU!!!

That is exactly how I see Rand's pronouncement on the subject of talent.

I will supply a garden of quotes later. (I especially don't like that thing about learning how to see being volitional for man, when every other seeing creature does it automatically through simple growth.)

Mike E: Thank you for mentioning the word "peak." This is a biological limit due mostly to innate capacity and aging, regardless of effort expended. Mankind never tires of competitions to test those peak limits. I think this is a healthy way to encourage effort and the spirit of overcoming natural limitations.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] To go back to the athletic comparison: yes, some are genetically wired to say, be able to ride a bike faster. But when it comes down to it, it's not very much faster. Leaving aside those with disabilities, all men can adapt with years of serious training to become far faster than if they just casually rode a bike. All normal men can become excellent bike riders. Likewise, I'm sure some men's brains permit them to adapt faster and better to certain mental activities. But that doesn't mean we can't all learn to draw or do math very, very well. And that's what should matter to you anyway (unless your job is to win zero-sum contests like bike races). Not whether you're better than some other human, but whether you're the best you can be. Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

Basically, I think that that statement sums it up well, but I'd add a couple qualifications:

(1) that some people are wired so fortuitously (physically and/or mentally) from birth in regard to acquiring a particular skill, if they also have the advantage of competent early training, they'll be equipped to stay ahead of the competition lifelong if they pursue the skill. I'm thinking of Mozart as a prime example of the innate capacity and the early training and the desire joining in a spectacularly stellar conjunct.

(2) that becoming "the best [one] can be" at a particular skill doesn't necessarily equal becoming the best a human can be. I don't think Shayne is implying that it does, but I just want to underscore that becoming good isn't necessarily becoming great. An example: I am quite a good pianist. Had I started early gearing myself to a concert-pianist career, I certainly could have been good enough for such a career. But there is no way I would ever be able to do the sort of stunts Horowitz could do. He did have certain advantages which would have remained advantages and which no amount of practicing would have given me: his height, frame, those hands. (Over Christmas I saw a video of him playing in Moscow in 1986, a few years before he died. His hands were shown up close in action a lot in the video. It was as if he was stroking the keys. If his fingers were placed on the keyboard with the edge of the keys at the first knuckle, the tips of the first and second finger stretched the whole length of the key, even slightly turning up at the tip against the backboard. He could do with utmost ease some things I can't do at all and never would be able to do no matter how much I practiced.)

Ellen

___

[CNA]

No misrepresentations here. I haven't had many posts on this thread so don't put me into this group or that group. I did not say that certain people just because they don't have a talent for something will never be able to pursue that area and become remotely good or may even excel and surpass others. Work is work and effort is effort. But my point being is that we all have differences in varying degrees. What comes easy to one person may be very difficult to another but that doesn't mean he can't learn it or what have you. But that person may never match the achievement of another.

It seemed to be suggested on this thread that anyone can paint like Rembrandt and match those achievements or anyone can be another Einstein which I find to be unrealistic due to these variations in each individual. Everyone keeps talking about adolescent kids, effort, and so forth but aren't focussing in on the evidence of a 10 month old or a 2 year old where many factors that have been suggested on this thread will not apply. It still hasn't been stated on what some view as being considered talent. According to the research I have done, intellectual ability is considered a talent if it is exhibited to be uncommon and exceptional. This intellectual talent/ability has been well documented in this Indian boy as well as Sidis as early as 10 months of age. With what has been presented in these two cases would be considered an innate talent.

It was brought up that the notion of innate talent is destructive and a vicious cycle. That if the person believes that they don't have an "innate talent" for it, they won't be good at it or won't pursue it or what have you because they believe they will never be good at it. Well, I also have a problem with the notion of saying that anyone can paint like Rembrandt or match Einstein's achievements as this is setting them up for failure, depending on the individual. They go in believing they WILL match Einstein's achievements or Rembrandt's. But after much hard work, much effort, they realize they can't match Einstein's achievements or Rembrandt's. They've put such a high expectation on themselves that in the end they feel as if they are a failure because they couldn't match someone else's achievements. They'll beat themselves down with guilt, confusion, uncertainty and so forth. I see both sides if taken to the extreme as being destructive to varying degrees.

The point is we all work within our abilities and we do the best that we can. We put in work and effort to achieve it. But we set realistic expectations for ourselves. When I undertake something, I do not have the expectation that I will fail or that I will match someone that would be considered a genius in that area. I go in determined, trying hard, putting work and effort into it. If I can reach that achievement and it just so happens that surpasses all others in that area, I'm totally stoked and have realized that this is something that comes to me very easily. But if I don't reach that achievement that surpasses others, I'm still totally stoked because I did my best. I don't beat myself down for it and thinking I'm a failure because I just couldn't beat or match someone else's achievement. It's not a game. It's not about who wins or who loses. It's about putting in your all and doing the best you can.

So I will state my position on both sides and wrap this up as being my last post on this thread. I now believe in innate talent but not taken to the extreme. After witnessing this boy's abilities that was exhibited at an extremely young age and also my knowing the definitions for both and applying those definitions correctly, I now believe in Innate Talent. When I say innate talent, certain people are born and will excel extremely fast in certain areas and quickly surpass others and reach monumental achievements such as this Indian boy BUT that is not to say that others cannot pursue it and be good at it as well. I still also believe in hardwork, effort, perseverance and most of all setting realistic goals for yourself and knowing that you put your all into something and did your best but don't beat yourself down if you can't match Einstein's achievements or Rembrandt's and so forth.

Angie

[Dragonfly]

And there is no way she said we could raise our IQ just by choice. I'm sure she meant by a lot of hard work and effort, and only if you had started out below your potential IQ.

The essential point in her statement is not that you can do it by hard work and effort, but that you can do it at all if you choose to (do all the hard work).

Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

That is absolutely false. Most people will never be able to play Chopin's Etude Op. 10. no 1 at MM=176 (Chopin's own tempo indication), no matter how many years they'd study on it. When I was a student at the university two thirds of the students could not finish an undergraduate course in analysis, even while they were already a highly selected group who had started a study in physics or mathematics while they were good at it in high school. No doubt most people can become better or even much better at something like making music or doing math by studying and working hard, but the professional bar is far too high for most of them. I think you're seriously underestimating the difficulties involved. People just do have their limits.

[sjw]

That is absolutely false. Most people will never be able to play Chopin's Etude Op. 10. no 1 at MM=176 (Chopin's own tempo indication), no matter how many years they'd study on it. When I was a student at the university two thirds of the students could not finish an undergraduate course in analysis, even while they were already a highly selected group who had started a study in physics or mathematics while they were good at it in high school.

Pfff. Given today's education system, cultural attitudes, and the average teaching ability of university math professors, that says zilch. That you draw conclusions from it says everything.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Pfff. Given today's education system, cultural attitudes, and the average teaching ability of university math professors, that says zilch. That you draw conclusions from it says everything.

If we are not going to draw conclusions from the evidence, what are we going to draw conclusions from. What are you using to draw you conclusions?

btw-- I really don't think Dragonfly was educated in the educational system and cultural attitudes you are referring to.

[sjw]

If we are not going to draw conclusions from the evidence, what are we going to draw conclusions from. What are you using to draw you conclusions?

I draw my conclusions based on evidence integrated across my range of experiences--I don't stare at one experience in isolation and pretend I can draw scientific conclusions from it. How do you draw your conclusions?

[Paul Mawdsley]

I draw my conclusions based on evidence integrated across my range of experiences--I don't stare at one experience in isolation and pretend I can draw scientific conclusions from it. How do you draw your conclusions?

Pretty much the same way but I don't assume everyone who has a different slant to me on things is wrong. I also like to attempt to integrate other perspectives. Attacking them accomplishes nothing. Understanding and integrating them expands my information base.

Paul

[sjw]

Pretty much the same way but I don't assume everyone who has a different slant to me on things is wrong. I also like to attempt to integrate other perspectives. Attacking them accomplishes nothing. Understanding and integrating them expands my information base.

That's tantamount to saying that "communicating accomplishes nothing." If somebody says something I think is wrong, the most friendly, communicative thing I can do is to say so in the clearest possible terms.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Pretty much the same way but I don't assume everyone who has a different slant to me on things is wrong. I also like to attempt to integrate other perspectives. Attacking them accomplishes nothing. Understanding and integrating them expands my information base.

That's tantamount to saying that "communicating accomplishes nothing."

No, but your response does illuminate something about your perspective.

If somebody says something I think is wrong, the most friendly, communicative thing I can do is to say so in the clearest possible terms.

One can question why one disagrees rather than assume the other party is wrong. Does the other person have information or a perspective you do not? Or do you have information or a perspective they do not? To assume the other person is wrong when you have a disagreement can very quickly lead to a communication breakdown. Something like what has been happening on this thread.

[sjw]

One can question why one disagrees rather than assume the other party is wrong. Does the other person have information or a perspective you do not? Or do you have information or a perspective they do not? To assume the other person is wrong when you have a disagreement can very quickly lead to a communication breakdown. Something like what has been happening on this thread.

Nah, you're just assuming I'm wrong without getting information or perspective I have that you do not.

[Victor Pross]

“No, I wouldn’t advise you to continue with your music. The fact that it comes to you so easily is a sure sign that your talent is a superficial one.”

Ellsworth Toohey.

[Paul Mawdsley]

One can question why one disagrees rather than assume the other party is wrong. Does the other person have information or a perspective you do not? Or do you have information or a perspective they do not? To assume the other person is wrong when you have a disagreement can very quickly lead to a communication breakdown. Something like what has been happening on this thread.

Nah, you're just assuming I'm wrong without getting information or perspective I have that you do not.

You do have a sense of humour.

[Victor Pross]

Hey, where the hell is Matus1976? He said he would contribute further to this thread. :cry:

[sjw]

You do have a sense of humour.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Anyone can become an artist or musician or mathematician if they really want to and start at an early enough age.

That is absolutely false. Most people will never be able to play Chopin's Etude Op. 10. no 1 at MM=176 (Chopin's own tempo indication), no matter how many years they'd study on it. When I was a student at the university two thirds of the students could not finish an undergraduate course in analysis, even while they were already a highly selected group who had started a study in physics or mathematics while they were good at it in high school. No doubt most people can become better or even much better at something like making music or doing math by studying and working hard, but the professional bar is far too high for most of them. I think you're seriously underestimating the difficulties involved. People just do have their limits.

I think you're thinking of "the professional bar" in narrower terms than Shayne was. There are lots of people who make a living as musicians of some form or other who can't play Chopin's Etude Op. 10 no 1 competently at any speed, or any of the other Chopin Etudes, and some of whom don't play any keyboard instrument at all. Likewise, there are areas in which a person can make a living at some form of mathematics without being up to the higher reaches of math.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Conversation about innate talent over beer and wings.

In hindsight, I wish my post would have asked for a definition before arguing over the evidence for and against the existence or non-existence of talent. We should have been clear as possible about what is meant by "talent".

Looking at the chronological history of this thread, I can see how an argument sprung up in midstream and Rand would have counseled the “the guardians of rationality”: definitions. Still, speaking with dozens of people this last week, I find that many are fairly specific about what they mean by this term—which is how it has been described here--but rarely do they stipulate what form an innate talent takes or how it might wield its influence.

Meeting with friends today, I brought up the subject of innate talent over beer and chicken wings with various artist friends—various painters, writers and musicians. Needless to say, it was a rather lively conversation. Many of them believe that talent is based on an inborn ability that makes it certain that its possessor will surpass others. Personal experiences were recounted. For my artist friends, talent might imply no more than that those who reach high levels of accomplishments differ biologically from others and that early signs of it can be used to predict future success. All of this has been argued here at OL by those who favor the existence of innate talent, including myself. We, the visual artists, described drawing being as easy as a duck takes to water, much to the anguish of other children, but to the shocked delight of adults. I was told reports of their exhibiting impressive skills very early in life and in the absence of opportunities for the kinds of experiences that would normally be considered necessary. It was said that they had a “natural talent” by later teachers. There were also some descriptions of precocious ability in the visual arts where the drawings by two-and three-year-olds were noticeably more realistic than those of typical children. I included myself in this group.

Becoming more involved on the second round of beers, voices ascended and arguments ensued—with me cast in the role of arbiter. There were, as there is here, the pro-talent people and the no-talent people. From the pro-talent people, I was told of a large body of mainly correlational research on the relationship between various measures of brain structure, function and activity and behavioral data. A number of correlates of high ability have been identified, including left-handedness, etc. By the forth round of beers, the conversation shifted and became less articulate, but it was a conversation that all those who participated on this thread should have been present for. Oh well, maybe next time.

-Victor

Edited December 30, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Euler.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

There were, as there is here, the pro-talent people and the no-talent people.

Victor, would you mind specifying just who you think are "the pro-talent people and the no-talent people" here? Frankly, I don't see more than a hair's-breadth of difference between anything substantive you and Shayne, e.g., have said (though I see a difference in the clarity with which it's said). Exactly WHAT do you think the argument still is?

Ellen

Edit: Btw, the sentence should read "There were, as there are here, [etc.]." You do have more than a small ways to go, Victor, to be as skilled at the use of language as you are at drawing.

___

Edited December 30, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Euler.

--Brant

And speaking of clarity, what the hell is that (rather typically) cryptic comment supposed to mean, Brant?

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

There were, as there is here, the pro-talent people and the no-talent people.

Victor, would you mind specifying just who you think are "the pro-talent people and the no-talent people" here? Frankly, I don't see more than a hair's-breadth of difference between anything substantive you and Shayne, e.g., have said (though I see a difference in the clarity with which it's said). Exactly WHAT do you think the argument still is?

Ellen

Edit: Btw, the sentence should read "There were, as there are here, [etc.]." You do have more than a small ways to go, Victor, to be as skilled at the use of language as you are at drawing.

___

Ellen,

I make innocent errors in drawing, too. That’s why they have erasers.

I'll be watching you. ;)

-Victor

Edited December 30, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Mikee]

Leonhard Euler [1707-1783]:

Math prodigy, fortunate to come under the tutelege of Johann Bernoulli at a young age. Thus an example of a "talent" that benefitted from both nature and nurture to a very high degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Also the inventor of Euler Diagrams:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_diagrams