What is talent?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nor is it backed up by Ayn Rand's life and observations and writings.

Shayne,

You haven't waited for my quotes from Rand. Initially, I remember (but haven't yet found) her injunction against a man who tries to exceed his ability.

Also, in Atlas Shrugged, there is a very perceivable difference in innate ability between Dagny and Eddie Willers. Eddie Willers was not "great" in her conception. On the contrary, he was a symbol of the man of reason of limited ability.

Contrary to what you say, there is a whole lot in Rand's writings that deal with innate limitations.

Your speculation about the motive of "talent" people having some kind of complex is false. People simply look at the world and say, "I see this." They cannot bear false witness to their own eyes. That is their true motivation.

Also, I do not think you are "a deluded genius" or "deluded imbecile." I simply haven't given it any thought, but I am sure I would not conclude that. I don't know where you get this stuff.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I certainly don't buy Rand's self-assessment that her distinguishing characteristic was honesty. Talk about patting oneself on the back while insulting an awful lot of others.

Btw, Leonard Peikoff, who wasn't assessing her from "afar," has expressed the opinion in print ("My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand") that he doesn't buy the self-assessment either. Nor did NB buy it. Both of the two of them report having had arguments with her about it.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

You haven't waited for my quotes from Rand. Initially, I remember (but haven't yet found) her injunction against a man who tries to exceed his ability.

That's a very vague statement and I'd bet Rand was far more clear and specific than that. In any case, nothing I said implied one should flout reality--that is just you reading what you want to read.

Also, in Atlas Shrugged, there is a very perceivable difference in innate ability between Dagny and Eddie Willers. Eddie Willers was not "great" in her conception. On the contrary, he was a symbol of the man of reason of limited ability.

Indeed Eddie had lesser ability, Rand didn't comment on why. On the other hand, she *did* comment on why Galt, Francisco, and Ragnar were of high ability--and she said they were "normal men". I'll add that I don't assert that it's a moral imperative to become great in some respect (and Matus *explicitly* made this point already). I only say that it's in principle possible for normal people at birth (with more and more constraints added as they age depending on their personal history).

Contrary to what you say, there is a whole lot in Rand's writings that deal with innate limitations.

Again with more stuff I didn't say. I never said we don't have limitations, on the contrary, I said we did--over and over.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Let me clarify. We have some innate limitations against becoming "great" in some fields, depending on the individual. That is what I meant. You reject this, if I read you correctly, claiming that anyone can become "great" in any field, regardless of his limitations.

Michael

[sjw]

Let me clarify. We have some innate limitations against becoming "great" in some fields, depending on the individual. That is what I meant. You reject this, if I read you correctly, claiming that anyone can become "great" in any field, regardless of his limitations.

I would only apply that literally to normal healthy babies, and I would not accept the idea that normal healthy babies have limitations that would inherently keep them out of some field or other. I would agree that as we age, we become less "plastic" and have more limitations. Some people develop more limitations than others, and that's not genetic.

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

Well, do you still really think that Shayne and I are on the same hair's page?

Victor

[Brant Gaede]

Back to Jonathan's observation: if will power and rational effort alone were enough, then anybody can become a great artist, a scientific genius, etc.

Life just doesn't work that way. And it never will.

Any person with a normal brain and normal health and normal circumstances can indeed become great at virtually anything they want to. Barring tragedy or accident, that is the potential we are all born with. Becoming the "best" is of course not guaranteed. But life indeed does work that way. That's the vision Ayn Rand put forth in Atlas and in other comments she made, that is the Objectivist view, and it is the truth.

I think "want to" is a key to this discussion, with the unknown behind it. Why does somebody want to be an architect instead of a painter? What's behind that? Roark honored himself with what he wanted, Keating did not. This is the nature part of talent, actually capacity. Talent is developed capacity. I'm as smart as I want to be and there are many areas I am not at all smart in. But intelligence for me seems to have an endlessness to it, something to be explored and exploited in the area(s) that I "want to."

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Well, do you still really think that Shayne and I are on the same hair's page?

Victor

I don't know, Victor. I'm not getting unequivocal meaning from his last few posts. For instance, this from post #480:

I would only apply that literally to normal healthy babies, and I would not accept the idea that normal healthy babies have limitations that would inherently keep them out of some field or other.

That could be elastically stretched and molded to cover most any result. And it was in reply to MSK's writing:

f I read you [shayne] correctly, [you claim] that anyone can become "great" in any field, regardless of his limitations.

"Great" is nebulously elastic also.

Ellen

___

Edited January 4, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[sjw]

That could be elastically stretched and molded to cover most any result.

Pfff. I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth they're saying we are. That's a stark difference, not nebulous or elastic.

[Victor Pross]

That could be elastically stretched and molded to cover most any result.

Pfff. I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth they're saying we are. That's a stark difference, not nebulous or elastic.

Shayne,

Is there nothing that is hardwired in the human being at birth--nothing? Are you sure you wish to stand by this contention? What about being right-handed or left-handed? Is this inculcated in children by parents who want their little Wanda or Johnny to be the next left-handed rocket scientist or musician?

-Victor

[sjw]

Is there nothing that is hardwired in the human being at birth--nothing? Are you sure you wish to stand by this contention? What about being right-handed or left-handed? Is this inculcated in children by parents who want their little Wanda or Johnny to be the next left-handed rocket scientist or musician?

I was talking about complex fields of productive human activity so that's what I meant, don't drop context. Yes of course we're wired to be left-handed or right-handed or ambidextrous and none of those predispose us to being good in some field or other.

[Ellen Stuttle]

That could be elastically stretched and molded to cover most any result.

Pfff. I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth they're saying we are. That's a stark difference, not nebulous or elastic.

Oh, Lord, "hardwired" -- an over-used and much-abused way of speaking when talking about the brain if there ever was one. IS Victor saying that people are "hardwired" to be good at drawing? As of yesterday (or the day before, I'm losing track), it was my understanding that he wasn't saying that; however, his referring to the issue of left- or right-handedness does muddy things.

But, Shayne, I'll ask you this question: Is it your contention that there was nothing specific pertaining to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's characteristics at birth which was a necessary ingredient amongst the combination of factors resulting in his becoming the wunderkind he became, that "any normal child" born at that time to that father could have equally done what that particular child did? If your answer is "yes," "any normal child" in those circumstances could have performed as well, then this is a clear difference from my understanding of Victor's and MSK's views -- and it's a clear difference from my views as well, I'll add, since I think that there were some sort of characteristics of the brain present at birth which were necessary to the results in Wolfgang A.'s case. (I don't know specifically what characteristics, though I have hypotheses.)

Ellen

___

[sjw]

Oh, Lord, "hardwired" -- an over-used and much-abused way of speaking when talking about the brain if there ever was one. IS Victor saying that people are "hardwired" to be good at drawing? As of yesterday (or the day before, I'm losing track), it was my understanding that he wasn't saying that; however, his referring to the issue of left- or right-handedness does muddy things.

Again, "pfff." Quibble over my choice of words if you want, it does underscore the difference here.

But, Shayne, I'll ask you this question: Is it your contention that there was nothing specific pertaining to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's characteristics at birth which was a necessary ingredient amongst the combination of factors resulting in his becoming the wunderkind he became, that "any normal child" born at that time to that father could have equally done what that particular child did? If your answer is "yes," "any normal child" in those circumstances could have performed as well, then this is a clear difference from my understanding of Victor's and MSK's views -- and it's a clear difference from my views as well, I'll add, since I think that there were some sort of characteristics of the brain present at birth which were necessary to the results in Wolfgang A.'s case. (I don't know specifically what characteristics, though I have hypotheses.)

How on earth could I analyze Mozart without knowing more about him than is known? All one can do with him is offer unwarranted speculation, which is precisely what you are doing. But if you are going to speculate, I find it just as likely a speculation that his father was an exceptional teacher as that Mozart's genes helped make him what he was. Not that either would determine anything by themselves. Mozart *chose* to become great. He was evidently given a great amount of nurturing as a child, and then chose to take advantage of that, to do the most with it. I don't see a reason to speculate on magical properties of his genes.

Tiger Woods is akin to Mozart with respect to his father. I don't think Tiger was born to play golf any more than Mozart was born to write music. The child's mind is incredibly plastic and, given their own choice to do so, open to learning from a good teacher. I think Tiger's father and Mozart's father were very likely great men in their own right in the respect of knowing how to teach someone so young well--something that is not an easy task.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was talking about complex fields of productive human activity so that's what I meant, don't drop context.

Shayne,

Now we are talking about "complex fields"? How did that sneak in?

I mentioned specifically "facility for learning." I mentioned math as an example. Math can be simple or complex. Just now, I started to compile a list of such facilities for learning from introspecting (and started with muscle coordination), but I decided to look up "aptitude" to see what I would get. I found a a pretty good list of innate aptitudes here: Estimating your Aptitudes. In that article, the difference should be noted between achievement, ability and aptitude. When I use the term "innate talent," I am centered on aptitude, with achievement (past work) and ability (present skill) as indications of aptitude (and they also indicate effort and experience). What makes for one complex field be favored over another in an individual is the combination of aptitudes. Thus there is no "basketball gene" for one who displays a high degree of natural ability at basketball, but there is a high innate aptitude for motor coordination, manual dexterity, finger dexterity, spatial aptitude, etc., (taking from the list below). The complex activity is a summation of specific elements.

Note that the existence of this hardwiring does not annul the impact of effort. It coexists with it.

Briefly, from the article, the basic aptitudes are the following:

General Learning Ability

Verbal Aptitude

Numerical Aptitude

Spatial Aptitude

Form Perception

Clerical Perception (ability to observe differences)

Motor Coordination

Finger Dexterity

Manual Dexterity

Observe that an aptitude unfolds during growth like the acorn to tree example. For example, the numerical aptitude of an infant matures along with increasing knowledge of numbers. Growth is added to experience and learning.

Aptitudes are tested and measured constantly throughout all stages of life, so there is scientific evidence for them. As differences are found in the very young, this is a strong indication of hard-wiring. I have no doubt that the genes for these differences will be isolated, and if capitalism continues to be the favored economic model to the extent it is today, I have no doubt that medication or gene enhancing drugs will be invented to raise aptitude levels.

I do agree that a rational approach to learning something can greatly improve performance, but that does not delete the existence of aptitudes. It is merely one more element in the mix. btw - I reject your insinuation that acknowledging innate aptitudes equates with finding the world unknowable.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Aptitude for further information. Notice that in testing, both innate aptitude and learned ability are tested (see the part called "Aptitude Batteries").

Here are some general comments on Aptitude from the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, a highly successful organization that tests people so that they can choose a career where they will have a higher chance of success.

There's oodles of stuff like this out there. That's a lot of evidence to ignore. (But I still intend to present Rand's writings on this later, where there will be even more evidence to ignore.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

All right, Shayne, that answer (post #488) is unequivocal, and it clearly differentiates your views from Victor's and MSK's without making the errors about variability of bodily organs which Matus makes.

The inquisition rests. And about time, since I must get about turning my thoughts to my pending project.

Ellen

___

Edited January 4, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[sjw]

Now we are talking about "complex fields"? How did that sneak in?

"Sneak in"? That's not an honest rhetorical technique.

In any case, what else would I have been talking about? If it's "simple" stuff, then who could possibly care? How could it possibly matter? If someone can add 2+2 = 4 really fast, what does that matter?

There's oodles of stuff like this out there. That's a lot of evidence to ignore. (But I still intend to present Rand's writings on this later, where there will be even more evidence to ignore.)

More implications of things I never said. I don't deny the "evidence" you gave, i.e., that those differences exist if you measure them. The fact that you use dodgy rhetoric and put words into my mouth just indicates to me that you feel you are on quite shaky ground. It's good that you feel that way. It's not good that you don't manifest your uncertainty in a more productive manner.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Parting mischievous thrust: And did Schubert likewise choose to be great, and in this case against his father's wishes that he NOT become a musician? The poor guy couldn't turn off the music which assailed his mind; he was as one possessed.

Ducking outta here...

Ellen

___

[sjw]

Parting mischievous thrust: And did Schubert likewise choose to be great, and in this case against his father's wishes that he NOT become a musician? The poor guy couldn't turn off the music which assailed his mind; he was as one possessed.

In spite of the fact that you impute a position to me that I do not hold (that a good teacher is an absolute necessity), you're evidently wrong to imply that Schubert didn't have his father's support early on (according to Wiki):

"Their father Franz Theodor was a well known teacher, and his school on the Himmelpfortgrund was well attended.[citation needed] He was not a famous musician, but he taught his son what he could of music. ... At the age of five, Schubert began receiving regular instruction from his father and a year later was enrolled at the Himmelpfortgrund school. His formal musical education also began around the same time. His father continued to teach him the rudiments of the violin."

[Matus1976]

Victor Said:

No, there is no “drawing gene” for people who display a talent for drawing. It merely means that some people have greater eye-hand coordination than others, that they are able to reproduce images via the use of man-made instruments. It is their talent. If the man-made instruments we have in art—such as paints and canvas, etc--didn’t exist in their current form, the talent would remain quiescent, or else find some other manifestation, such as having a sharper aim at archery or whatever.

Yes but you are making an observation here, that some people have more of a talent for drawing. That is obvious, but why do they have more talent? Drawing requires good hand eye coordination, playing games and playing with toys helps develop those things, even at a very young age. Maybe good artists are more inclined to be curious about physics objects and movements at an early age, thus developing good hand eye coordination. But maybe they just liked playing with things, taking things apart, building things, etc, as I did to as young of an age as I can remember. I loved putting puzzles together. Artists need eto have a good ability to visualize and work toward an over arching complete image of their drawing. An active imagination certainly helps in visualization, a child plopped in front of a TV and raised there as a baby sitter perhaps won’t be as good at visualization and will develop a shortened attention span. The point is the differences are obvious, but what causes the differences in ability? How do you trace it to something you are born with and eradicate all of the environmental and chosen factors?

Ellen said:

“Matus, I don't know what your standards of "difference" are, but I wonder where you're getting your information on the subject of differences in internal organs. I've known a large number of medical people in my life, and I've done a fair amount of studying medical subjects myself. What I glean from both verbal and written sources is that no two person's internal organs are identical. Stomachs, e.g., can differ in size, in shape, in placement, in blood supply connections and flows, in hormonal sensitivities and outputs, in histology, and in other details. No, you don't get the scale differences in size which can be found in height. But size isn't the only parameter of difference”

No, I do not know the extent of differences found between the same organs of different individuals, obviously there are differences, but the point is that people almost always point to differences in height and skin color and say “Look, see, there ought to be a similar extent of differences in the human mind” but are not basing that on any rational fact whatsoever. I could just as easily say “Look at all the differences in shades of hair colors! There must be a similar extent of differences in the numbers of fingers people have!” You cant point to one biological differential scale and assume it automatically applies to all biological differential scales. Yes there are extreme physical differences in height, but there are not similar extreme physical differences in stomach size to body size ratios, or brain to body weight ratios, or blood flow to brain rations, etc, is there? I don’t know, but I am guessing there isn’t. Since you are so adament that the difference is significant, can you cite some empirical evidence for that? I notice in a later post you state my assement is 'in error' And the further point is, no one is pointing at the fact that we all have the same numbers of fingers and toes and asserting that since that is the case all of our brains must be equally identical. That is just as rational as using height or skin color to judge such a thing. Looking at one biological difference and extrapolating it onto a completely different thing is not rational, and my point is that we are far more alike taken as a whole than we are dissimiliar.

I realize we are missing a great deal of knowledge about the relative similarities between brains, which is why I point to the only thing we can point to in an attempt to understand to what extent their might be differences, and that is the relative ability of people to learn and perfect skills and what it takes for them to do that. Since we cant hack open a brain and figure these things out, we are forced to look at what brains can do, and all the scientific evidence and large scale studies I have repeatedly mentioned point to the same conclusion over and over again. That expertise is made through a concerted effort of a particular kind over a very long length of time, and that the earlier people start developing a skill the more their body is physiologically conducive to that, and that the greatest of the great humans far from being lackadaisical casual geniuses spent their whole entire lives learning, developing, and challenging themselves and their own ideas. If the observation is that virtually anyone can become really good or great at virtually anything they set their mind to and put the appropriate amount of intelligent effort into it than the conclusion must be that innate differences in Brains do not play a significant role in expertise or greatness.

“However, I wouldn't say that "lazyness" is "the biggest limiter to greatness and achievement," as if there's a moral flaw involved in the case of anyone who hasn't made significant achievements. There are a whole lot of other possibilities.”

I strongly disagree, I think laziness is the single biggest limiter. But I have also explicitly stated and tried to emphasize strongly that we have no moral obligation to achieve, such an attitude is no different that a secular version of original sin and means you don’t deserve your life unless you do something with it. Life has intrinsic value and doesn’t need to focused on achieving something (like bettering the lives of our brothers) in order to be worthwhile. That is a disgusting and dangerous mentality and I completely disagree with it. But that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people aren’t sitting around doing hardly anything productive except the barest minimum of things required to live their happily comfortable lives. We all operate at 10% or less of our capacity. But hey, its your life, you get to live it for your own sake and do with it what you please. The only thing I strongly argue against is thinking that you can be good or great at something because you weren’t ‘born’ with that innate talent and thus use it to justify your own inaction. People need to be honest with themselves, if they are not a great achiever its because they choose not to put the demanding effort into it to become one, not because they are physically or physiologically incapable of it.

“However, I think it's an open question as to how much of a role innate ability continues to play in differences in performance as people age.”

I think that is still debatable as well, and new evidence may lean more to one way or the other, but I am making a judgment call about it now with the evidence currently available. But many of these questions would be very difficult to test and probably unethical if they were tested.

“I think you're thinking too narrowly of the possible parameters of difference. Size percentages are far from the only possible differences. E.g., no two sets of fingerprints are identical; no two sets of teeth are identical; no two patterns of retinal arteries and veins are identical. Any of these three characteristics can be used to ID a specific person”

Yes it is fair to point out our differences of course, but these kind of identifying patterns are so useful precisely because they had no functional importance and thus could change without appreciably effecting the organism. Finger prints, for instance, play absolutely no evolutionary role whatsoever. Body size and shape does depending on climate, as with skin color, different climates see different body types as advantageous. But in all climates and environments a sharp mind which learns well and remembers things well is advantageous.

I believe the shortest adult person ever was around 2’ tall, while the tallest was around 8’, but I was just throwing out a number for the purpose of the discussion.

“I think that you have to try hard to get a meaning other than "innate ability" from the passage about Francisco”

I disagree of course, but in reality Rand is not the final arbiter on this question, the evidence is. As it is to me it seems like she made a very wise and prescient judgment call about the results of evolution and natural selection on the human body and how it pertains to the differences in our manifested abilities.

“I think your breakdown of factors is good, and that your analysis was clear. I was pleased to see you talking about factor (5). In your previous posts something which kept bothering me was your emphasis on excruciating effort. It sounded to me as if you thought of achievement as a grueling ordeal, as if you weren't allowing for it's being fun. I'm glad to see you saying that having fun in an activity is important to being good at it.”

Haha, well to me it has been grueling, and I think the kind of practice that is required to get perpetually better at something is inherently grueling, physically and mentally. But the reason why you are doing it, what is motivating you, is very important. If someone, a parent or society, is forcing you to in some way, you aren’t going to put up with that kind of demanding practice for very long. I wanted to emphasize this point because people had made comments about churning out geniuses like sausages. Its not gonna happen, just look at the forced skilled slave labor of the Nazis in WWII. Jews were asked to design precise and complex machinery to build V2’s. They always worked in a way to screw the rockets up that was extremely difficult to detect before hand.

You must, I think, fundamentally find some joy or major purpose in your doing it. I have found that the grueling aspect of it becomes part of what you enjoy, because you know it means you are getting better at it. It is a mental shift in attention from subjective focusing on the difficulties of the actions you are undertaking at that moment to focusing on your goals, purpose, and desires. In my experience anyway. I think professional athletes would probably report something similar, as well as aspiring chess grand masters or professional musicians. It’s not fun doing the same thing a hundred times, but it is fun when you find out how well you can do it afterward ;)

My apologies to Brant for misinterpreting his comments.

[Ellen Stuttle]

You're right, Shayne, I was mixing up Schubert with someone else whose father wanted him to become a lawyer. (Dragonfly, do you know whom I'm thinking of?) Nonetheless, I wouldn't describe Schubert as having chosen music. It was more as if music had chosen him.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

Body size and shape does depending on climate, as with skin color, different climates see different body types as advantageous. But in all climates and environments a sharp mind which learns well and remembers things well is advantageous.

Unfortunately that's only true in natural environments. In most man-made (social-political) environments its not.

[Dragonfly]

You're right, Shayne, I was mixing up Schubert with someone else whose father wanted him to become a lawyer. (Dragonfly, do you know whom I'm thinking of?)

Schumann. His mother insisted that he should study law (his father had died earlier); he gave up this study after a few years.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pfff. I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth they're saying we are. That's a stark difference, not nebulous or elastic.

Shayne,

These are your words, not my feeling that I am "on quite shaky ground," which for some strange reason you find "good."

The fact is that part of our mind is hard-wired and part is volition. Saying we aren't hard-wired doesn't make it so.

I find it really strange that you agree one minute with the evidence that I present, and in another, you make the kind of comment you made above.

Michael

[sjw]

You're right, Shayne, I was mixing up Schubert with someone else whose father wanted him to become a lawyer. (Dragonfly, do you know whom I'm thinking of?)

Schumann. His mother insisted that he should study law (his father had died earlier); he gave up this study after a few years.

Heh.. Still fits with the Mozart/Woods/Schubert pattern in his youth:

"His father was a publisher, and it was in the cultivation of literature quite as much as in that of music that his boyhood was spent. Schumann himself said that he began to compose before his seventh year. ... In 1828 he left school, and after a tour, during which he met Heinrich Heine in Munich, he went to Leipzig to study law. His interest in music had been stimulated when he was a child by hearing Ignaz Moscheles play at Carlsbad, and in 1827 his enthusiasm had been further excited by the works of Franz Schubert and Felix Mendelssohn. But his father, who had encouraged the boy's musical aspirations, had died in 1826, and neither his mother nor his guardian approved of a musical career for him."

I.e., he was encouraged in music by his father until age 16.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The point is the differences are obvious, but what causes the differences in ability? How do you trace it to something you are born with and eradicate all of the environmental and chosen factors?

Michael D,

The answer is: you don't. Isolating one aspect of a whole for the purpose of study does not "eradicate" the other elements. Like I said above, I have no doubt much more will be heard about the genetic differences of aptitudes in the near future, with drugs that will affect them.

Incidentally, this kind of wrong presupposition about the position of the other is one of the errors that is causing disagreement. I could do what you just did. I could just as easily ask from the other end, making the same mistake, "How do you trace it to environmental and chosen factors and eradicate everything you are born with?"

The simple fact is one doesn't "eradicate" the other.

Michael