What is talent?

[CNA]

Angie I don't put any stock in "scientists" who say that many (most?) of us are born abnormal, and especially in those who would say that Roark had a mental disorder.

Shayne,

All you have to do is do the research into which has been extensive and much evidence has been produced that most individuals both through neurological diagnoses as well as post-mortem examinations that a great majority have been documented to have some form of abnormality. Difficult to refute the evidence with I don't put much stock into scientists who say "most" or "many" when there is abundant evidence and research that shows that quite a few people through examinations have documented abnormalities. As to Roark, do the research into autism and you may very well find that Roark had traits. Me personally I am open to all forms of evidence and I embrace it and I do not shut out and disqualify a scientist who says "most" or "many" when there's been quite a bit of research and evidence that speaks for itself.

I refuse to get into a game playing match with you as you have with others. Do the research, find the evidence yourself which there is a lot, and come to your own conclusions as to how many people have been documented with having an abnormality.

Angie

[Danneskjold]

Angie, I have traits of ADD, autism, bi-polar disorder, clinical depression, aspergers, and probably many other disorders. I can never pay attention in class, I have extreme moods at times, I get depressed, and I actually fit many for aspergers. I have none of these, I am amongst other things a teenage male. It comes with the territory. Perhaps some of the traits of autism overlap with the traits of being a misunderstood genius?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Yeah, but the only thing worse than me getting a jab in along with some content is you hypocritical types who get their jabs in while contributing nothing else of value. I wish you people would make your minds up: either it's in bad taste to criticize and therefore you should just STFU, or it's in fine taste to make reasonable criticisms and therefore you should just STFU.

Those you criticize for having contributed little content to this thread so far usually have well considered positions as things continue to unfold. Sometimes not firing off one's mouth is a sign that one is thinking. Sometimes firing off one's mouth is a sign one is not. Right now, I'm am thinking about the content of the thread while trying to ignore the noise. I'm sure others are doing the same. You might try checking your content to noise ratio.

Paul

[sjw]

Those you criticize for having contributed little content to this thread so far usually have well considered positions as things continue to unfold. Sometimes not firing off one's mouth is a sign that one is thinking. Sometimes firing off one's mouth is a sign one is not. Right now, I'm am thinking about the content of the thread while trying to ignore the noise. I'm sure others are doing the same. You might try checking your content to noise ratio.

Paul

Which doesn't explain why you keep firing your mouth off while contributing nothing.

Really, I think half of what you object to is in response to the kind of non-content garbage your kind keeps spewing forth. Why don't you just stop? Half the "noise" would then disappear. I used to think that Victor's tactics were annoying. But at least he was staying focussed on the subject. Your type just comes in here to criticize my style (or rarely, since you happen to agree with him, his). If you're so damn interested in how people should talk, why don't you make your own thread for that rather than polluting this one? How many different ways do I have to say: I don't care about your pseudo-Victorian, preachy, self-righteous and hypocritical criticisms of my style. And I have a total contempt for yours, which only gets worse the more you wax hypocritical.

Edited January 6, 2007 by sjw

[Paul Mawdsley]

Which doesn't explain why you keep firing your mouth off while contributing nothing.

Really, I think half of what you object to is in response to the kind of non-content garbage your kind keeps spewing forth. Why don't you just stop? Half the "noise" would then disappear. I used to think that Victor's tactics were annoying. But at least he was staying focussed on the subject. Your type just comes in here to criticize my style (or rarely, since you happen to agree with him, his). If you're so damn interested in how people should talk, why don't you make your own thread for that rather than polluting this one? How many different ways do I have to say: I don't care about your pseudo-Victorian, preachy, self-righteous and hypocritical criticisms of my style. And I have a total contempt for yours, which only gets worse the more you wax hypocritical.

Shayne,

You are right. I have been contributing to the noise. There is a certain personality type and social style, which tends to treat other perspectives with little respect, that triggers me to want to poke and prod. You fit the profile. I'll do my best to ignore your social style and contribute content only from here on.

Paul

[sjw]

You are right. I have been contributing to the noise. There is a certain personality type and social style, which tends to treat other perspectives with little respect, that triggers me to want to poke and prod. You fit the profile. I'll do my best to ignore your social style and contribute content only from here on.

You just can't stop it can you? You toss off even more bogus criticisms of me while you pretend like you're not going to do it anymore. You're incredible.

[Victor Pross]

Paul & Shayne,

Enough. Please put a lid on the personal barbs. :pirate:

(Hey, I’m only kidding, guys. This message was not adding to the noise. It’s just a little levity to ease the tension). ;)

-Victor

[Brant Gaede]

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

Correction and amplification:

The communists essentially regarded people as either malleable, or if they weren't, to de disposed of. This was a reengineering of society from the outside in, as with the Cambodian communists who used genocide against the older and educated generations. Rand posited the "ideal man" and explicitly said one could be like Galt or Roark. Taking this advice the wrong way many students of Objectivism disowned who they really were. I am not talking here about moral principles rationally identified and applied. I am talking about a character's attributes of personality. I think she assumed a plasticity of personality that simply does not exist. It is a way to twist yourself out of shape. I wonder how much she twisted herself out of shape. If she looked at Nathaniel Branden and saw John Galt what did she see in the mirror?

--Brant

[Danneskjold]

I think I'm the only person that has not been subject to a personal barb.

In any case no one has answered my question so I'll rephrase it.

Are we arguing over whether or not there is innate talent? Or are we arguing over whether there is a large enough difference in innate ability to surpass what can be easily learned without innate ability?

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

This thread as been plagued with dozens of flip-flops, obfuscation, semantics, context-dropping, game playing, intellectual snobbery and rhetoric—to the point where personal barbs are a welcome diversion.

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul & Shayne,

Enough. Please put a lid on the personal barbs. :pirate:

(Hey, I'm only kidding, guys. This message was not adding to the noise. It's just a little levity to ease the tension). ;)

Victor,

What tension? :angel:

[Danneskjold]

It is because of all that, that I am attempting to have you guys define what it is we are arguing and move off from there. Just don't get in an argument over what we're arguing about.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Does anyone know of any twin studies that might be relevant to this discussion? Twins raised in different environments would control for genetics while varying the environment. This would only produce correlational results but might add something to the discussion. I remember arguing for the effects parent's have on the development of their children on NB's site when others claimed a parents effects were negligible. Twin studies, as I recall, showed the parents nurturing contributed to the child's personality traits approximately 10%. 50% contribution was from genetics and the rest was from peer environment.

My argument at the time was that, if we accept the numbers as given, the 10% contribution from the parents nurturing would probably apply to some of the most important elements of the child's personality traits, such as the value system. I also pointed out that the contributions of the child's own will and volition should not be overlooked.

In light of the current discussion, personality traits that have a 50% contribution from genetics is suggestive that, while the mind/brain may have a great deal of plasticity in the early years, it is not 100% plastic. Meaning neurons can grow new connections, expanding and increasing in complexity through use, and they can retract through disuse, but if you are genetically prewired to greater complexity for certain aptitudes, then you will have an "innate talent" advantage over those who are not.

This does not mean effort and environment are not factors. These are huge factors. Even with genetically prewired complexity, with no effort and no nurturing, neural connections will retract and, at best, lie dormant. Conversely, someone without genetically prewired complexity, who has the will and environmental nurturing to grow new neural connections and increase complexity, will be able to surpass those who otherwise had a genetic advantage but not the will or the nurturing. The most advancement would be possible for those who start with genetically prewired complexity who have the will and the nurturing environment to take advantage of it. Those who have no prewired complexity, no will, and no positive nurturing, will watch Jerry Springer.

It makes no sense to assume genetic variation does not play a role in the mind/brain's potential. It is not everything but it should be considered part of the puzzle.

Genetic design + plasticity + environmental nurturing + will and volition = Individual Actualization

Paul

Where is Psych Major Mike when you need him?

Edit: For precision, I added the word "innate" before the word "talent."

Edited January 6, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[sjw]

Are we arguing over whether or not there is innate talent? Or are we arguing over whether there is a large enough difference in innate ability to surpass what can be easily learned without innate ability?

I'd put it this way: We're arguing over the degree to which man is self-made. We're using specific examples to measure, such as drawing or math.

The "talent people" claim that men don't get to choose to be good artists or mathematicians. You're either born to do it or not. You can try to force yourself to learn something that goes against your pre-wired brain, but ultimately your efforts will lead to futility and frustration. Man's ability to make himself is very limited, going outside the boundaries imprinted on him by nature will lead to disaster.

The "no talent people" claim that no skills such as drawing or math are built-in, that any normal man with the right motivation, effort, and method can become great at either if he starts early enough. Man's ability to make himself is potent; his mind is--like all the matter around him--a tool that he can form in the image of his own values.

Edited January 6, 2007 by sjw

[Danneskjold]

I do not see any justification for being on the former side of this issue then. Consider me amongst the ranks of those with no talent. :hmm: ;)

[Paul Mawdsley]

The "talent people" claim that men don't get to choose to be good artists or mathematicians. You're either born to do it or not. You can try to force yourself to learn something that goes against your pre-wired brain, but ultimately your efforts will lead to futile frustration. Man's ability to make himself is very limited, going outside the boundaries imprinted on him by nature will lead to disaster.

Jeff,

You have been reading the posts. Do you really think this is what anyone has been saying?

Paul

Edit: Those who have concluded talent is a factor assume neural plasticity is not 100%. Genetic variation is assumed to set some limits. This does not mean "ultimately your efforts will lead to futile frustration." Nor does it mean "[man's] ability to make himself is VERY limited." Nor does it mean "going outside the boundaries imprinted on him by nature will lead to disaster." It means that biology plays a role in determining individual potential. Shayne seems to be assuming that neural plasticity is either close to 100% or it is close to 0%. From what I can tell, this is where he sees the divide between the two sides. But no-one else is saying this. What if neural plasticity was at 50%? Biology, environment, will and volition would all come into play in shaping individual actualization. This is closer to what the pro-talent side is contending.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Dragonfly]

But the point being is what can be considered normal and healthy when you research into neurologists and neuroscientists and their diagnoses as well as post-mortem examinations of individuals that many many individuals have been documented with some form of abnormality.

The essential point here is that there is a lot of variation in humans; where we draw the line between "normal" and "abnormal" is rather arbitrary. Characteristics that are severely debilitating fall obviously in the "abnormal" range, but there is a whole grey area of characteristics that may be a nuisance but not be immediately incapacitating, comparable to having a cold or being myopic in the non-mental domain.

Does anyone know of any twin studies that might be relevant to this discussion? Twins raised in different environments would control for genetics while varying the environment. This would only produce correlational results but might add something to the discussion. I remember arguing for the effects parent's have on the development of their children on NB's site when others claimed a parents effects were negligible. Twin studies, as I recall, showed the parents nurturing contributed to the child's personality traits approximately 10%. 50% contribution was from genetics and the rest was from peer environment.

There is of course a large amount of such studies with regard to intelligence, see for example here. These show that there is a substantial genetic factor in determining intelligence; the heritability of IQ ranges from .45 for children to .75 for adults. Now intelligence is of course only one of many factors that determine a personality, but why should it be the only one with a strong genetic component? We know how sensitive the functioning of our brain is to its chemical environment and the influence of different kind of hormones (like adrenalin or testosteron for example). This whole chemical factory is ultimately determined by the physiology of the person. That does of course not imply that there is no interaction with the environment: adrenalin is for example released in a stressful situation, but the amount will not be the same for different persons, and there the genetic make-up can play an important role. Some personality traits like introversion/extroversion are already clearly visible in babies, we don't choose them, we are born with them. In fact the way we develop our innate talents is also influenced by our genetic make-up; whether we are persistent or easy-going (if not just lazy) depends on personality traits that are largely genetically determined.

In light of the current discussion, personality traits that have a 50% contribution from genetics is suggestive that, while the mind/brain may have a great deal of plasticity in the early years, it is not 100% plastic. Meaning neurons can grow new connections, expanding and increasing in complexity through use, and they can retract through disuse, but if you are genetically prewired to greater complexity for certain aptitudes, then you will have an "innate talent" advantage over those who are not.

Compare it with two different kinds of tree that are grown from seedlings. One of them can grow to 30 m height, the other one to 15 m. When they start to grow, the influence of the environment, like the amount of light, the soil etc., on their growth is relatively large. But if the circumstances are not too bad so that the growth is not really crippled, both trees will continue to grow, until they've reached their ceiling, in this case a real height, which will be quite different due to their genetic differences. If the environment is ideal, one tree will be 30 m high, the other one 15 m. (You see that the heritability increases with the age of the tree, just as the heritability of intelligence increases with the age of people.) If the circumstances are less than ideal, they will probably remain below their theoretical height. But there is no way that the smaller tree will grow to 30 m. Trees have their ceilings and we have them too. In ideal circumstances most children will be able to learn some amount of piano playing, but only a small fraction of them will ever be able to become a concert pianist who has mastered the Chopin Etudes. In the same way most children whose IQ is not abnormally low will be able to learn some elementary math, but only a small percentage of them will ever be able to finish a study in mathematics at a university.

[Rich Engle]

sjw doesn't like headache psychologists and guys with mad scientist-type hair. Yes!

Angie I don't put any stock in "scientists" who say that many (most?) of us are born abnormal, and especially in those who would say that Roark had a mental disorder.

I'm with you on that one, brother. Talk about an effed-up premise. An effed-up sense of life.

Helps bring in business for them, though. Know what I mean?

rde

I'm fine you're all nuts that's the issue.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The "talent people" claim that men don't get to choose to be good artists or mathematicians. You're either born to do it or not. You can try to force yourself to learn something that goes against your pre-wired brain, but ultimately your efforts will lead to futility and frustration. Man's ability to make himself is very limited, going outside the boundaries imprinted on him by nature will lead to disaster.

The "no talent people" claim that no skills such as drawing or math are built-in, that any normal man with the right motivation, effort, and method can become great at either if he starts early enough. Man's ability to make himself is potent; his mind is--like all the matter around him--a tool that he can form in the image of his own values.

Shayne,

I am glad you put it this way. It shows clearly that you do not read carefully. Can you quote anyone who makes the bizarre assertions you stated? The "talent" people actually are closer to your second paragraph, and you would see that if you took the time to read correctly.

For one who constantly complains that he is misread (with a nonstop barrage of accusations of dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc.), you simply got it all wrong yourself. Now that is really weird.

As with Michael D, I strongly suspect you are arguing against something inside yourself, not against what the posters on this thread actually wrote.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

OY! :shocked:

From the very start of this thread Shayne has been attributing this false position to the “talent people.” I don’t think he is stupid—just intellectually dishonest. This has been a repeated theme.

Below are just a few times that I had to repeatedly tell him where I personally stand on the question of innate talent and self-determination.

[post 96]: I said: ..."keep in mind: I am NOT saying that man is not “self-made”. Of course he is—in terms of ethical questions. I am speaking of aptitude, abilities, and talents—acquired or developed or innate. That’s what this thread is about. Ethical questions can apply to this topic, but it’s not what I’m addressing at the moment."

Post 151, I am again called upon to explain that nobody is arguing against hard work or that man is not ‘self-made’.

“Again and again with the strawmen. One more time: Nobody is arguing for the position that hard work plays little or no part in a successful life. To attribute that position to me is most especially ridiculous. Anybody who knows me knows the numerous sacrifices I have made to perfect my craft, and to begin a career in my field has been nothing less than hell. Why do I do it? I love it. Hey, I would be making a lot more money—and would have ‘succeeded’ a long time ago--if I decided to become a charted accountant or a doctor or whatever. I don't have a talent for those things. But my natural talent for art was such that led the way I chose.”

Again on post 159: “The existence of innate talent does not undermine the necessity of practice and meticulousness to succeed at the game of life.”

It’s not just me--others have said it over and over and over again. Shayne, what do you think you are doing?

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

I am glad you put it this way. It shows clearly that you do not read carefully. Can you quote anyone who makes the bizarre assertions you stated?

What about the repeated stories about some poor kid who tried and tried and tried, but just didn't have the "talent" to draw? This thread is filled with stuff like that from the "talent people".

I think you're the one who isn't reading. Either that or you just don't like the implications of what the talent side has been arguing for stated explicitly.

[sjw]

Below are just a few times that I had to repeatedly tell him where I personally stand on the question of innate talent and self-determination.

[post 96]: I said: ..."keep in mind: I am NOT saying that man is not “self-made”. Of course he is—in terms of ethical questions.

Victor you hang yourself with your own comments right here and answer Michael's question to me to boot. Here you constrain man's self-made nature to the very narrow field of "ethical questions". That's exactly the difference here.

You people are full of double-speak. And you have the gall to talk to me about "intellectual dishonesty."

[Victor Pross]

I am glad you put it this way. It shows clearly that you do not read carefully. Can you quote anyone who makes the bizarre assertions you stated?

What about the repeated stories about some poor kid who tried and tried and tried, but just didn't have the "talent" to draw? This thread is filled with stuff like that from the "talent people".

I think you're the one who isn't reading. Either that or you just don't like the implications of what the talent side has been arguing for stated explicitly.

Shayne, without wishing to boast, but I think such a person should follow my example—if only for the hard work and devotion I’m known for when it comes to career, if nothing else. I said it all here:

"Anybody who knows me knows the numerous sacrifices I have made to perfect my craft, and to begin a career in my field has been nothing less than hell. Why do I do it? I love it. Hey, I would be making a lot more money—and would have ‘succeeded’ a long time ago--if I decided to become a charted accountant or a doctor or whatever. I don't have a talent for those things. But my natural talent for art was such that led the way I chose.”

Maybe you heard about such things as accountability and personal responsibility?

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Mikee]

Victor,

Sorry, I don't want to carefully read all of the posts in this thread again. Given your latest post I take it you retract your initial proposition in the first post:

"Why is it that some people are born with the ability to draw or play a musical instrument? It’s an ability that can be noted early in childhood and that some children are clearly well advanced to that of other children. They go on to be artists, [if they chose] while others can’t draw to save their lives. And they never will, no matter how much they try."

[sjw]

And they never will, no matter how much they try. --Victor Pross"

Thanks Mikee, that's an even better answer for Michael's questions.