What is talent?

[Rich Engle]

Well, I'm glad you don't have the Ortho-AR-as-Oracle position. That we have more than enough of, it seems...

We can move closer together, perhaps.

No, I do not view greatness as inaccesible to anyone. I don't even really know what "the common man" means; I consider it a construct. You know, there was a day where that was the coin of the realm in political thought, social thought. It was kind of creepy...

I remember, as a kid, touring Edison's Orange, NJ Lab. Phenomenal... You know, he had that quote posted everywhere (can't remember who did it right now): "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the true labor of thinking." Believe that's it...

So, do I acknowledge WORK? Uh, yeah. Trust me on that one. You shoulda seen what it took for me to be a good guitar player. Yikes.

Nature, nurture. It's one of the Big Topics<tm>.

I have been in the presence of too many people though...heck, I live with one. The man is 28 years old and, while he does practice his craft and such, he is simply beyond what is normally seen. Upbringing brings no answer. His sloth to education brings no answer. He just is. There's something more there. He's a natural.

And with that, he gets troubles.

I was pulled out of class in the sixties because I was weird and distracted. I had to spend a week with a child shrink. They thought I was a retard, or had some pathology. The battery of tests proved otherwise. It turned out that Mr. and Mrs. Engle had a little "genius" on their hands. And trust me, that is not something that means jack shit to me. Even with that supposed gift, it was damn near more trouble than it was worth.

I think the real work involves, well, work. For sure! But, the other side is to learn how to work smart. How to leverage your strengths, be aware of your weaknesses. Learn how to get in the Zone, so to say. When you're in balance, everything is effortless.

I know a whole bunch of super-brainiacs that have miserable lives; it was just too unmanageable for them.

And, I know the tortoises as well as the hares. Steady Eddies that worked their balls off. That ended up with real life experience, and transcended.

All I'm saying is, yes, there are tendencies, advantages and weaknesses.

[sjw]

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

Victor, in your previous post you dish out a disgustingly evasive insult of me but not to my face. Now you want to talk to me. Make up your mind. Maybe you're not a hypocrite. Maybe you're just a coward. In either case, I don't see the point of responding to you.

[sjw]

I was pulled out of class in the sixties because I was weird and distracted. I had to spend a week with a child shrink. They thought I was a retard, or had some pathology. The battery of tests proved otherwise. It turned out that Mr. and Mrs. Engle had a little "genius" on their hands. And trust me, that is not something that means jack shit to me. Even with that supposed gift, it was damn near more trouble than it was worth.

Heh. When I was in kindergarten, the teacher brought in some child expert because they thought I was "slow". After analyzing me, the child expert said I was smarter than the teacher, but just wasn't interested in what the teacher had to say.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Victor, in your previous post you dish out a disgustingly evasive insult of me but not to my face. Now you want to talk to me. Make up your mind. Maybe you're not a hypocrite. Maybe you're just a coward. In either case, I don't see the point of responding to you.

It is interesting that the 'pro-innate talent' crowd here has completely ignored my repeated citations of well argued and well reasoned articles written on the subject. If you prefer, go to the source material mentioned in those articles. REGARDLESS OF EVERYONES *OPINIONS* and *ANECDOTAL STORIES* it is very clear, scientifically, and of course subsequently very true, that innate talent plays a marginal and barely detectable role in emergence of genuises or people who are great in their feild.

Any subsequent discussion here as to any kind of significant influence that 'innate' talents play is a pure intellectually dishonest evasion. Unless you have performed large empirical and objectively verified studies which counter the ones mentioned and you can present a strong and well informed scientific case for a large influence that stems from 'innate talents' you are just a flapping mouth in the wind and are pretending to be that very same 'oracle' that Rand keeps getting derided here for being.

So please present some strong objective evidence suggesting that innate talent has a strong influence or come to terms with the fact that you can indeed be good, great, or even a genuis at virtually anything you put in the 40,000 - 50,000 hours of rigourous refined effort toward. What you want to do with that capacity is up to you, but don't lie and evade the fact that you have that capacity.

Michael F Dickey

[Rich Engle]

You know what? Your beloved "evasion" term says it all. This is discussion.

I looked over some of these studies, and they truly do point to more in the direction of work. Such as these are. I'm still unconvinced, and I don't think they're entirely conclusive. Maybe someday more will be known.

There's a whole area here, and it includes evolutionary psychology.

I'm glad you trotted out the data, truly so!

But then you go and do the standard snotty-ass Objectivist "evasion" "dishonesty" rhetoric, and there it is-- social retardation, or at least just old-fashioned rudeness.

O-speak ain't gonna cut it around here. Try harder.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Shayne,

This is an equivocation on your part. I know of nobody on this thread who is making the argument you are contesting. This point of contention is coming only from those who claim that innate talent doesn't exist and they claim that others hold the view that "a normal human being cannot by their own efforts achieve greatness." As I said, I know of nobody on this thread who is claiming that to be true.

Greatness is made up of much more than innate talent and it entails choice. I think we all agree on that. I also think that we all can agree that a tone-deaf person would be an unlikely candidate for musical greatness.

(And incidentally, I once managed to get a tone-deaf person to sing a short song in tune. It took days of effort and the result was very mediocre and the ability did not last. Simply put, it was not worth the effort.)

Now back to fostering talent, which is much more engaging. I used to be a professional talent fosterer (an artistic producer), so this interests me.

(Michael D - I personally haven't answered your numbers of hours to achieve greatness because they are arbitrary. There isn't anything but blind speculation to discuss.)

Michael

[sjw]

Michael D.: Great post, as usual.

Michael K.: I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about what the real subject of this thread has been. I think the other subject you want to discuss is a great one, but should be based on the premise that normal people can achieve great things if they so choose.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the other subject you want to discuss is a great one, but should be based on the premise that normal people can achieve great things if they so choose.

Shayne,

Of course people can achieve great things if they so choose (presuming unimpaired intelligence). Who has denied that so far?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

One has to wonder about certain individual’s hierarchy of values. Is it winning an argument at all costs—or discovering the truth of a given matter? Hmm, what's more important?

Personally, I think Ayn Rand chose the latter in her lifetime, regardless of her own polemics. With others, sadly, losing an argument is equal to a loss of self-esteem, where one must attribute false positions to that of an adversary and tackle strawmen. Save that self-esteem, brother!

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

You disagree with what? What about MSK's point seen below.

(And incidentally, I once managed to get a tone-deaf person to sing a short song in tune. It took days of effort and the result was very mediocre and the ability did not last. Simply put, it was not worth the effort.)

So what about the tone-deaf who is dying to be a singer or musician of some sort? Hmm? What about the hundreds and hundreds of hours he is willing to put in? How do you think he will fair to the child who can plug out a truly dazzling spin of Wedding March? ;) Yeah, I think a lot can be said for innate talent and hard work.

Think about it.

Victor

[Matus1976]

You know what? Your beloved "evasion" term says it all. This is discussion.

I looked over some of these studies, and they truly do point to more in the direction of work. Such as these are. I'm still unconvinced, and I don't think they're entirely conclusive. Maybe someday more will be known.

There's a whole area here, and it includes evolutionary psychology.

I'm glad you trotted out the data, truly so!

But then you go and do the standard snotty-ass Objectivist "evasion" "dishonesty" rhetoric, and there it is-- social retardation, or at least just old-fashioned rudeness.

O-speak ain't gonna cut it around here. Try harder.

Rich, by what standard are basing your skepticism on? Do you have *any* objective evidence suggesting that a huge variation exists in innate intelligence or natural talent that means hardly anyone can do hardly anything unless they have these special gifts? Are you a geneticist? Do you know of the related genes involved in, say, being a good artist?

You are being just as 'snotty assed' prancing around with your innuendos that I am a Randroid because, god forbid, I use the 'evasion' term. **You are ignoring a fundamental aspect of reality that is empirically verified in large duplicated studies** That is anti scientific and dishonest. What else would you call that but evasion? Do you just 'feel' 'intuitively' that these data are incorrect? Or do you just pick and choose implications of reality to suit your fancy?

Sorry, but the scientific evidence is unequivocable clear, you are capable of great things if you put a lot of effort and intelligent refining hard work into it. Deal with it.

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote:

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);

I don't know where you're getting that. No one is saying that anyone shouldn't try to achieve great things, or that effort is useless. My recognizing that Millais, at the age of 6, was able to draw better than most adult artists, and that he was good enough to be accepted at the Royal Academy at 11, and my recognition that there are focused adults who have yet to accomplish feats of similar greatness, and that perhaps they never will, even with 10 times the amount of time and effort, doesn't mean that it is impossible for them to achieve at a very high level, or even to eventually surpass Millais's level of accomplishment. The view that some people seem to be naturally talented and that talent may be a significant factor in life does not mean that hard work is useless, that talent is the only factor or even the most important factor.

J

Edited November 7, 2006 by Jonathan

[Matus1976]

(Michael D - I personally haven't answered your numbers of hours to achieve greatness because they are arbitrary. There isn't anything but blind speculation to discuss.)

Michael

MSK, I am not talking about the hour numbers I suggest, I am talking about the plethora of large scale studies proving that innate talent has little to nothing to do with genius and great masters. The numbers are large scale averages taken across many different fields, and of course the term 'expert' is subject to a necessary clearer definition as well. But none of that changes the fact that is proved from this plethora of studies that the vast majority of people can to just about anything if they put a lot of hours and effort into it. The idea of a child coming out of nowhere and instantly being good with virtually no practice and training at something is a complete and outright fantasy. Expertise and mastery does not spring from heads fully formed like Athena, they grow, mature, develop. They require many many years of unceasing hardwork, and the earliest this work is started, the easier it is. I do not understand why so many people here are having such a hard time accepting the fact that they are capable of amazing things if they saw fit to put the time and effort into those things. I understand why most other people are, they do not want to be held accountable for their own potential, it's far easier to not think, to sit and not change, not grow, and not challenge oneself and feel completely morally sound about it by convincing oneself that they couldn’t do anything more anyway. But the shear reluctance of this idea, and idea backed very clearly by *a lot* of scientific evidence, including large scale independently verified studies, to be accepted by a group of people that are allegedly rational and logical, surprises me.

[sjw]

Of course people can achieve great things if they so choose (presuming unimpaired intelligence). Who has denied that so far?

I already said I was going to agree to disagree with you about who's saying what.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Matus76,

Again and again with the straw men. 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.

In any case, read my original post and try to retain the thread’s topic: What is innate talent and does it exist? That’s pretty much it.

In regards to hard work--yes, I'm all for it! Ra! Ra! Hard work!! :cheer:

Victor

Edited November 8, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

I do not understand why so many people here are having such a hard time accepting the fact that they are capable of amazing things if they saw fit to put the time and effort into those things. I understand why most other people are, they do not want to be held accountable for their own potential, it's far easier to not think, to sit and not change, not grow, and not challenge oneself and feel completely morally sound about it by convincing oneself that they couldn’t do anything more anyway. But the shear reluctance of this idea, and idea backed very clearly by *a lot* of scientific evidence, including large scale independently verified studies, to be accepted by a group of people that are allegedly rational and logical, surprises me.

The sad truth is that most "Objectivists" are very much mired in various aspects of the status quo. E.g., ARI Objectivists tend to have not gotten over authoritarian/dogmatist hang-ups. TOC and other Objectivists tend to have not gotten over their subjectivist/Kantian/pragmatist/egalitarian hang-ups. Which when you think about it, isn't all that surprising. It's not inevitable that the situation should be so, but given the history of the Objectivist movement, it is no surprise that that's what it's come down to.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Shayne,

You disagree with what? What about MSK's point seen below.

(And incidentally, I once managed to get a tone-deaf person to sing a short song in tune. It took days of effort and the result was very mediocre and the ability did not last. Simply put, it was not worth the effort.)

So what about the tone-deaf who is dying to be a singer or musician of some sort? Hmm? What about the hundreds and hundreds of hours he is willing to put in? How do you think he will fair to the child who can plug out a truly dazzling spin of Wedding March? ;) Yeah, I think a lot can be said for innate talent and hard work.

Think about it.

Victor

"Tone Deaf" is a vague and virtually meaningless word. What do you think it means? The inability to distinguish individual tones? The inability to identify the same tone repeatedly? The inability to break many tones into it's component tones? Many people suggest being Tone Deaf is just another myth. Sounds to me like it is as absurd as being "Art Blind"

from - http://www.musicianshotline.com/education/...eartraining.asp

"Tone Deafness – Largely a Myth

Occasionally musicians worry whether they could be “color deaf,” and therefore unable to develop perfect pitch. True tone deafness is largely a myth - most people are so labeled when they cannot vocally match a pitch; this is more often due to vocal problems, and is not a firm indicator of tone deafness. A person who is truly tone deaf will reveal it in his or her speech - a monotone or very narrow range of speaking pitch can indicate a lack of pitch awareness.

When the ear becomes cultured through repeated effortless listening, it will naturally bring forth its own absolute pitch perception which is already waiting deep inside.

It is very important for parents to understand that it just takes a little time daily for their children to develop perfect pitch, and the time invested will pay high dividends for a long time to come. It can make the difference between having an open ear and therefore greater accomplishments, or a life-long struggle to make up for what should have been a natural, established, perception.When a child’s ears are opened, they are opened for life."

DAVID BURGE... is the author of two number-one best-selling ear training courses. Over 25 years ago he was the first to successfully explain the mysteries behind perfect pitch and how almost anyone can acquire it. "

Or try

"The Myth of "Perfect Pitch"..... and How to Get "It"

by Kirk Whipple"

http://www.unconservatory.org/perfect_pitch/1.html

"This series of articles is being offered with two goals in mind: first, to prove that what is commonly and mistakenly referred to as "perfect pitch" is actually a widely learnable skill, and second, to show that it is only one of many useful musical skills to be learned and applied. The claims in these articles are based entirely upon my personal experience and first hand accounts by friends, family and colleagues. I will not confirm or deny the veracity of any specific study. I will present a concise methodology of how to develop this "elusive talent" and suggest that studies which presume "perfect pitch" to be a "rare gift" are innately flawed."

[Victor Pross]

The sad truth is that most "Objectivists" are very much mired in various aspects of the status quo. E.g., ARI Objectivists tend to have not gotten over authoritarian/dogmatist hang-ups. TOC and other Objectivists tend to have not gotten over their subjectivist/Kantian/pragmatist/egalitarian hang-ups. Which when you think about it, isn't all that surprising. It's not inevitable that the situation should be so, but given the history of the Objectivist movement, it is no surprise that that's what it's come down to.

Shayne,

This is an interesting view, but it is a different topic. By all means, start a thread on this topic...I might tend to agree with you.

Victor

[Matus1976]

Matus76,

In any case, read my original post and try to retain the thread’s topic: What is innate talent and does it exist? That’s pretty much it.

Victor

Then I will provide my best succinct answer. People do have variations in their inherent capacity and genetic variations making them slightly better at one thing or another, but the difference is minimal as there is little actual genetic variation throughout the entire human species (less than any other species) The differences attained from ‘innate’ talent come into play only ultimately as limiting factors (oxygen absorption rates in endurance athletes for instance) but the vast and overwhelming majority of people never reach anywhere near their genetically predefined limiting potential so it is useless to even consider it in evaluating what one wants to do. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that *all* genius and greatness has come at a tremendous expense of hard work and effort (a particular kind of effort which requires one to keep pushing themselves past existing limits) and that virtually anyone can become good or even great (though perhaps not the absolute best) at anything they put it in their mind to do. Believing anything else goes against the overwhelming evidence and cheats one's self of their own potential.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael D,

Your impassioned denial of things like tone deafness and perfect pitch show me very clearly that you have not had much experience in teaching music.

These are actually meaningful terms and they do exist, even in the article you linked. I have personally encountered them often in my musical career.

Please read the article I linked to earlier on child prodigies if you are interested in making an objective analysis of this. Otherwise, it sounds like you are stuck on trying to prove a position at all costs (that innate talent does not exist ever, come hell or high water), so discussion becomes useless.

But assuming that is not so and that you are truly interested in objective facts, I want to look at two phrases from the article you linked:

True tone deafness is largely a myth - most people are so labeled when they cannot vocally match a pitch; this is more often due to vocal problems, and is not a firm indicator of tone deafness. A person who is truly tone deaf will reveal it in his or her speech - a monotone or very narrow range of speaking pitch can indicate a lack of pitch awareness.

A musician cannot be tone deaf, however; otherwise he\she would not be a musician.

(...)

It is very important for parents to understand that it just takes a little time daily for their children to develop perfect pitch, and the time invested will pay high dividends for a long time to come. It can make the difference between having an open ear and therefore greater accomplishments, or a life-long struggle to make up for what should have been a natural, established, perception.

In the first quote, if you read it quickly you will think he said "true tone deafness does not exist." He did not say that. This was a poorly written passage to say that those who are given the label "tone deaf" are mostly identified improperly. As you can see in the continuation of his writing, he clearly believes that tone deafness does exist and he even describes it. (And incidentally, I have met people like that.)

What most people describe as tone deaf is a matter of degree--which is usually how a person is born. Burge makes this very clear in the second quote, where he states, "... or a life-long struggle to make up for what should have been a natural, established, perception."

The phrase, "to make up for what should have been," means that the child should have been born with the capacity for perfect pitch functioning.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I loved your description of the blinding flash as a young child. I had a similar experience when I saw a young classmate in grade school play the trumpet. I had seen instrumentalists on TV, but they were like pictures of being on the ocean or in the desert. I knew something existed like that, but it was so distant from my own living experiences that it had no relevance to me whatsoever. But when I saw that kid play right there in front of me, I knew that this was something available to me and the overpowering floodgate opened.

I am not sure how much choice is involved in this. And I wonder if it is possible to encourage a young child to experience it. It certainly is a widespread phenomenon among high-achievers.

Even Rand ventures into the realm of the innate in her fiction. Her heroes, when they are described as young children, all have had a similar "blinding flash" experience in their respective fields. In her initial character notes in her journals, she mentions "the curse" as an essential attribute. This means an attitude--when a protagonist is growing up--of always looking correctly at reality and contesting conflicting authority and usually getting into trouble for it. Rand does not present this "curse" as chosen in the childhood of such characters. It is an automatic attitude that the hero simply has for no other reason than having it. He often later curses himself for it during conflicts (before learning and accepting that it is correct, of course). It is an "innate talent" for thinking correctly so to speak.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I don’t know why I didn’t mention it before, but I want to relate another experience of mine that has significance to the question of effort and talent.

Years ago I was a teacher for an art class instructing children between the ages of seven to twelve. When I took the job I didn’t know what to expect but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the children had the “raw materials” of talent. This made my job relatively easy. Many of the children shot forward displaying a hand and eye coordination that shocked me. It was at those moments I was able to appreciate the awe-struck delight the adults must have experienced when observing me draw at a very young age. I figured I had a relatively easy gig and all I had to do was teach basic drawing techniques, as the children had seemingly covered the foundations by intuition. It all seemed so very easy. The children’s talent was equaled by their enthusiasm and I enjoyed my teaching job enormously. But then I came across an experience that shattered this momentum.

My second month on the job, I came across one eight-year old child who was a complete disaster. His name was Brad, and he really let the air out of my tires. No, it wasn’t that he couldn’t draw or apprehend the assignments given. His drawing skills were unbelievably advanced for his age. He shocked me. He was really good. And he mastered all the assignments with seemingly nonchalant ease. So what was the problem? He had a bored insolence when it came to his own talent. This sent my head in a tail-spin. He bothered me. Here is a kid who had been favored with “the gift” and he couldn’t give a rat’s ass. It was even more distressing to me because Brad was far ahead of the other children—talented as they were. The other children were empowered with a love for art and fired with enthusiasm but they couldn’t touch Brad, the hum-drum kid. Brad could out-draw any kid, but I found myself taking a dislike to this kid. I couldn’t figure out why his indifference to his ability was such an affront to me. But what makes this story relevant was my next experience.

Duncan was two years older than Brad--and he was very much the opposite of Brad. Duncan was a kid who had an energy and gusto that could light up a city. Here was a kid who looked the part of the nerd and he was clearly a comic book fanatic. He was a welcome relief to the drudgery that was Brad and I thought to myself ‘thank you, Duncan!’ But my enthusiasm for Duncan was soon deflated. He was a disaster—but of an entirely different kind: he couldn’t draw! Try as I might over a period of months, I couldn’t teach this kid to advance beyond even the rudimentary stages. He was terrible by any standard or age. Duncan’s passion for comic book art—practically all things esthetic—was heartening, but it was also sad. My heart sank seeing this kid’s fired zeal diminish more and more as time moved on.

Duncan wanted to be a comic artist but I slowly came to realize (as if almost against my will) that this was most likely not to be. I would observe Duncan lovingly read his comic books—fully appreciating pictorial story-telling—but it was marred by a painful longing to emulate the artist’s work. “Don’t give up what you want to do,” I told Duncan on his last day at the school, but my words sounded hallow. He nodded, but he looked so forlorn.

I had always figured that the heart was a compelling factor in any ambition and that the bromide “where there is a will there’s a way” was axiomatic. Fundamentally, this is true, but not always. It was true for me. It wasn't true for Duncan.

I never forgot that kid. To this day, I wish Brad’s ability could be transplanted into Duncan, but that is not reality. It was a painful lesson I learned as a teacher. I learned the adage “He has the drive but not the talent” can ring true. I always wondered what became of Duncan. I hope he became a comic book writer. That way, he could be close to what he loves.

**

Edited November 8, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Johnny]

Michael D,

Your impassioned denial of things like tone deafness and perfect pitch show me very clearly that you have not had much experience in teaching music.

These are actually meaningful terms and they do exist, even in the article you linked. I have personally encountered them often in my musical career.

Poppycock! Then how about you speak to someone who has experience in teaching music! How have you been teaching your students? Do you know what you're doing? Perhaps I can teach you a few pedagogical methods if you're interested. You can train just about anyone who's not literally deaf to distinguish tones and harmonies. I am also a musician and have taught students how to recognize pitch intervals and harmonies. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of practice, and for some who have not been exposed to any kind of pitch exercises are at a huge disadvantage to those who have started in childhood. But it speaks nothing to innateness.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Barbara... "Synchronicity."

I was reminded by your story -- for the second time today -- of the story of how Helen Keller acquired the idea of language.

This afternoon I was lying down for awhile and I was remembering the event I talked about in post #89, the event I think of as my "finding out that music existed." (Of course I'd known that music existed, but not that THAT kind of music existed.)

Describing the event in more detail: I was touring the Southwest with a friend of mine whom I'd met at the summer camp where I taught horsebackriding. One day the friend took me to visit an older woman she knew, a piano teacher who had retired from the faculty at Curtis. Darla, my friend, wanted me to play something on Ethel's piano, and Ethel said, yes, please do (being polite, I felt). I saw that Ethel had a book of music by Beethoven on the piano, and I felt, oh, dear, she likes sissy music; I'll make too much noise if I play. How cosmically comical it is to me now, looking back, to recall the years when I thought of Beethoven as "sissy music." The only compositions I knew of Beethoven's were "Minuet in G" and "Fur Elise" and the first movement of the "Moonlight" sonata. Had I ever heard the 3rd movement, I'd have had a different view, but there it was: I was woefully ignorant in musical matters.

The composition which I thought of then as attaining the (unsatisfyingly shallow) pinnacle of complexity in construction was Lizst's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, which I'd performed as my last recital piece when I was in high school. It gets loud and energetic; I felt that it would be out of place in Ethel's neat and quiet home. So rather trepidatiously, and going softer than I would have had I been alone, I played it. Ethel complimented me and said that I should pursue piano studies. Hmmm, that was nice to hear, but I didn't know how much weight to place on the compliments of someone fond of sissy music.

Darla then asked Ethel would she please play. Ethel said yes. I sat down, preparing to be bored, in a comfortable easy chair -- the plush, yielding contours of which would soon prove to be a blessing.

Ethel started to play: The Waldstein. By the end of the second phrase, the room began to turn before my eyes, my visual field spinning in circles, and I started seeing black spots. I closed my eyes, grabbing the arms of the chair for support, and sinking back against the cushioning, I felt as if I were spinning down into a black vortex. "I'm going to die," I thought -- not in alarm, just as an assessment of fact. And then, "I don't care; just don't let this stop." And then only the music.

I could hardly talk when it was over. I had trouble talking for the rest of the day. Darla became irritated with me, and I kept telling her incoherently, "But I didn't know." It was a mental-world-changing event.

This afternoon I was recapturing a sense of the details, especially the black-vortex experience. And then I was reminded of Helen Keller's description of the feeling of her world in the days when she had no form of language. Hers was the world of a human mind trapped in inchoate darkness, in a clawing nothingness, in a void where there should have been meaning but there wasn't. And then came the occurrence at the water pump when finally she understood: the water pouring over her hand, Annie Sullivan tapping deaf sign-language letters on the other palm. At last the connection came, the forging of a symbolic linkage between the pattern being repeated and the sensation of the water. She was given the power to use the human ability of framing thought.

The story of Helen Keller is the most extreme story I know of a sudden awakening to a changed world. But I think the same sort of outlines are present in lesser awakenings.

---

About Mozart and what he might have gotten from composing. Strongly: fun. There's a playfulness often in his music, a being entertained. He liked social life, partying. A lot of his lighter music is written for social events. And once he was on his own, he was always in need of money. He was spendthrift and he liked gambling, so he chronically had financial needs in addition to those of supporting his household. He wrote much of his music with an eye to the market.

Einstein had a love of the order of the universe, of contemplating that orderliness -- a religious kind of feeling, though not in standard ways of thinking of religion. If I have time tomorrow, I'll look up some quotes in which he describes his feeling.

Ellen

___

[Johnny]

Please read the article I linked to earlier on child prodigies if you are interested in making an objective analysis of this. Otherwise, it sounds like you are stuck on trying to prove a position at all costs (that innate talent does not exist ever, come hell or high water), so discussion becomes useless.

MSK, you cited a wikipedia entry that has no citations or references. I'm sorry but Matus's citation of a scientific journal should take credible preference over that.

Also, you said

There is some interesting information on PET scans.

I am not a medical doctor or a neuroscientist and do not presume to know much about the subject, although I suspect it is the same in your case. But I do know when you learn something new, or acquire new skills, your brain creates a synaptic nerve for that. The larger the knowledge and more complex the skill acquired, presumably the larger and more numerous synaptic nerves you acquire. The brain is a malleable and adaptable organ. So PET scans obviously will reveal those changes in the brain that occur when one acquires or forms new synaptic nerves. So it would be logical to assume a child prodigy, that spent many hours learning a skill, honing their minds to complex mental tasks, would show for a different PET scan than say a child that spends most of his day watching cartoons.

Also consider there is plenty of pseudoscience out there. To wade through it all I understand can be difficult, but I think it's best to stick to scientific peer reviewed journals and not wikipedia.

Something I found interesting in the wikipedia article. Pay close attention to the text I highlight and tell me what does any of it have to do with innate talent?

news and views

nature neuroscience • volume 4 no 1 • january 2001 11

Until now, almost nothing was known about the neural basis of exceptional cognitive ability. In a pioneering study in this issue, Pesenti and colleagues have now used functional brain imaging to examine the calculating prodigy Rüdiger Gamm, and to compare his brain activity with that of normal control subjects as they perform mental arithmetical calculations1. Gamm is remarkable in that he is able (for example) to calculate 9th powers and 5th roots with great accuracy, and he can find the quotient of 2 primes to 60 decimal places. The authors found that Gamm’s calculation processes recruited a system of brain areas implicated in episodic memory, including right medial frontal and parahippocampal gyri, whereas those of control subjects did not. They suggest that experts develop a way of exploiting the unlimited storage capacity of long-term memory to maintain taskrelevant information, such as the sequence

of steps and intermediate results needed for complex calculation, whereas the rest of us rely on the very limited span of working memory2. It is widely assumed that human working memory is a temporary mechanism for maintaining information related to the task at hand in visual and speech-based buffers. (The speech-based buffer needs rehearsal for maintenance.) Estimates based on immediate serial recall put the

maximum average capacity of this buffer as 7 ± 2 unrelated items (for example, a string of digits or words)3. Furthermore, functional brain imaging has established that speech-based storage involves the perisylvian language areas4. However, the kinds of calculation that Gamm is able to carry out accurately and quickly involve a sequence of steps and intermediate results well beyond the capacity of working memory. Like other calculating prodigies5, Gamm has taught healthy non-expert controls of similar age) carried out complex calculations. The authors’ hypothesis was that only Gamm would make use of long-term memory to store task-relevant information, and would thus activate brain structures implicated in

the storage and retrieval of episodic memories. However, it was by no means obvious that a very high level of cognitive skill would necessarily invoke additional brain areas. Alternatively, the same areas that are

active in normally skilled people could be more active in experts, or the same area could be somewhat extended (as is the case with musicians9 or braille readers10). High skill could also mean that less brain activity is needed to carry out the same task11. It turned out that computation (compared to retrieval of memorized number facts) led to activation of an extensive bilateral visual processing system in both

Gamm and the controls. According to the authors, this suggests that “during complex calculation, numbers are held and manipulated onto a visual type of short term representational medium.” This contrasts

with the more usual claim that “subvocal rehearsal is ... required for mental arithmetic”12, but it may explain an earlier result showing that a brain-damaged patient could reliably add two three-digit numbers even though his digit span was reduced to two13. Several other areas were also specifically activated in both nonexperts and Gamm during calculations, including areas identified in previous studies of non-expert subjects14. Complex himself an enormous store of number facts. Most of us know our multiplication tables, and perhaps 50 simple additions6, but Gamm has learned tables of squares, cubes and roots, among others. Similarly, Gamm has an enormous store of procedures and short-cuts that allow him to solve multi-step problems very quickly and accurately. For example, to solve

68 × 76 takes seven steps and six intermediate results. After some practice with the task, Gamm was taking about five seconds per problem—with a high degree of accuracy. Two-digit squares, by contrast, took him just over a second because they were simply retrieved from memory.