What is talent?

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

Thanks, Mike. I know who Euler was, and I know about his life history. But I still don't know what Brant's point was in saying "Euler." (I'm reminded of the guy who said "Plastics" in The Graduate, except I think it was clear what that guy was indicating.)

Ellen

___

[Mikee]

Ellen,

Well, I think Brant was making an attempt at humor re: Euler diagrams and people talking past each other. Anyway, I laughed. But many people think I have a warped sense of humor.

Cheers,

Mike E

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen,

Well, I think Brant was making an attempt at humor re: Euler diagrams and people talking past each other. Anyway, I laughed. But many people think I have a warped sense of humor.

Cheers,

Mike E

No, I wasn't trying to be funny, but it's not the first time I've gotten unexpected laughs. Euler, according to someone I used to know who was qualified to make such judgements--I'm not--was one of the absolutely greatest mathematicians of all time. The theoretical work poured out of him like a waterfall, so fast that after he died the powers that be needed years more to get all the unpublished stuff published. While doing this type of work he would typically be playing with his children at the same time. One can argue that such a talent doesn't have to be innate--that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the "right" nurturing--but not with much credibility. And how do we explain someone like Archimedes, who invented the first known calculus, thousands of years ago?

I think Ellen sometimes finds me somewhat irritating.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Actually, I made a searingly brilliant post the last word of which was "Euler." All but the last word was lost. Because I was treated so rudely I decline to repost it. :baby:

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Brant: I think Ellen sometimes finds me somewhat irritating.

Only if your views should clash with hers, I’ll wager. :whistle:

[sjw]

One can argue that such a talent doesn't have to be innate--that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the "right" nurturing ...

Again with the strawman debate tactics by the "pro-talent" side. No one ever came close to saying such a thing that geniuses could be turned out like sausages with the right nurturing, and yet here we are seeing that shoddy strawman flung in our face. Perhaps it makes the most sense to take the fact that they resort to such tactics as a sign of their own confidence in their position and leave them floundering with their own obvious uncertainty...

[Victor Pross]

Ellen asked: Victor, would you mind specifying just who you think are "the pro-talent people and the no-talent people" here?

I'm one of the Pro-talent people and so is MSK. Others can speak up if they so wish. Shayne and Matus are the No-talent people. See his post above.

Is it clear now?

-Victor

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think Ellen sometimes finds me somewhat irritating.

Yes, sometimes I do find you irritating when you plop into the middle of a conversation with one of your cryptic remarks the meaning and relevance of which is known only to you. You used to do that sort of thing with frequency on Atlantis; and, yes, sometimes I found it irritating.

Judging from your comments about Euler, I suspect that you've paid at most cursory attention to what's been being said here. You write:

One can argue that such a talent doesn't have to be innate--that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the "right" nurturing--but not with much credibility.

Do you think that anyone here has claimed "that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the 'right' nurturing"?

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

One can argue that such a talent doesn't have to be innate--that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the "right" nurturing ...

Again with the strawman debate tactics by the "pro-talent" side. No one ever came close to saying such a thing that geniuses could be turned out like sausages with the right nurturing, and yet here we are seeing that shoddy strawman flung in our face. Perhaps it makes the most sense to take the fact that they resort to such tactics as a sign of their own confidence in their position and leave them floundering with their own obvious uncertainty...

See my post above, #433: I myself am unaware of anyone here having come close to "saying such a thing that geniuses could be turned out like sausages with the right nurturing." (I repeat that I haven't read all the posts in this discussion, and that some of the long ones which I've looked at, especially those toward the start of the discussion, I've only skimmed. So possibly someone has said such a thing in a post where I didn't see it, but I'm unaware of anyone's having done so.) However, I don't think that Brant in particular was using a "strawman" debate tactic. My bet is that he's been paying at most only minimal attention and was just making a statement about what makes sense to him, without specific reference to the views of others.

A question for you: Could you name those with whom you consider yourself in disagreement? I mean genuine disagreement. As I said last night, I think the actual difference between your views and Victor's isn't much wider than a hair's-breadth.

Ellen

___

Edited December 31, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, I made a searingly brilliant post the last word of which was "Euler." All but the last word was lost. Because I was treated so rudely I decline to repost it.

Brant,

LOL. Now that was funny! (Really.) Ah, the pleasures of a comedy of errors...

Some of this stuff needs to be put in films. Even action films. Can you imagine something like that also being a code word for a terrorist sleeper block who would Google for it? And you did it by mistake in the manner you said? Then you are traced by the FBI and have to start running for your life until you can get it cleared up and... well... you see where it can go from there.

Michael

[sjw]

A question for you: Could you name those with whom you consider yourself in disagreement? I mean genuine disagreement. As I said last night, I think the actual difference between your views and Victor's isn't much wider than a hair's-breadth.

How big is that then?

I think in all disputes, differences in positions are rightly amplified and in the context of the dispute, appear to be huge (Victor in this context looks to me to be my polar opposite--not a mere "hair's breadth" from me. Michael too, or at least his earlier posts. And evidently Brant). In the widest context, I think we'd all agree on everything that's fundamentally important: reason, individualism, capitalism. As I said before, the primary thing of importance to me is that others agree to keep their grubby hands off my stuff. Everyone here qualifies I'm sure.

In terms of fundamental facts, we all agree (even if some like building wimpy strawman in order to match their own stature and pretend that's the other side). The actual differences here are more in terms of emphasis and priority. I mean, it's true that we are born with differences in genes and such, but it's more important to realize that we are self-made and most of our limits are due to bad premises rather than bad genes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen asked: Victor, would you mind specifying just who you think are "the pro-talent people and the no-talent people" here?

I'm one of the Pro-talent people and so is MSK. Others can speak up if they so wish. Shayne and Matus are the No-talent people. See his post above.

Is it clear now?

-Victor

No, it is not. Shayne doesn't like the word "talent," but he does speak of "innate capacities," of which he thinks there's a unique spectrum for each particular person, i.e., that each of us is born uniquely different in some respects from everyone else -- a view with which I agree. (Shayne, if you feel that I'm misstating you, please say so.) "Matus" (Michael Dickey) I think does have some sort of "equipotential" view, but I'm not sure. But even if he does, he wasn't saying either, anyplace I noticed, "such a thing [as] that geniuses could be turned out like sausages with the right nurturing." So it does continue to appear that you're arguing against a strawman instead of against a position anyone here holds.

Again, I'll ask, as I did last night: "Exactly WHAT do you think the argument still is?" Can you -- briefly -- state what you believe is the difference between your and Shayne's views? (Just address Shayne's views at the moment, since I think that there are differences between his views and Michael Dickey's.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... most of our limits are due to bad premises rather than bad genes.

Shayne,

I am in essential agreement with this, except I would extend it to the other end and also include facility in learning or developing a particular skill.

Also, you are correct about differences in degree. For example, I am not sure that "most" of "our" limits are due to one or the other. I haven't observed or pondered this quantitatively so far. But I heartily agree that some limits come from bad premises and others from unequal and/or bad genes. A wise person seeks to find which in himself is the reality when he tries to learn something.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

A question for you: Could you name those with whom you consider yourself in disagreement? I mean genuine disagreement. As I said last night, I think the actual difference between your views and Victor's isn't much wider than a hair's-breadth.

How big is that then?

According to the resident physicist (my husband), a hair's-breadth is on the order of about 20 microns. I.e., it's not large. ;-)

I think in all disputes, differences in positions are rightly amplified and in the context of the dispute, appear to be huge (Victor in this context looks to me to be my polar opposite--not a mere "hair's breadth" from me. [....]

Temperamentally and stylistically, I see striking differences. But in terms of the actual substance of what each of you respectively says (near as I can get at anything precise in what Victor says), I think your following summary is correct:

In terms of fundamental facts, we all agree. [....] The actual differences here are more in terms of emphasis and priority. I mean, it's true that we are born with differences in genes and such, but it's more important to realize that we are self-made and most of our limits are due to bad premises rather than bad genes.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

Really, please, I think my position is very clear. Come on now...

Briefly, I think MSK’s analogy of speaking of an innate capacity—that being the “acorn” as he said [or what I have called a raw material] and a honing of that acorn into a three [established skill] makes my case clear. I have said it all, it is true, and there is nothing ambiguous at all.

It was Shayne who downplayed or failed to acknowledge the acorn all together while I consider it an observable fact. It was only later on that he shifted in his posts to began to speak as if he were a “talent person” -- all the while purposely avoiding to use the words “innate talent” as his designation, but much of what he later states reeks of the language. That’s where you come in, confused.

A dramatic example of innate talent was the Indian boy, but there are many more. An innate capacity, as MSK has noted, does not just pop into existence at birth and then discontinue--the rest is volitional learning. It extends sometimes unconsciously as the organism develops, but it is the volitional realm of conscious practice that makes for a honed skill. To use MSK’s analogy, an acorn becomes a tree with branches and leaves--although you can't see them in the acorn, at least not as fully as you do later.

In the sprit of the acorn analogy, I have said elsewhere: ‘I understand that there is both a cognitive and a physical aspect to music that form sensitivity to pitch, meter, and rhythm. Such a person can take these sensitivities and utilize them to improvise or imitate musical ideas. The sensitivities themselves are the raw talent, the “raw material.” Their utilization is essentially mental capacity. Of course the application of training serves to improve both.’

I don’t regard innate talent as all that difficult to comprehend or deny—anymore than I do the fact that some children are born left-handed [and as just as rarely] and others are born right-handed.

-Victor

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

I think Ellen sometimes finds me somewhat irritating.

Yes, sometimes I do find you irritating when you plop into the middle of a conversation with one of your cryptic remarks the meaning and relevance of which is known only to you. You used to do that sort of thing with frequency on Atlantis; and, yes, sometimes I found it irritating.

Judging from your comments about Euler, I suspect that you've paid at most cursory attention to what's been being said here. You write:

One can argue that such a talent doesn't have to be innate--that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the "right" nurturing--but not with much credibility.

Do you think that anyone here has claimed "that one can turn out Eulers like sausages with the 'right' nurturing"?

Ellen

___

If no one did, save me, then why is this thread going on and on for +400 replies with little actual difference of opinion?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... then why is this thread going on and on for +400 replies with little actual difference of opinion?

Brant,

Oh, God, I can't resist. It's because some people have a real talent for that.

Michael

[sjw]

If no one did, save me, then why is this thread going on and on for +400 replies with little actual difference of opinion?

Most of it concerns Victor's little strawmen unfortunately. He lets his "talent" for caricature get out of hand and leak into the debates.

[Victor Pross]

If no one did, save me, then why is this thread going on and on for +400 replies with little actual difference of opinion?

Most of it concerns Victor's little strawmen unfortunately. He lets his "talent" for caricature get out of hand and leak into the debates.

I just hope that somebody doesn’t argue that some children aren’t born left-handed, that they learn it and are cajoled into by domineering patents.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

A dramatic example of innate talent was the Indian boy[.]

What specifically do you consider to be the "innate talent [or talents]" in the case of the Indian boy? What's the particular "acorn" which you're saying is "an observable fact"?

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

Without going into detail, everything that has left scientists dumbfounded—things the boy is doing at his age that are clearly advanced-- not only a boy his age, but even for some adults who are unable to do what he can. The links are on this thread. But the boy is only one case.

Another case would be myself: I clearly exhibited an advanced ability for drawing from the age of three—if not younger—that surprised adults. It was like an "event." My parents were about to sell tickets…okay, I exaggerate, but that’s me.

Ellen, Are these your leading questions to entrap me into your intellectual snare? :rofl:

-V

___

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Ellen, Are these you leading questions to entrap me into your intellectual snare?

Victor,

Why do you assume a game instead of authentic inquiry?

[Victor Pross]

Ellen, Are these you leading questions to entrap me into your intellectual snare?

Victor,

Why do you assume a game instead of authentic inquiry?

Paul,

Words on a screen can’t communicate my playfulness. I’m talking to Angie while posting. I don’t mean anything by it. I reserve my sarcasm for Shayne mostly. :devil:

-V

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Without going into detail, everything that has left scientists dumbfounded—things the boy is doing at his age that are clearly advanced-- not only a boy his age, but even for some adults who are unable to do what he can. The links are on this thread. But the boy is only one case.

Another case would be myself: I clearly exhibited an advanced ability for drawing from the age of three—if not younger—that surprised adults. It was like an "event." My parents were about to sell tickets…okay, I exaggerate, but that’s me.

Ellen, Are these you leading questions to entrap me into your intellectual snare?

-V

___

They are questions attempting to find out what, precisely, you are talking about in your vague language. And your answers tell me nothing. I still have no idea what you think the "acorn" consists of in either your case or the Indian boy's.

Ellen

PS. Signing off for the night now. I'll be away from the computer most of the day tomorrow and might not be back on-line until sometime next year.

___

Edited December 31, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

Without going into detail, everything that has left scientists dumbfounded—things the boy is doing at his age that are clearly advanced-- not only a boy his age, but even for some adults who are unable to do what he can. The links are on this thread. But the boy is only one case.

Another case would be myself: I clearly exhibited an advanced ability for drawing from the age of three—if not younger—that surprised adults. It was like an "event." My parents were about to sell tickets…okay, I exaggerate, but that’s me.

Ellen, Are these you leading questions to entrap me into your intellectual snare?

-V

___

They are questions attempting to find out what, precisely, you are talking about in your vague language. And your answers tell me nothing. I still have no idea what you think the "acorn" consists of in either your case or the Indian boy's.

Ellen

PS. Signing off for the night now. I'll be away from the computer most of the day tomorrow and might not be back on-line until sometime next year.

___

Ellen,

You might want to question MSK and his "vague" language then...it is his term. Sorry Ellen, I'm trying real, real hard. Maybe it's a little bit you, too.

-V