What is talent?

[Johnny]

Johnny,

TOTAL context: the example I gave was of myselF: at the age of three, I began to draw, and it was as such to astound adults, placing me in a class of my own. I was an anomaly. So at the age of three, how much “time” do you think I spent on drawing to reach the level I was at—such as it was.

More over, I didn’t have “demanding” parents, I loved to draw. It came to me naturally, and I was the local star. Hated and loved, in fact [but that's a different story].

Anyway, a definition of “child prodigy” does not mean 'countless hours at practice to hone a skill' or having 'demanding parents'. Why did you paint that in as if it were a given everywhere?? I said ages two and three--in drawing and music. Why do you need to clutter the cognitive landscape with all these other examples--just observe the astonishing phenomena of gifted children with natural talents? What is going on with these kids?

Victor

Victor I'm offering explanations for what makes someone a child prodigy. It's also hard to respond to anecdotal evidence you present because how can I objectively observe what you went through as a child and how you got to draw so well at an early age? I can't. I can only take your word for it. Which is why anecdotal evidence is not the best evidence one can give and is generally not terribly scientific. You're saying I'm cluttering up the cognitive landscape but I don't think I am. Occam's Rasor dictates we take the simplest explanation to explain the facts we observe. If child prodigy like Mozart spent all of this child hood since age 3 playing the piano, it is most certainly an observable fact that must fit into our explanations of reality. That we have no evidence that Mozart was born with any gene that gave him a gift for music does not conform to any logic or to the facts we can observe. But that we know hard work, dedication, and time well spent practicing almost always yields positive results, is a far more simpler explanation rather than a gene for music.

[Victor Pross]

Wow, more twists and turns in linguistic than a Chubby Checker tune. Hee-hee. Well then, *I’m* satisfied that there is natural talent—talents not shared by all people and not exhibited at so young an age—because I experienced it [drawing so young] and my immediate family observed it. By the same token, you and I never really observed man walking on the moon or the civil war-- let alone Mozart’s early ears, but I’m not in serious doubt. Are you?

edit: You said: Victor I'm offering explanations for what makes someone a child prodigy. It's also hard to respond to anecdotal evidence you present because how can I objectively observe what you went through as a child and how you got to draw so well at an early age? I can't.

AND YET, you are able to report on all the hours spent in practice and the demanding parents. Hmm, interesing.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Matus1976]

Victor, I was drawing phenomal pictures that amazed my parents and teachers at a very young age as well. By the time I was in first grade I was drawing perspective pictures of racing cars for fellow classmates. In grade school I was busy designing robotic hands, in middle school I was designing entire robotic endoskeletons, elated in 7th grade to have figured out how to control a fully articulated shoulder joint with retracting cylinders. In high school I drew poster size drawing of futuristic cities and elaborate battles between predators and aliens. Friends would ask me to draw them a predator, and some of them still have those drawings.

I have always been drawing and designing things, it comes 'naturally' to me, but do you seriously think I have or you have a DRAWING gene? I didnt have parents pushing me or goading me, but if I did, I certainly would have been a 'child prodigy' artist, because I would have put in a large number of the hours required to be really good at something at a very young age.

The fact is I *LOVE* to draw, I am taunted by an empty notebook, I carry one around with me everywhere I go, I fawn over isometric graphing paper and am torturously taunted by such a thing, which absolutely screams out to me to freeze everyone of my mechanical ideas in physical form. I love to draw, I have always deeply enjoyed it. Did I have a gene for liking to draw, a gene for being able to draw, a gene that made me more likely to want to draw? Which is it? Do you like to draw? Some of my earliest memories are of the joy I felt drawing things. I can teach anyone to draw the way I can as well, and if the put the effort and interest into I have, they would be just as good, probably with minor deviations some slightly better some slightly worse. So, do I have a 'natural' innate talent for drawing?

The fact is, I dont think you give yourself enough credit. Your drawing ability comes from your own interest, joy, and effort.

Michael F Dickey

[Johnny]

Wow, more twists and turns in linguistic than a Chubby Checker tune. Hee-hee. Well then, *I’m* satisfied that there is natural talent—talents not shared by all people and not exhibited at so young an age—because I experienced it [drawing so young] and my immediate family observed it. By the same token, you and I never really observed man walking on the moon or the civil war-- let alone Mozart’s early ears, but I’m not in serious doubt. Are you?

edit: You said: Victor I'm offering explanations for what makes someone a child prodigy. It's also hard to respond to anecdotal evidence you present because how can I objectively observe what you went through as a child and how you got to draw so well at an early age? I can't.

AND YET, you are able to report on all the hours spent in practice and the demanding parents. Hmm, interesing.

Victor you keep harping on "demanding parents" explanation that I gave but you seem to think this is my only explanation of why a child practices so hard and for so long? I offered it as anexample, not the only reason. Perhaps I'm being too nuisanced in my posts for you? There maybe other environmental factors. In every objectively observable case of a child prodigy, it has been documented the child spent a heck of a lot of time practicing. It just seems Victor you are disputing this observation I'm presenting or just choosing to ignore it? Or do you think Mozart just was able to play and compose Twinkle Twinkle Little Star at age 6 without so much as ever sitting down in front of a piano practicing hours on end? Did he just happen to be able to play the piano so well with little to no practice? And what evidence do you have to support that? Occam's Rasor dictates we take the simpler explanation. It was just a lot of practice and good instruction.

[Ellen Stuttle]

By the same token, you and I never really observed man walking on the moon or the civil war-- let alone Mozart’s early ears, but I’m not in serious doubt. Are you?

The typo ("ears" instead of "years") couldn't be more appropriate. It's the "ear" -- the impeccable, incredible refinement of the mental ear -- which makes Mozart so special none other has quite achieved what he could do. I think there is some difference of the nervous system between those who "have an ear" and those who don't (with gradations of degree; it isn't all or none); I don't see why there wouldn't be -- there are differences in acuity of the other senses. If a musician's ear is a result of early learning, it seems that it's such early learning as to be hard to discriminate from a difference at birth. Maybe there is early "canalizing," but I think it would have to be quite early to produce musical genius. This doesn't discount practice at performance skills and work at composition skills. But some people could practice, practice, practice and still just not get very far musically. I know a number of cases of people who have tried and tried and who just don't become as good as others who spend less time working at it. (I'm speaking there of differences in musicality. Some have an advantage in physical structure such that learning the technique of a particular instrument is easier for them, but they might nonetheless not have a good feel for phrasing, etc.) In Mozart's case there was lots of early application, with a demanding pedagogue of a father. But why was even his father awestruck by the results which were happening if there wasn't something more involved than diligence? His sister was also pushed to practice, practice, but she didn't become the stupendous musician he did (though she was good). And in terms of his skill as a composer, how could work explain his prodigious feats of musical memory, or the ease with which he could compose, or the cleverness of those little touches he could think of?

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote:

Not knowing Michael, I would not presume that he wasn't great. I don't know what he does outside of this forum. Why would you? And even if he wasn't great, I wouldn't presume to know his personal history, which would be the only way to understand what a given individual ended up achieving and why. So why would you?

OK. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that if you or Michael were great achievers in the way that we've been talking about on this thread -- if you were contemporary Mozarts, Einsteins, Millais or Rands -- then I probably would have heard of your accomplishments. If my assumption was wrong, then, hey, great, please tell us about your inventions, discoveries or creations.

But if I was correct and you haven't reached the level of those thinkers and creators, I'm just asking why you haven't. I'm not trying to be insulting. It's just hard for me to imagine Objectivists who know that they can be rich, famous, influential, world-class heroic achievers choosing instead to be much less than that.

I'd guess it's the same kind of habits of presumption that make you assume that talent has such a great role.

No, I'm not assuming that. I don't know for sure exactly what role talent may or may not play. But I've been around enough musicians and artists, both students and professionals, to recognize that people with roughly the same IQs, training and backgrounds can have vastly different abilities. I've seen many artists struggle to do what others can do effortlessly. I've seen dedicated, intelligent adults, who have studied and practiced diligently for decades, never reach the level of some goofy 14-year-old kid who has only been jamming or doodling for a year. I haven't yet heard a good alternative to "innate talent" to explain such things.

Michael Dickey wrote:

Assuming you are right then, Jonathan, how come you are not great?

Were you born so retarded that you can not pick up an instrument and pluck a string, or so dumb that you can not read and write? Is your brain unable to form long term memories or even to recognize patterns, like an idiot savant? Are you a moron, idiot, retard, imbecile or what?

I'm definitely a moron when it comes to math. I tried very hard in school and couldn't get it. And I kept trying and trying. Math was painful and extremely difficult, but art and music, on the other hand, were pretty much a cakewalk. So was reading and writing. Other than math, I did quite well in school.

I have not one single time ever advocated that because a person is capable of great things that they owe it to themselves or to society to do them.

I simply wanted to know why you haven't yet achieved at the level of an Einstein when you believe that you're capable of doing so. Was it laziness, or did you value something else higher? And what evidence can you present to us that you or anyone/everyone can will themselves to achieve at that level? Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you could, if you really really wanted to, achieve an Atlas Shrugged or an E=MC2, but you haven't, not because you lack natural talent, but because you just don't want to?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Reposting my post #49, which was so brief it might have been overlooked in the shuffle:

[Einstein's] most productive years were the years he left his wife and children in another country.

What "years" are you claiming those were?

Ellen

(I'll add that I'm curious to know if you're thinking of a different time period from his annus mirabilis, 1905. "Years," and the description of the physical circumstances (living in another country from his wife and children) indicates that you are. (In 1905 he was living in Berne with his wife and an infant son.)

___

[Paul Mawdsley]

This discussion strikes me as being so familiar. We have had different versions of it elsewhere. Arguments have broken along similar lines during discussions of quantum physics and the nature of consciousness. There are those who use their imaginations to connect the causal dots from the evidence to an understanding of unobservable entities– eg: hidden variables in quantum physics and some notion of spirit and will in discussions of consciousness– and there are those who prefer to invoke Occam's Razor in the face of any considerations of unobservable entities.

Talent, as it is being discussed, is another unobservable dynamic of an unobservable entity– the individual's spiritual identity– which we can only access by using our imaginations to piece together the evidence of the objective world and our introspections. We are asking the wrong questions and arguing the wrong arguments. There are those who think talent is a concept that is objectively justified and there are those who do not. As it was between Einstein and Bohr, the division is more fundamentally along epistemological lines. Is the imagination a tool of cognition?

Paul

[CNA]

Jonathon wrote:

OK. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that if you or Michael were great achievers in the way that we've been talking about on this thread -- if you were contemporary Mozarts, Einsteins, Millais or Rands -- then I probably would have heard of your accomplishments. If my assumption was wrong, then, hey, great, please tell us about your inventions, discoveries or creations.

But if I was correct and you haven't reached the level of those thinkers and creators, I'm just asking why you haven't. I'm not trying to be insulting. It's just hard for me to imagine Objectivists who know that they can be rich, famous, influential, world-class heroic achievers choosing instead to be much less than that.

I just wanted to say something in regard to this particular question only, although not directed at me. I know a few people who are inventors, thinkers, etc., that know their ability and potential but have "chosen" not to "share" it with others. It's called being selfish and keeping your work, your accomplishments and achievements, your potential from "others." But you or they continue to expand upon it, create, discover, invent, using their mind to the fullest for themselves in the privacy of their home and not "sharing" it with the world. So just because someone doesn't rise in "society" as a world class heroic achiever and has made riches, don't dismiss them so quickly as NOT being heroic achievers as they truly are geniuses, amazing inventors, and so on but they've hidden or buried their work from others and their parasitic ways. But nonetheless, they live and survive for themselves doing other things all the while fine tuning, learning, using their mind to the fullest, discovering, inventing, and creating for themselves.

Angie

Edited November 7, 2006 by CNA

[Jonathan]

Angie,

I wouldn't dismiss a person's accomplishments because he isn't famous, wealthy, socially adept or anything like that. If Shayne and Michael were living in poverty while quietly matching Edison's creativity in the privacy of their attics during their spare time, I'd respect their achievements. Profoundly.

Just to be clear, I'm really not trying to piss on Shayne and Michael or their accomplishments. Without knowing anything about them other than what I've read here, I'd guess that they're probably very bright, creative and capable in their chosen vocations. For all I know, they could be much smarter and more able than I am. As I said earlier, my purpose in asking the questions I've asked isn't to be insulting, but to discover why people who believe that they can achieve at the ultimate level haven't done so (if they indeed haven't done so secretly).

J

[Matus1976]

I have not one single time ever advocated that because a person is capable of great things that they owe it to themselves or to society to do them.

I simply wanted to know why you haven't yet achieved at the level of an Einstein when you believe that you're capable of doing so. Was it laziness, or did you value something else higher? And what evidence can you present to us that you or anyone/everyone can will themselves to achieve at that level? Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you could, if you really really wanted to, achieve an Atlas Shrugged or an E=MC2, but you haven't, not because you lack natural talent, but because you just don't want to?

J

I answered your question in a previous post, if you are going to ask a question please make an attempt to read the answer. I'll post it again, though I am not sure why you skipped it in the first place.

As to why I am not great, if you had actually read any of the posts or thought for 10 seconds about what I was saying, instead of looking for an opportunity to jump out and pat yourself on the back for trying to insult someone, you would have noticed that, for starters, to even become an ‘expert’ at something requires about 20,000 hours of effort, or about 10 years. See Scientific Americans excellent article on the subject - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...r=1&catID=2 which again presents plenty of scientific evidence supporting what I have been saying. How many hours are required to be a great genius? Probably more like 50,000. To become a genius at something requires devotion to virtually that one thing and nothing else for a large part of your life, I have no interest in becoming the greatest weldor to walk to face of the earth, nor the greatest 3d animator, I intend only to become good enough at the things I study in order for them to be useful for my long term goals. So you make the extremely incorrect assumption that because one *could* be great they ought to be, that because I think (and the evidence backs me up) almost anyone can be a genius at almost anything that I must become a genius at something, or that I would even want to become the greatest of any particular thing.

To further that point, you could become the greatest race car driver in the world, but how much will that really help you in your commute to work? Frankly I don't care about my place in the with respect to others or their achievements, and what is considered great by society certainly is not line with what ought to be considered great from a life loving philosophy anyway.

My point is to abolish the idea that you have millions of innate limits that no matter how hard you try you cannot overcome. It's not true, the human mind is extremely adaptable and is in fact the most advanced learning computer on the face of the planet. That philosophical attitude of a malevolent unkowable unconquerable universe to all be the great blessed few has robbed us of more greatness than probably any other predominant cultural ideal. It teaches that if you werent great as a child don't bother every trying to be great at anything, and many people, as evidenced in your response to that attitude, draw that out to suggest that one shouldnt even bother trying to be excellent or even good at it if they can't be the greatest at it.

Michael F Dickey

[Matus1976]

I just wanted to say something in regard to this particular question only, although not directed at me. I know a few people who are inventors, thinkers, etc., that know their ability and potential but have "chosen" not to "share" it with others. It's called being selfish and keeping your work, your accomplishments and achievements, your potential from "others." But you or they continue to expand upon it, create, discover, invent, using their mind to the fullest for themselves in the privacy of their home and not "sharing" it with the world. So just because someone doesn't rise in "society" as a world class heroic achiever and has made riches, don't dismiss them so quickly as NOT being heroic achievers as they truly are geniuses, amazing inventors, and so on but they've hidden or buried their work from others and their parasitic ways. But nonetheless, they live and survive for themselves doing other things all the while fine tuning, learning, using their mind to the fullest, discovering, inventing, and creating for themselves.

Angie

Well said Angie.

- Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael D,

Your link goes to "Page not found."

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

In one of "Johnny"'s posts (#79), he speaks of Mozart as "compos[ing] Twinkle Twinkle Little Star at age 6." What Mozart wrote as his first compositions was a significant "cut above" so simple a skill level. And his first symphony -- written at age 8 on a day in London town when his father had flu and a headache and told him not to practice, so he amused himself writing a symphony -- was better than multiple symphonies being written at the time by adult comtemporaries. Mozart's early efforts were well beyond the "drawing stick figures" (in visual terms) level Johnny implies.

Also, I have an obverse story from my own past, though not the time to tell it with full justice now. I grew up musically deprived. I was culturally advantaged in many ways, but not musicallly. I never heard what today I'd describe, using a generic term, as "classical" music. (I'm not referring to the subdivisions such as "Baroque," "Classical," "Romantic," "Modern.") I yearned for what I thought of as "something more" in music. I was nearly 20 when I first heard that something more (the first movement of The Waldstein Sonata of Beethoven). I thoroughly recognized on one hearing (in this composition played live by a friend of a friend I happened to be visiting) the reality of a whole world of sound I'd thought must exist somewhere but hadn't known did exist. I "went wild" for months thereafter, and developed the playing skill of a concert pianist. I think that had I heard such music when I was a young child, I would have become a composer. The point of this reminiscence is that I think there was an "endowment" which WASN'T tapped at the early time which was crucial in the lives of the great composers, but which nevertheless existed -- and had nothing to do with any volitional early attempts.

Ellen

PS: I'm still curious to know what "years" in Einstein's life Michael Dickey meant when he spoke of Einstein's "most productive years," but I'll let the question drop if it still isn't replied to after this reminder. (And I apologize if he specified in the text of one of his long posts and I didn't notice what he said.)

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One thing I have noticed in this discussion is a strong focus on debating semantics and not real issues. Everybody seems to agree that innate capacities exist in varying degrees and that it takes effort to develop a talent. Whether "innate capacity" should be called "talent" or not is not really an earth-shaking subject.

I would be interested in hearing what people have to say about fostering talent. This would be a lot more interesting to read than one poster's personal opinion of another poster (yawn). This would cover:

1. What to do about innate capacities (or talents) that become manifest in young children from a parent's viewpoint. This would include what environment to provide the child education-wise and how much public exposure a young child should have to show off the precocity.

2. What to do about our own innate capacities (or talents) and limitations. This would include how to decide if developing a strong knack will lead to happiness and what is entailed in considering that. Also, it would be interesting to discuss how to overcome innate limitations.

3. How to keep morale up when things get boring during practice and learning in developing a talent.

4. The different kinds of learning, especially rote and inquiry, that are needed to develop a talent to a high degree.

5. How to foster creativity in yourself within a specific talent.

6. How to foster creativity in others.

7. Where master-disciple relationships fit in.

That should do for a start. There are many interesting things about talent other than semantics and personality clashes. (To be fair, there have been a couple of interesting remarks in this thread, especially some fascinating personal experiences, but they are getting buried.)

Discussing talent intelligently requires... er... a bit of talent...

I even wonder at times if bickering is innate.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oops, lest I left a false impression (in post #89) of regrets: Other developments, better than I could have anticipated, happened. No regrets.

Ellen

___

[Barbara Branden]

I'm wondering if the development of a talent doesn't entail a motive apart from the love of the object of the talent, that is, apart from the musician's love of music or the writer's love of words. I'll explain -- and I'm thinking aloud -- by means of an example from my own experience.

I was about five years old when I noticed that my older brother was "reading" a newspaper. I didn't quite get what that meant, although I'd heard the word, so I asked him to explain. He did -- and when I grasped his meaning, and, importantly, grasped its relevance to myself, I felt as if I'd been struck by lightning. What my brother had communicated to me seemed the most wonderful, liberating phenomenon imaginable. Why? At that age, I felt shy and awkward, and unable to connect to other people, including other children. (There were reasons for it which are irrelevant here.) I felt, in whatever terms a five-year-old understands this, that the outside of me -- what others saw of me through my actions, my manner, my words -- didn't match the inside. I felt that there were treasures inside me, there were things I wanted to share and express, but that I didn't know how to communicate them, I didn't know how to make them -- or myself -- real in the world. I suppose, in a word, that I was longing to make myself visible, but it felt more as if I wanted to make myself real. And when I grasped what reading and writing meant, I suddenly understood that writers took the treasures inside them, and through the magic of writing words on sheets of paper, they made those treasure real in the world, . I understood that I didn't have to remain locked inside my own head and my own emotions -- I could give reality to who I was and what I saw and loved and understood by writing it. That was the beginning of a lifelong passion for the written word, and of the powerful motivation to nurture and develop whatever talent I may have had.

What I'm suggesting is the possibility that a Mozart, or an Einstein, or an Aristotle is powerfully motivated to develop his talent in his chosen field because that field represents something to him of overwhelming personal and psychological value. I don't mean to say, as the example of myself age five might suggest, that it necessarily represents an opportunity to make up for a lack. It might instead represent the opportunity to express a love or passion or longing or consuming interest already formed. I'm suggesting that many children hear music and respond positively to it, but that a Mozart sees in music the means of expressing something that matters to him desperately and passionately, something at the heart of his psychological makeup, and thus is motivated to develop his talent at lightning speed.

Barbara

[Matus1976]

Michael D,

Your link goes to "Page not found."

Michael

Hmm, Try this one then:

http://tinyurl.com/nyc4r

"At this point, many skeptics will finally lose patience. Surely, they will say, it takes more to get to Carnegie Hall than practice, practice, practice. Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it. In 2002 Gobet conducted a study of British chess players ranging from amateurs to grandmasters and found no connection at all between their playing strengths and their visual-spatial abilities, as measured by shape-memory tests"

"Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one. László Polgár, an educator in Hungary, homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as six hours of work a day, producing one international master and two grandmasters--the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. The youngest Polgár, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world"

"The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others."

"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time."

"Even the novice engages in effortful study at first, which is why beginners so often improve rapidly in playing golf, say, or in driving a car. But having reached an acceptable performance--for instance, keeping up with one's golf buddies or passing a driver's exam--most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement."

"Teachers in sports, music and other fields tend to believe that talent matters and that they know it when they see it. In fact, they appear to be confusing ability with precocity. There is usually no way to tell, from a recital alone, whether a young violinist's extraordinary performance stems from innate ability or from years of Suzuki-style training."

"The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born. What is more, the demonstrated ability to turn a child quickly into an expert--in chess, music and a host of other subjects--sets a clear challenge before the schools. Can educators find ways to encourage students to engage in the kind of effortful study that will improve their reading and math skills?"

Etc Etc

[Rich Engle]

Our maestro is right in that he wishes we would focus on fostering, mentoring. These are excellent discussion points. This is teaching.

And, such a treat to read Barbara's take on things. Heavens, what to say?

And Ellen went "wild" and developed concert pianist skills... Zowie!!

I'm in the thick of doing my first serious album (Victor is working away on the cover)... today's word for me is "inspiration" (a topic of its own) and serendipity, synergy on OL gave me a fine lift today, and right when I needed it.

For me, that all makes it march. Bravo!

rde

Eff air conducting-- how about Robert Moog's Etherwave Theremin (449.00 US)! :

http://www.moogmusic.com/detail.php?main_product_id=64

[sjw]

One thing I have noticed in this discussion is a strong focus on debating semantics and not real issues.

So the issue of whether or not a normal human being can by their own efforts achieve greatness** is not a real issue? I wonder if you've been reading this thread. That's the central point of contention here. And contra Victor, it does have implications in ethics. Specifically, the ethics of giving Ayn Rand and others their just due. This came up in another thread. I said Ayn Rand was a hero because of her work ethic and her integrity. Someone else brought up genetics in that context. The motive was unstated, but obvious.

Shayne

**Which doesn't mean being "famous" or "rich". In a legitimate evaluation, Tesla would surely beat out Edison even though most Americans don't even know what Tesla did for them.

Edited November 7, 2006 by sjw

[Victor Pross]

So the issue of whether or not a normal human being can by their own efforts achieve greatness** is not a real issue? I wonder if you've been reading this thread. That's the central point of contention here. And contra Victor, it does have implications in ethics. Specifically, the ethics of giving Ayn Rand and others their just due. This came up in another thread. I said Ayn Rand was a hero because of her work ethic and her integrity. Someone else brought up genetics in that context. The motive was unstated, but obvious.

Shayne,

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."

You can see that I said ethical questions can apply, but I decided to focus the thread on other factors pertaining to this subject. If you want to focus on the ethical application, start a new thread.

Victor

[Rich Engle]

I have to agree with Victor on this. We're talking about talent here, not ethics.

There's a giant area on OL for ethics. Shayne: maybe this is challenging your view, which of course is Randian. But, remember, she was a brilliant novelist, and a fine system builder. But she wasn't the Alpha and the Omega. Many new things have been learned since her time.

Am I off-track? If so please accept my apology in advance. I mean no disrespect.

rde

[Victor Pross]

There's a giant area on OL for ethics. Shayne: maybe this is challenging your view, which of course is Randian. But, remember, she was a brilliant novelist, and a fine system builder. But she wasn't the Alpha and the Omega. Many new things have been learned since her time.

Rich,

Any views that even remotely sound outside of the Objectivist paradigm will draw the Orthodox lot out and they'll jump into ethical denunciations. It’s like a knee-jerk reaction. Man, I grew out of that scene, thankfully.

V

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Rich: No offense taken even though your characterization of me as regarding Rand as an oracle is quite off base.

I totally disagree with your (and Victor's) suggested approach of banning all "ethical" issues from discussion in this thread. It is definitely on topic to indicate what consequences flow from one view vs. another. Your views on "greatness" mean two things: First, that a "normal" man shouldn't bother trying to achieve "great" things (I use quotes because neither of these terms have been well defined); Second, that if someone does achieve great things, they don't deserve all the moral credit. E.g., you'd claim that Rand's superlative achievements did not flow primarily from her integrity and productivity, but from some genetic "gift of nature".

Further, the whole point of figuring out our nature here is to determine what we ought to do. The subject is inherently ethical.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

By God, man! Nobody is talking about "banning" subjects here--least of all ethics. Ethics is a very interesting subject. I'm talking about focus and keeping to a thread topic. The thread topic is What is Talent--is it innate and such...yada, yada. And I do regard the question of what one does in their life with the gifts they are given as very important--of great ethical importance. Look, I have the "gift" as discovered very early--and I am making use of it, believe me. I have honed it!

Victor

Edited November 7, 2006 by Victor Pross