What is talent?

[sjw]

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.

It might be interesting for you to attempt to make explicit the contradiction you think you are seeing. Start out with an easy case. Pick the most stark contradiction you think I'm advocating. Maybe the contradiction isn't there at all, maybe you just need to check your premises. But if you can't make it explicit I can't help you. I see nothing inconsistent in my words but I do see you taking them the wrong way over and over.

[Dragonfly]

There is no doubt that Mozart's talent was unique, there is no way that just anyone could do the same, no matter how intense they are trained from early childhood. When he was 14 years old, he wrote down the complete score of Allegri's Miserere after hearing it just once. How many trained musicians would be able to repeat such a stunt? Chopin was another musical musical prodigy; at six he got piano lessons by Zywny, but already soon he could play better than his teacher, who became more his guide in exploring music than a teacher teaching piano technique, and after 4 years gave up while he couldn't teach him anything more; he was Chopin's first and last piano teacher. Chopin's father later wrote to his son about this period: "where others have spent days struggling at the keyboard, you hardly ever spent a whole hour at it." At 7 he published his first Polonaise, and at 8 he played a piano concerto by Gyrowetz in public.

In mathematics you have people like Gauss and Ramanujan who showed already at an early age an astonishing talent; Gauss who at the age of 3 corrected in his head an error that his father had made in some calculations; Ramanujan, who derived more than 3000 theorems was even largely self-taught. There is no way that the average person would be able to do the same as such people, no matter how they are trained.

Anyone who has some experience with teaching music or physics or mathematics knows that many students will never be able to make it. For some studies you need an IQ of at least 130, if you're average with an IQ of 100 you're guaranteed to fail. I think it's even reprehensible to suggest to students that they can do it just by trying hard enough, while it's obvious that this will only lead to failure. People do have their limits and they'd better accept that than to try to do the impossible.

[sjw]

There is no doubt that Mozart's talent was unique, there is no way that just anyone could do the same, no matter how intense they are trained from early childhood. When he was 14 years old, he wrote down the complete score of Allegri's Miserere after hearing it just once. How many trained musicians would be able to repeat such a stunt?

I observed someone in high school doing a similar "stunt". In Jazz band we listened to a new peice, he then proceeded to play it, having never heard it before. He had perfect pitch, had been playing since he was very young (by his mother), and was writing music in high school.

Anyways, none of what you said is evidence for anything. A laundry list of impressive feats by remarkable human beings does not add anything by way of logic or evidence, it's all a silly fluffy flair you're putting on. You hope to win the argument by impressing people with feats they could not imagine performing, thereby bypassing all the arguments that have come before. Not a very noble tactic.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Anyways, none of what you said is evidence for anything. A laundry list of impressive feats by remarkable human beings does not add anything by way of logic or evidence, it's all a silly fluffy flair you're putting on. You hope to win the argument by impressing people with feats they could not imagine performing, thereby bypassing all the arguments that have come before. Not a very noble tactic.

Shayne,

You hope to win arguments by ignoring the value of evidence presented by others and devaluing their perspectives and arguments. Not a very noble tactic.

Paul

[Dragonfly]

I observed someone in high school doing a similar "stunt". In Jazz band we listened to a new peice, he then proceeded to play it, having never heard it before. He had perfect pitch, had been playing since he was very young (by his mother), and was writing music in high school.

It's obvious that you have no idea of what you're talking about. It is not a matter of just replaying a piece you heard for the first time, even I have done such things on a small scale. Writing down all the nine voices of the polyphonal piece after one hearing is something in a quite different league.

Anyways, none of what you said is evidence for anything.

Oh yes, it is, every example is a falsification of your theory.

A laundry list of impressive feats by remarkable human beings does not add anything by way of logic or evidence, it's all a silly fluffy flair you're putting on.

Oh, sure, if you have no answer you just call it fluffy flair. What an impressive argument.

You hope to win the argument by impressing people with feats they could not imagine performing, thereby bypassing all the arguments that have come before. Not a very noble tactic.

Ah, and now we start also moralizing, why am I not surprised? You haven't given any argument, only stated without any evidence that "any person with a normal brain and normal health and normal circumstances can indeed become great at virtually anything they want to", which is just complete crap.

[sjw]

You hope to win arguments by ignoring the value of evidence presented by others and devaluing their perspectives and arguments. Not a very noble tactic.

Care to demonstrate where I've ignored valuable evidence? Or is this just you indulging in your egalitarian hypocrisy again?

[sjw]

It's obvious that you have no idea of what you're talking about. It is not a matter of just replaying a piece you heard for the first time, even I have done such things on a small scale. Writing down all the nine voices of the polyphonal piece after one hearing is something in a quite different league.

Ah, the recurring theme of presumptuousness amongst the "talent" people. This was a complex piano peice not a simple melody. Not that your original point had any merit or relevance anyway. We're all aware of the feats various humans have been able to pull off and you know it, the sole purpose of you pointing them out is for distraction.

Oh yes, it is, every example is a falsification of your theory.

Speaking of someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. Examples as such don't constitute a refutation of anything. Logic and interpretation of those examples is required. Something you provided none of. All you were shooting for was effect. Very lame.

Oh, sure, if you have no answer you just call it fluffy flair. What an impressive argument.

Since you offered no argument, no argument on my part was necessary other than pointing to your fallacious technique. Your whining that I'm "moralizing" only makes your position lower. You're caught red handed. Fess up or shut up, no more whining.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sjw

[sjw]

And another Dragonfly myth falls like an annoying but easily swatted fly (from the wikipedia again):

"Many famous artists and composers, like Claude Monet[1] and Mozart, may have had eidetic memory. However, it is possible that their memories simply became highly trained in their respective fields of art, as they each devoted large portions of their waking time towards the improvement of their abilities. Such a focus on their individual arts most likely improved the relevant parts of their memory, which may account for their surprising abilities."

"Mozart probably had eidetic memory especially suited for composers. There is a famous story about Mozart demonstrating his eidetic memory at the age of 14. At the Sistine Chapel during Holy Week in Rome, Gregorio Allegri's Miserere would be performed. The notes to the Miserere were kept secret under pain of excommunication. On Holy Tuesday, Mozart and his father attended the Papal Mass at the Sistine Chapel. Upon returning to their room, Mozart transcribed the music which had been kept secret for a century[5]. (This is the popular version of that incident. Other sources have him at the Vatican not once but twice (see also Allegri). That would make the event much less a miracle since Mozart was already familiar with difficult composing techniques at that age. He would have recognized and memorized the quite simple harmonic and formal patterns of the Miserere at the first performance and would have used the second one to correct the details.)" [emphasis mine]

Edited January 5, 2007 by sjw

[Dragonfly]

It's obvious you've lost the argument, as you don't present any argument yourself, only an unsupported statement ex cathedra, and you refuse to listen to what other people say and now you also start to insult people, the last resort of the bad loser. I don't know why you've come to OL, I think you'd belong to Solo, that's more your kind of people, you're poisoning the atmosphere here.

[Paul Mawdsley]

You hope to win arguments by ignoring the value of evidence presented by others and devaluing their perspectives and arguments. Not a very noble tactic.

Care to demonstrate where I've ignored valuable evidence? Or is this just you indulging in your egalitarian hypocrisy again?

I didn't say you "ignored valuable evidence." I said you were "ignoring the value of evidence." You would have no way of knowing whether or not it is valuable because you refuse to take the time to consider the value of it. Don't ask someone else to do the work you are not willing to do.

Why is it that you always focus your arguments on your projections of the other person's character rather than on ideas? I find Matus has made me want to think about the ideas more deeply. You tend to make me want to disengage from any further discussion. Mine would then be one less perspective you would have to devalue. I guess that means you would win. You would be one step closer to a perfect world where only your perspective is left standing without contention. This may just be what your confrontational argument strategy is intended to produce. You win arguments through attrition without ever having to consider the value of anyone else's perspective.

Paul

[sjw]

I didn't say you "ignored valuable evidence." I said you were "ignoring the value of evidence."

I know what you said. I transformed your statement into something resembling a coherent criticism for you.

You would have no way of knowing whether or not it is valuable because you refuse to take the time to consider the value of it. Don't ask someone else to do the work you are not willing to do.

So you have no actual case where I've done this alleged thing, you're just throwing your egalitarian weight around again.

[sjw]

It's obvious you've lost the argument, as you don't present any argument yourself, only an unsupported statement ex cathedra, and you refuse to listen to what other people say and now you also start to insult people, the last resort of the bad loser.

No, you're the one demonstrating you've lost: instead of facing your fallacy, you start attacking me and repeating already dismissed arguments. I already pointed out that no more argument was necessary than pointing out your fallacy--but you evade that point.

I don't know why you've come to OL, I think you'd belong to Solo, that's more your kind of people, you're poisoning the atmosphere here.

I find gross illogic you indulge in and the hypocritical egalitarianism Paul does to be the true poison. Or the trolling misrepresentations Victor engaged in for that matter. Why should someone be polite in the face of these things?

[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.

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.

It might be interesting for you to attempt to make explicit the contradiction you think you are seeing. Start out with an easy case. Pick the most stark contradiction you think I'm advocating. Maybe the contradiction isn't there at all, maybe you just need to check your premises. But if you can't make it explicit I can't help you. I see nothing inconsistent in my words but I do see you taking them the wrong way over and over.

Shayne,

Let's stick with the case at hand for all the "evidence" we need. But this is getting really tedious and is starting to become less an exchange of intellectual values than Shayne feeling slighted for some imaginary reason or other and constantly drawing attention to his feelings--and away from the ideas.

What part of "I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth" is difficult to understand? Those are your words. If a mind is partially hard-wired, it is hard-wired. It cannot be partially hard-wired and not hard-wired at the same time. That's a contradiction.

Let's start with clarity in communication without contradictions, then we can move on to specific examples (if I and you find value in doing so--and, frankly, I will only find such value if the bickering stops).

There. I checked my premises.

Michael

[sjw]

Let's stick with the case at hand for all the "evidence" we need. But this is getting really tedious and is starting to become less an exchange of intellectual values than Shayne feeling slighted for some imaginary reason or other and constantly drawing attention to his feelings--and away from the ideas.

That's false. What's true is that this is hypocritical: you attack my person instead of facing any idea I put forth while getting on my case about not talking about ideas.

What part of "I'm saying that we aren't hard-wired at birth" is difficult to understand? Those are your words. If a mind is partially hard-wired, it is hard-wired. It cannot be partially hard-wired and not hard-wired at the same time. That's a contradiction.

You can't at the same time and in the same respect. We are "hard wired" with various reflexes, in that respect, but we aren't hard wired on the conceptual level. In that sense there's no contradiction to say we are and aren't hard-wired. But I'm not sure what it is in what I said that you're talking about.

[Brant Gaede]

I personally think human intelligence is grossly underdeveloped irrespective of genes for genius, whatever those are. The size of the human brain is limited pretty much by what can get through the birth canal. So if the human brain is big enough for Mozart to be a genius, why not many more such geniuses, especially considering how many more people there are now in the world? Until the human brain gets to be nurtured 1000 times more than it is starting soon after birth, I think the nature of nature is hardly understood. And who has so far mentioned self-nurturing? That's what I did. Presumably most others do too, to some extent.

--Brant

[sjw]

I personally think human intelligence is grossly underdeveloped irrespective of genes for genius, whatever those are.

I agree. On a basic level this is really all I'm saying. The potentials of most human beings are vastly undertapped. So no theory of "genius genes" is needed to explain why some do so much better than others. Consistency of effort, integrity, and rationality applied over time goes a very long way. I think the key to Rand is what she said it was: she held her philosophy from the time she was a child and didn't change it in essentials over time, she didn't bow to any authority but her own and she had an extremely good work ethic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. On a basic level this is really all I'm saying. The potentials of most human beings are vastly undertapped.

2. So no theory of "genius genes" is needed to explain why some do so much better than others.

Shayne,

Other contradiction. Statement 1 claims that "all you are saying" is one thing. Then Statement 2 claims that further knowledge is not "needed." So that was not all you were saying. You were also making a baseless claim on the utility of certain knowledge.

I agree wholeheartedly with Statement 1. I find Statement 2 just as wrongheaded as any claim that disparages full knowledge of a subject.

Michael

[sjw]

Other contradiction. Statement 1 claims that "all you are saying" is one thing. Then Statement 2 claims that further knowledge is not "needed." So that was not all you were saying. You were also making a baseless claim on the utility of certain knowledge.

What did you presume I meant nothing by the term "basically"? It strikes me that the only reason you see a contradiction is because you take total liberty to ignore that qualification. I was quite aware of the fact that that wasn't all I was saying, that's why I added that qualifier.

I agree wholeheartedly with Statement 1. I find Statement 2 just as wrongheaded as any claim that disparages full knowledge of a subject.

I certainly don't mean to disparage that all-too-rare thing called authentic knowledge. All I meant was to highlight that the important practical effect (how we view ourselves) is right there in Brant's little statement. What I see this as being about is how we each view our own potentials. Do we think that we can do great things (if we want to), or do we resign ourselves because of our apparent lack of "innate talent"? I view myself as adaptable, improvable, perfectable. I think if I want to do something, then I can potentially do it (obviously this requires wanting realistic things). It's not guaranteed, nothing in life is. But I don't view myself as inherently congenitally handicapped. I can feel free to go for it if I'm willing to work. I'm not afraid that I'll be inherently incapable. The universe is knowable, and I can know it; the corollary is that I can in principle achieve. Nothing else matters.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I see this as being about is how we each view our own potentials. Do we think that we can do great things (if we want to), or do we resign ourselves because of our apparent lack of "innate talent"?

Shayne,

This is part of the whole communication problem. You made this point clearly in your early posts on this thread. The trouble is that people are talking about something else, but you you keep treating them as if they are talking about this. They aren't. (Why not try finding out what they are actually talking about?)

I don't think anyone on this thread I have read so far disagrees with having a positive attitude toward our own potentials.

Michael

[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.

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

___

Ellen,

I can see that a general agreement has been reached in that people are different, and some people can have some physiological differences in their brain, at birth, that make them better at one thing or another. It is this physiological difference” that makes “some people better” at one thing or another is what we call talent. THIS has been acknowledged and agreed upon and the only argument now is over semantics. Should we call this observed phenomenon “talent” or not—or give it some other name? That is what has become of this discussion.

But I am perfectly fine with ascribing the word “talent” to the above.

Ellen, I mentioned left-handedness to serve only as an analogy. The left-handed analogy is useful in two ways in regards to talent: it is innate in the child—yes, it is hard-wired at birth—and also given the scarcity of left-handed children in proportion to right-handed children—you have also a scarcity of innate talent, in cases where you do find advanced children.

I don’t believe there any rational justification for the denial of this very observable phenomenon of what is designated as “talent”. As it relates to drawing, a person can be born with a natural talent for art and prosper if he hones the talent. As I have argued, that does not mean that there is a “drawing gene” --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. If the man-made instruments we have in art [paints and canvas] didn’t exist in their current form, the talent would remain quiescent, dormant, or else find a new form in some other manifestation, such as having a sharper aim at archery or whatever.

-Victor-

Edited January 5, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Other contradiction. Statement 1 claims that "all you are saying" is one thing. Then Statement 2 claims that further knowledge is not "needed." So that was not all you were saying. You were also making a baseless claim on the utility of certain knowledge.

What did you presume I meant nothing by the term "basically"? It strikes me that the only reason you see a contradiction is because you take total liberty to ignore that qualification. I was quite aware of the fact that that wasn't all I was saying, that's why I added that qualifier.

I agree wholeheartedly with Statement 1. I find Statement 2 just as wrongheaded as any claim that disparages full knowledge of a subject.

I certainly don't mean to disparage that all-too-rare thing called authentic knowledge. All I meant was to highlight that the important practical effect (how we view ourselves) is right there in Brant's little statement. What I see this as being about is how we each view our own potentials. Do we think that we can do great things (if we want to), or do we resign ourselves because of our apparent lack of "innate talent"? I view myself as adaptable, improvable, perfectable. I think if I want to do something, then I can potentially do it (obviously this requires wanting realistic things). It's not guaranteed, nothing in life is. But I don't view myself as inherently congenitally handicapped. I can feel free to go for it if I'm willing to work. I'm not afraid that I'll be inherently incapable. The universe is knowable, and I can know it; the corollary is that I can in principle achieve. Nothing else matters.

Careful, "adaptable, improvable, perfectible" is what the communists did to their victims and Ayn Rand's basic mistake shared with them: human beings as plastic and moldable, the Stalinists from the outside in and Rand from the inside out. The basic principle of individualism is to let people be what they want to be as long as no one violates individual rights. The moral principle is just to let people be.

--Brant

[sjw]

Careful, "adaptable, improvable, perfectible" is what the communists did to their victims and Ayn Rand's basic mistake shared with them: human beings as plastic and moldable, the Stalinists from the outside in and Rand from the inside out. The basic principle of individualism is to let people be what they want to be as long as no one violates individual rights. The moral principle is just to let people be.

WTF!?

[Victor Pross]

Careful, "adaptable, improvable, perfectible" is what the communists did to their victims and Ayn Rand's basic mistake shared with them: human beings as plastic and moldable, the Stalinists from the outside in and Rand from the inside out. The basic principle of individualism is to let people be what they want to be as long as no one violates individual rights. The moral principle is just to let people be.

WTF!?

Shayne,

It's so good to be of one voice with you instead of at odds all the time. Let me join you on this: WTF!?

[Brant Gaede]

Careful, "adaptable, improvable, perfectible" is what the communists did to their victims and Ayn Rand's basic mistake shared with them: human beings as plastic and moldable, the Stalinists from the outside in and Rand from the inside out. The basic principle of individualism is to let people be what they want to be as long as no one violates individual rights. The moral principle is just to let people be.

WTF!?

Shayne,

It's so good to be of one voice with you instead of at odds all the time. Let me join you on this: WTF!?

Well ... oh, well. Let me know when u guys figure it out. :logik:

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

A quick note to Matus...

Matus, I feel bad about ducking out just when you replied with a long reply to my reply to you. But I must get about a different task altogether from thoughts on the subject of nature/nurture.

My basic point in regard to organ variability is that, since all the other organs of the body show variability, I see no reason to think that the brain wouldn't as well. Instead, I see every reason to think that the brain would, given the details of embryological development. And my further point is that I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does at this time, the exact details of what variations from brain to brain might mean for variations in mental characteristics.

Emphasizing something I wrote above: "given the details of embryological development." I've tried to be careful -- I hope I've succeeded -- to refer to possible differences between persons at birth. "At birth" is already 9 months (approximately) of genome/environment interrelationship. I don't think so simplistically as in terms of there being "a gene" for X, Y, Z mental characteristic. But I would be astounded to learn that there weren't differences from one human brain to another already by birth -- and, to repeat, I don't know what differences the expectable variation would produce in terms of differential learning capacities at birth.

Ellen

___