What is talent?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Here are some pertinent quotes from the link Dragonfly provided regarding the importance of recognizing the interplay of heritability and environment. Thanks Dragonfly.

From: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns: Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, Released August 7, 1995

A high heritability does not mean that the environment has no impact on the development of a trait, or that learning is not involved. Vocabulary size, for example, is very substantially heritable (and highly correlated with general intelligence) although every word in an individual's vocabulary is learned. In a society in which plenty of words are available in everyone's environment, especially for individuals who are motivated to seek them out, the number of words that individuals actually learn depends to a considerable extent on their genetic predispositions.

A common error is to assume that because something is heritable it is necessarily unchangeable This is wrong. Heritability does not imply immutability. As previously noted, heritable traits can depend on learning, and they may be subject to other environmental effects as well.

Where the heritability of IQ is concerned, it has sometimes seemed as if the findings based on differences between group means were in contradiction with those based on correlations. For example, children adopted in infancy into advantaged families tend to have higher IQs in childhood than would have been expected if they had been reared by their birth mothers; this is a mean difference implicating the environment. Yet at the same time their individual resemblance to their birth mothers persists, and this correlation is most plausibly interpreted in genetic terms. There is no real contradiction: the two findings simply call attention to different aspects of the same phenomenon. A sensible account must include both aspects: there is only a single developmental process, and it occurs in individuals. By looking at means or correlations one learns somewhat different but compatible things about the genetic and environmental contributions to that process (Turkheimer, 1991).

All these conclusions are wholly consistent with the notion that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

Edit: I am sticking to content.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Victor Pross]

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."

Mikee,

I retract nothing. While I believe in hard work, I don’t believe that we are cut-out to do absolutely anything that swells up in our head. Suppose there is a tone deaf person with a voice of a frog who wants to be a singer and, somehow, lands a contract to record an album that flops. And audiences stay away in droves. Of course, people face opposition all the time in the pursuit of a goal. Look at Howard Roark—my favorite character. But what is the nature of the opposition, that’s the question to ask. Should this frog voice person continue failure after failure? Or should we tell him, “Look, you simply don’t have a talent for music.” Yes, there are such cases. We can’t be good at everything.

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Suppose there is a tone deaf person with a voice of a frog who wants to be a singer and, somehow, lands a contract to record an album that flops. And audiences stay away in droves. Of course, people face opposition all the time in the pursuit of a goal. Look at Howard Roark—my favorite character. But what is the nature of the opposition, that's the question to ask. Should this frog voice person continue failure after failure? Or should we tell him, "Look, you simply don't have a talent for music." Yes, there are such cases. We can't be good at everything. -Victor

You just described Dylan and Springsteen.

[Victor Pross]

Suppose there is a tone deaf person with a voice of a frog who wants to be a singer and, somehow, lands a contract to record an album that flops. And audiences stay away in droves. Of course, people face opposition all the time in the pursuit of a goal. Look at Howard Roark—my favorite character. But what is the nature of the opposition, that's the question to ask. Should this frog voice person continue failure after failure? Or should we tell him, "Look, you simply don't have a talent for music." Yes, there are such cases. We can't be good at everything. -Victor

You just described Dylan and Springsteen.

Paul,

No, I'm talking about Frogy from the Our Gang series. ["I'm in the mooood for love..."] Dylan and Springsteen are NOT tone deaf--and they can sing. Yes, that's right--they can sing. And audiences are not staying away in droves.

Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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,

Here is the correct interpretation of what the "talent people" mean. It is in a former post and I think it bears reading.

I have no doubt that a normal person can become highly skilled at most any normal human activity. Some people need much more effort than others to acquire a specific skill and that is the significance [of noting innate aptitudes].

But there is another significance which I mentioned before. There is a ceiling on how far a person can go that is imposed by biology. This is true for all areas of being alive and I see no reason whatsoever to presume that the mental ceiling is the same for all people. Some people simply have more space they can go. Is that fair? No. But that's the way it is. Since when has nature ever been egalitarian?

I am not claiming that a high degree of skill is not a standard ceiling. I believe it is. But that is not the same as denying that a ceiling exists or dismissing it as "insignificant."

...

Here we go again with the presumption that people who recognize the existence of innate aptitudes are claiming that you can't become good at something through rational effort where your aptitudes are low. Nobody I have read so far claims that. They merely notice that some people take a long time to learn something that others learn easily and quickly, and that the ones with low aptitude have a great propensity for getting stuck in learning--so much so that learning a different activity where there is a higher aptitude is often a better use of time and effort. (See the different anecdotes about students in the thread.)

Mike Erikson just posted to Victor and mentioned an actual quote where he expressed himself poorly.

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."

I am pretty sure that the interpretation I gave above is what Victor actually believes. The over-statement, "... while others can’t draw to save their lives. And they never will, no matter how much they try," is an expression of exasperation of a teacher who has tried to the best of his ability and has not been able, or had the time, to overcome the innate aptitude limitations of some students (or he is talking about abnormal students like those Downs Syndrome, etc.).

Because of the lack of clarity and poor expression, I also think it should be retracted (unless Victor really is making a metaphysical judgment). Taken at face value, it certainly does not represent what I think on the issue. This is a case where accusations of "dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. ad nauseum" shows a complete unwillingness on your part to try to understand what is being meant. And Victor does not help matters by engaging in the same obnoxious and infantile behavior toward you.

Why not put on boxing gloves and just slug it out? Intellectual discussion is not supposed to be competitive and I really don't give two hoots for who is right or wrong between you two, so long as the truth and understanding come out. Neither of you are among the world's major intellectuals anyway. Nobody wins anything worth having in a stupid competition like you guys do--except maybe some Jerry Springer kind of entertainment. Do you like being a Jerry Springer star? I personally am more interested in acquiring wisdom. That's why I have his forum. It is very difficult to acquire wisdom on this issue with you two acting like infants pouting at each other and crying like babies in a sandbox.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

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,

Here is the correct interpretation of what the "talent people" mean. It is in a former post and I think it bears reading.

I have no doubt that a normal person can become highly skilled at most any normal human activity. Some people need much more effort than others to acquire a specific skill and that is the significance [of noting innate aptitudes].

But there is another significance which I mentioned before. There is a ceiling on how far a person can go that is imposed by biology. This is true for all areas of being alive and I see no reason whatsoever to presume that the mental ceiling is the same for all people. Some people simply have more space they can go. Is that fair? No. But that's the way it is. Since when has nature ever been egalitarian?

I am not claiming that a high degree of skill is not a standard ceiling. I believe it is. But that is not the same as denying that a ceiling exists or dismissing it as "insignificant."

...

Here we go again with the presumption that people who recognize the existence of innate aptitudes are claiming that you can't become good at something through rational effort where your aptitudes are low. Nobody I have read so far claims that. They merely notice that some people take a long time to learn something that others learn easily and quickly, and that the ones with low aptitude have a great propensity for getting stuck in learning--so much so that learning a different activity where there is a higher aptitude is often a better use of time and effort. (See the different anecdotes about students in the thread.)

Mike Erikson just posted to Victor and mentioned an actual quote where he expressed himself poorly.

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."

I am pretty sure that the interpretation I gave above is what Victor actually believes. The over-statement, "... while others can’t draw to save their lives. And they never will, no matter how much they try," is an expression of exasperation of a teacher who has tried to the best of his ability and has not been able, or had the time, to overcome the innate aptitude limitations of some students (or he is talking about abnormal students like those Downs Syndrome, etc.).

Because of the lack of clarity and poor expression, I also think it should be retracted (unless Victor really is making a metaphysical judgment). Taken at face value, it certainly does not represent what I think on the issue. This is a case where accusations of "dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. ad nauseum" shows a complete unwillingness on your part to try to understand what is being meant. And Victor does not help matters by engaging in the same obnoxious and infantile behavior toward you.

Why not put on boxing gloves and just slug it out? Intellectual discussion is not supposed to be competitive and I really don't give two hoots for who is right or wrong between you two, so long as the truth and understanding come out. Neither of you are among the world's major intellectuals anyway. Nobody wins anything worth having in a stupid competition like you guys do--except maybe some Jerry Springer kind of entertainment. Do you like being a Jerry Springer star? I personally am more interested in acquiring wisdom. That's why I have his forum. It is very difficult to acquire wisdom on this issue with you two acting like infants pouting at each other and crying like babies in a sandbox.

Michael

You’re right, Michael.

Personality clashes are a by-product of forms of this sort.

I will mend my ways, but just don’t ask me to kiss and make-up. :baby:

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Here is the correct interpretation of what the "talent people" mean. It is in a former post and I think it bears reading.

I have no doubt that a normal person can become highly skilled at most any normal human activity. Some people need much more effort than others to acquire a specific skill and that is the significance [of noting innate aptitudes].

But there is another significance which I mentioned before. There is a ceiling on how far a person can go that is imposed by biology. This is true for all areas of being alive and I see no reason whatsoever to presume that the mental ceiling is the same for all people. Some people simply have more space they can go. Is that fair? No. But that's the way it is. Since when has nature ever been egalitarian?

I am not claiming that a high degree of skill is not a standard ceiling. I believe it is. But that is not the same as denying that a ceiling exists or dismissing it as "insignificant."

M,

Yes, the above is what this "talent person" thinks. I recall bringing up the issue of egalitarianism on this thread. Do you recall? Anybody who thinks that everybody can do everything [that is humanly possible] and do it well--smacks of egalitarianism. We can’t be good at everything--it is a metaphysical issue that I was referring to, and not the “exasperations of a frustrated teacher.”

Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

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."

Paul,

I haven't read your entire post nor have I read any of the most recent posts but yours caught my eye. There is a study being done now with twins. This is the sucky part with this. When I was doing my research, I was doing it for myself and not for posting as I have a passion for medicine. So once I read something, I went on to the next and closed the window out. This continued for quite some time as I did quite an exhaustive research. I did read of a study that is being done. It was assumed since twins, DNA, etc., are identical their brains would also be the same. There are still similarities and there are variations. So it does seem that it goes both ways to an extent BUT the study hasn't been completed yet. I'm trying to remember where I saw it. Oy.

A bit later today I am going to post some key words I used when I did my research to help those that may be medically challenged and unsure as to medical terms and so forth but curious. Ones that come off the top of my head now and what I put in to search under and the neurological side of it, neurology, pediatric neurology, pervasive developmental disorders, neurological develpmental disorders, aphasia, visual perception disorders. I mean there was a lot done and searched for, many keywords. And that is just the beginning of it. This isn't including the post-mortem research into neurological disorders such as autism and so forth. It also touches base on psychological aspects of it that have been tied in with neurology due to brain abnormalities, such as OCD, clinical depression and so on. But of course, there are brain abnormalities caused by environmental factors and lifestyle. But they've isolated a certain area for these and is common in people with these disorders but their backgrounds all vary and have not been able to pinpoint it to one factor other than a possible genetic aspect which is also interesting. But more studies are being performed and trying to pinpoint it down.

Anyway, it isn't superficial research into maybe 3 or 4 pages into the search on a search engine. It was page after page, deep into the search. The main ones I was concentrating on were medical reports which is where I read about the twins rather than someone else's summarizing, and so forth as information can be left out that could be important to the reader. But when I get more time later day, I will post more keywords that I used if anyone is interested.

Angie

[sjw]

<snip of personal attacks allegedly not welcome at OL>

At this point I think things have been starkly revealed. In spite of the dust clouds you're having fun kicking up, we all stand quite naked in our positions. So this will be my final post.

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

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. --sjw

[Victor Pross]

<snip of personal attacks allegedly not welcome at OL>

At this point I think things have been starkly revealed. In spite of the dust clouds you're having fun kicking up, we all stand quite naked in our positions. So this will be my final post.

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

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. --sjw

Who was that masked man? :zorro:

[CNA]

<snip of personal attacks allegedly not welcome at OL>

At this point I think things have been starkly revealed. In spite of the dust clouds you're having fun kicking up, we all stand quite naked in our positions. So this will be my final post.

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

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. --sjw

Shayne,

Do not lump everyone into one group as we all don't hold the same views. There are variations in view points on this other than some people accel easily with little effort in a certain area whereas others may struggle and have to put in more effort. What I have read so far on this thread no one is saying that man cannot accel, can't come up with new ways, can't practice to improve his skills, and so forth. That nothing he does will work to make his life better, etc. I do not hold this view. So DO NOT even attempt to attach this to me and start pulling the collective bullshit and not taking into account each individual on this thread and their points of view which this is being done time after time after time. This is what I am getting tired of and one of the reasons amongst many others as to why I did not want to get involved in this thread. It's not only from you but some others as well.

Shayne, go back and read each post from each INDIVIDUAL on this thread and you will quickly realize your statement above does NOT apply to ALL the talent people. And what you are trying to claim as the TRUTH is WRONG and is NOT the TRUTH. And you know it. You know damn well it does not apply to me. So cut the bullshit and stop playing the god damn games. We're not a collective group here. We are all individuals here that have different points of view. Yes, may agree on one specific area but may not agree on other areas. I take into account that each individual person here may hold the same idea BUT I also know that they may NOT hold the same view in other areas related to the same issue.

I am getting a bit pissed off right now and you've successfully pushed a button which is not easy to do with me. I'm getting tired of the bullshit. Since this is your last post, have you ever thought that maybe you should go over to Solo? It seems you would be welcomed there. Wow, I need to step away and cool off a bit.

Angie

[Fran]

Question:

If human beings are born tabula Rasa, what is to account for what is called TALENT? 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. The same goes for playing a musical instrument.

Is talent innate? What is talent?

Putting it this way: we all learn how to ride a bike, speak a language, tie a boot lace, spell, cook, operate a computer, perform surgery, etc, etc—but why not drawing--and drawing well? Hell, drawing is pegged a 'God-given' talent. Why is that? Forget the mystical thing--what is being noted is something unique and rare.

It's this subject that greatly interests me, and I have never come to any solid conclusions on it. What do you think?

I realise that I'm using your example to qualify my point, without really answering your overall question. I have a book called 'Drawing on the right side of the brain' by Betty Edwards. She has taught hundreds of people to draw and includes their before and after pictures. The difference in these pictures is phenomenal. Yet, many of her students claimed beforehand that they would be her Waterloo. Her argument is that drawing is not taught in schools in a way that allows people to develop this 'talent'. To draw well, the so-called 'right' brain is involved, whereas the way that drawing is taught means that the 'left' brain tries to do the drawing. This is why most people can't draw. As a quick example, turning a picture upside down to copy it makes the left brain switch off and the right brain is able to draw what it sactually sees, line by line, rather than what it thinks it sees (which is what the left brain does).

I also think that a lot of it has to do with motivation. If you enjoy drawing then naturally you will spend a great deal of time partaking of this activity and your skill level will increase accordingly. Plus, the brain works better when it is doing something that is enjoyable and is free of anxiety and the fear of 'getting it wrong'. Many years ago I read a great book called 'How Children Fail,' by John Holt. His theory is that children fail because they are bored - stuck at a desk all day does not engage the mind's natural way of learning which is through play; they are confused - adults frequently contradict themselves; and they are afraid. Afraid of being told off, afraid of getting it wrong and being ridiculed by their peers, etc.

I think stress is a huge inhibitor to learning. I've just been reading about fiction writers who were split into two groups. One group was told that they were writing for extrinsic rewards such as the praise from their tutor and getting a good grade. The other group was writing purely for their own pleasure of writing. Their next written piece was compared with some of their own previous work -those who were told they were writing for extrinsic rewards, i.e. were going to be judged by someone else; produced work that was significantly worse than previously. The group that was writing for their own pleasure, produced a similar standard to what they had previously written.

Er, I saw Victor's post and replied to it before realising that there were 30 other pages of replies... Sorry if I've leapt in the middle of a conversation which will have no connection to what anybody else has put.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Fran

[Paul Mawdsley]

Er, I saw Victor's post and replied to it before realising that there were 30 other pages of replies... Sorry if I've leapt in the middle of a conversation which will have no connection to what anybody else has put.

Fran,

You have no idea what you just stepped into. Many, if not, most of the posts on this thread have very little to do with the title of this thread. It is a very interesting dynamic nonetheless.

Paul

[sjw]

Since this is your last post, have you ever thought that maybe you should go over to Solo? It seems you would be welcomed there.

Well just to be clear, I wasn't intending to stop posting to OL. I was just saying that I thought this thread was a wrap (it is as far as the point of this topic goes. As you demonstrate, the personal attacks keep on going and going and going). Not taking back anything I said in this thread, I think this site is 100X more honest than Solo, so that was a pretty low blow.

As for your fit about being grouped as a collective, I never grouped you that way. I think you're just upset because you grouped yourself that way by constantly criticizing my view while saying nothing about Victor's.

PS: I think that other site is a collectivist swamp of hillbilly tribalism that derives its main energy and purpose from malicious bad faith against the latest convenient target that happens by (no, I do not think this applies to everyone who posts there, but I think that is the spirit of the place). If you think that applies to me Angie well then I'm sorely disappointed with you.

Edited January 6, 2007 by sjw

[Danneskjold]

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.

Regardless of that, you now know where I stand. I do not care what most of you have been saying because I lose interest when somebody uses an ad hominem. People are different, this is self-evident due to IQ which has been shown to be at least 50% genetic. This difference is not insurmountable. Certain things like more and faster developing muscles are genetic as well and may have granted Victor better coordination and motor skills making him draw better. This is innate while still not insurmountable.

[Danneskjold]

Well, since we all know exactly what it is we disagree upon...

How about this. Two people from opposing sides give a synapsis of what they think talent is, how it is formed, and basically their view on our discussion topic. We then debate those.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Well just to be clear, I wasn't intending to stop posting to OL.

Good. I hope we can get to know one another's points of view under less noisy circumstances. I'm told you are a good guy who has value to contribute.

Paul

[CNA]

Since this is your last post, have you ever thought that maybe you should go over to Solo? It seems you would be welcomed there.

Well just to be clear, I wasn't intending to stop posting to OL. I was just saying that I thought this thread was a wrap (it is as far as the point of this topic goes. As you demonstrate, the personal attacks keep on going and going and going). Not taking back anything I said in this thread, I think this site is 100X more honest than Solo, so that was a pretty low blow.

As for your fit about being grouped as a collective, I never grouped you that way. I think you're just upset because you grouped yourself that way by constantly criticizing my view while saying nothing about Victor's.

PS: I think that other site is a collectivist swamp of hillbilly tribalism that derives its main energy and purpose from malicious bad faith against the latest convenient target that happens by (no, I do not think this applies to everyone who posts there, but I think that is the spirit of the place). If you think that applies to me Angie well then I'm sorely disappointed with you.

Shayne,

Read your post up above and see where the collective is involved with me as well as everyone else on this thread that is in the group of talent people. You said "The talent people," that's as collective as you can get. You assume that all the talent people fall into your explanation of: "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."

Your assumption is that we ALL hold this view which you are very wrong. You don't take into account individuality here and each person's ideas nor do you concentrate on where they differ from the rest of the individuals on this thread. Instead you lump us into a group known as the "talent people."

As for your fit about being grouped as a collective, I never grouped you that way. I think you're just upset because you grouped yourself that way by constantly criticizing my view while saying nothing about Victor's.

Read up above as to grouping. It's as plain as day. As to the other, I forgot, you know me better than I know my own self. Wow, I'm curious as to when you were able to invade my body and gain my perspective and think for me. You know, I'm getting tired of the bullshit on this thread. Not only from you but from Victor as well and the constant deviation from the topic. It turns into a waste of time with no progression and production on the topic at hand. It always tapers off into some other area. Victor knows how I feel about that as we have talked about this. So it's not just you, Shayne.

In my view, the topic is not closed as there are still many aspects that have to be explored. Before drawing a conclusion, all areas have to be explored from all angles before you can draw a rational conclusion. Yes, we both have speculated and drawn conclusions on each side but I am not closed down to changing my view. I do not have a problem with that especially if I am presented with new evidence. With my own research which has been very very extensive as well as my medical background, the topic is still open and evidence has been produced that it may exist but obviously research still needs to be done. The recent discoveries into Einstein's brain is very interesting. But the thing is there is no other evidence supporting either side into his brain and the reason WHY it is the way it is. So doubt has been instilled. They cannot prove that the parietal lobes became larger because of outside stimulation and so forth other than speculation and the same goes with the other side of innate abilities. Many scientists involved with this as well as some on here agree that much more needs to be discovered, tests ran, and so forth, before it can be proven and finally drawing a concrete conclusion regarding it.

Again, it has planted doubt that it may very well be innate as well as that there are some that easily excel at certain activities and others have to put in more effort to achieve it. You can find more evidence but anything concrete on each side now hasn't been presented. Both sides have presented their sides. But with the recent discoveries of neurologists and neuroscientists, it's difficult now for either side to claim with certainty that it does or does not exist. More tests have to be run, more imaging, and the like. Then it will ultimately be proved either way. This is no longer a question of philosophy to prove it. It's now become a medical question. With the advancements of technology in this area and the tremendous breakthroughs into the brain, physical structures of the brain, their ability to map out in detail how the brain functions which is also still in its infancy but much has been discovered so far, abnormalities, and so forth, this will more than likely be the area that will ultimately prove it.

As of late, I've grown rather allergic to this thread for obvious reasons. This is about ideas and exploring all areas of it, medical aspects, philosophical aspects, psychological aspects, neurological aspects, even endocrinological aspects of it which I haven't gotten into and how certain variations can affect the brain's ability to function correctly. You have the primary cause but it can very well lead into secondary areas and so on that can cause problems in the brain's ability to function correctly. My knowledge of medicine as well as my own personal experiences, people can walk around for decades never knowing they have a medical condition. That medical condition can also affect their brain's ability to function correctly. To the layman, this person may very well appear to be normal and healthy. But this person has no knowledge into medicine so his perception of an individual is quite different than the perspective of someone that has knowledge of medicine. For instance, Roark, if I am remembering correctly and anyone correct me if I am wrong, he sometimes exhibited repetition of words. I have not read the book but I am tempted to read it now to confirm this and look for any other traits that fall in line with autistic behavior.

But anyway, what I am saying now is according to other people not just one but quite a few that noted the same thing about Roark in the psyche forum under autism and that he exhibited the behavior of word repetition, this repetition of words is known as echolia and it is a classic trait amongst autistic individuals. All individuals may not exhibit this particular trait as their traits can easily span the entire range of autistic behavior to varying degress. But echolia is a speech and language disorder. So what one person sees as being possibly normal and healthy under the current knowledge they have may be quite different from someone who has studied and trained in a particular field. Of course, it changes your perspective tremendously.

Angie

P.S. I am glad to hear that you feel that way about Solo. It tells me much about you. It would be nice if we all could stay on the topic and explore every angle, every aspect, every perspective as we all may learn something from each other.

Edited January 7, 2007 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Yes, and while discussing the topic let’s keep the ethical implications of this topic on the back burner--and most certainly the moralizing of one another’s positions, such as: “What you believe in innate talent? Why, that means you don’t think people can succeed in life…” Bla, bla, bla.

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Angie doesn’t put up with my shit. Maybe she doesn’t post for public consumption, but you should hear some of our private conversions. [Actually, strike that!]

Ladies and gentlemen, start your philosophical engines. :turned:

[Danneskjold]

I don't remember any significant repetition in words without a clear reason behind the repetition of that word on the part of Roark.

[sjw]

I don't remember any significant repetition in words without a clear reason behind the repetition of that word on the part of Roark.

That's because he didn't. The notion that he did so and because of a mental disorder has to be the most insane idea I've ever come across. Whoever came up with it should definitely get their own head checked.

[CNA]

I don't remember any significant repetition in words without a clear reason behind the repetition of that word on the part of Roark.

That's because he didn't. The notion that he did so and because of a mental disorder has to be the most insane idea I've ever come across. Whoever came up with it should definitely get their own head checked.

Hmmm.....interesting. I've read it. The more I think about this I know OL has talked about autism as well as another forum I frequent on occasion. It was brought up and talked about with regard to Roark and it may be the other forum. It looks like I will be reading the book now to confirm whether or not it is accurate. I haven't read the Fountainhead but will now. May take me some time as time permits.

Ah, the stigma that goes along with mental disorders seems to be present. It's an area very much so misunderstood by a great majority of people as I've seen when confronted with the idea of it. The possibility of someone having a mental disorder such as autism which Einstein was suspected of having after his death and neurologists looking at his behavior and life, there's nothing wrong with it. Like I said, even if you have a dx of autism, it does NOT mean you have all the traits that span the spectrum of the disorder. The traits that a person exhibits may be taken from different areas to varying degrees while missing the more severe aspects of it. Autistic people vary in intelligence and it seems to be to either extreme but a few in between but not many. Some are on the low end of intelligence. Some but not a lot it seems are in what is considered the normal range of intelligence. Some are highly intelligent and some are savants. So being autistic is NOT necessarily a bad thing as some people seem to think it is and because it is a mental disorder.

Autism is more common than what most people think. I've known many people that exhibit these behaviors and is obvious but as long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of their life and they can live productive lives more power to them. My son is a good example as he is highly intelligent but lacks in certain areas such as speech and fine motor skills. But he has made tremendous progress with OT and so forth and he is now performing at the level for his age group. Recently at an IEP with many doctors that have been working with him, speech therapists and so forth being present and studies performed, his math skills and understanding of different aspects of science is in the 1 percent of the population for his age group, meaning 99 percent of the kids that were tested scored below him. In addition to other studies performed, the tests he took are the tests that are given at every school for proficiency before allowing the child to progress to the next grade level. So they were able to give percentages with tremendous accuracy. Being autistic or having a mental disorder shouldn't be looked down upon or have the stigma attached to it. Once you educate yourself about it and understand it, it frees up that stigma.

Angie

P.S. I am now guilty myself of taking this thread in a differenct direction and not sticking to talent. But it cleared up some aspects that will not be addressed now which is Roark. Once I read the book, I'll find out for msyelf if this is true and if he did exhibit these traits.

Edited January 7, 2007 by CNA

[Danneskjold]

600 posts and we still haven't decided anything. What do you guys say to my idea of both sides presenting a synapsis and debating them?

[Danneskjold]

Wow, you guys managed to go a whole twenty four hours without saying anything on this thread. I'm suprised. Unfortunately you guys are making a liar out of me because I said it had 600 posts. Then again this is post number 600.

In any case, would somebody from either side like to state their position?

Edited January 8, 2007 by Jeff Kremer