What is talent?

[sjw]

Me? Insults? Started it? No. I think the angry thrust is that they see the question of “innate talent” clashing with Rand’s position of Tabula Rasa, [but I don’t] and it’s this clash that has propelled me [and others] into the villainous role of “an enemy of Objectivism,” I’ll bet. What else could account for the vitriolic posts when the sprit here should be one of exploration?

When we tell you what *we* think you start saying we're only parroting Ayn Rand. Then you act surprised at the vitrol you get in return. I already complained about your insults about a dozen posts up. Look it up if you care. I don't care enough to rub your nose in it.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

God, it got bitter in here early. Why?

Rich,

It got bitter because some people (on both sides) are using obnoxious bickering as a boost for their arguments. I do hope they decide to stop soon.

If this keeps up, I will have to make it stop.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

When we tell you what *we* think you start saying we're only parroting Ayn Rand.

Did he say "parrot"?

I thought he was questioning tabula rasa. Do you accept tabula rasa as Rand wrote of it?

Victor has said that he doesn't find a conflict with it, and the idea of innate.

In the here and now, tabula rasa is under scrutiny. By evolutionary psychologists, for one. Maybe go look at that research (but brace yourself for some long reading).

I don't accept it, for many reasons, and I'm not going into it here because, for one, there's all kinds of places where it's been scrutinized and it doesn't seem to hold water too well. There's more that meets the eye than what it allows for.

That aside, what it seems like, from watching, is that a lot of times if Victor starts a thread up, or is heavily in one, there are some who suddenly develop a great interest in being there. Being there to go at Victor mano-y-mano. I hope that isn't the case, but it sure smells funny.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

It’s easy to check the chronological order of this discussion if one cares to see who was rude and who “started it”. I maintain now, as I have on pages 1,2,3, etc, of this thread, that I wish this discussion to be one of exploration and of relating experiences, observations... and the occasional link.

I have also stated that I have no firm conviction one way or the other on this subject, but I lean toward the existence of innate talent--based on my experiences. And—knowing myself—I am only “rude” with those individuals who are disrespectful with me. I want to get past slinging mud and, please understand, I started this thread with the best of intentions. It seems it is the subject matter itself that has pinched nerves. I suppose I’ll have to take my lumps from people when stating something that may sound contrary with Objectivist principles...or slogans.

Victor

Edited November 8, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

I keep referencing large empirical studies, all I am getting from you and MSK are appeals to personal anecdotes. It seems you have a lot more work to do to prove that innate talent is a fundamental component of becoming an expert or genuis at something for your position to be rationally accepted as an accurate description of reality, given the overwhelming majority of experts and genuises came to their abilities through immense hard work over a great deal of time.

I've finally gotten around to reading a fairly large segment of the posts on this thread. (I hadn't earlier had time to do more than skim the long posts.) It seems to me that the above paragraph is indicative of why the discussion keeps proceeding at what I see as cross purposes.

Michael D. says that Victor and MSK "have a lot more work to do to prove that innate talent is a fundamental component of becoming an expert or gen[ius] at something." But question: Did either Victor or MSK make that claim? I don't see where either of them did. Nor do I see anyone denying that "the overwhelming majority of experts and gen[iuses]" put in a lot of sustained work.

My understanding of the original point being contended wasn't a statement of the positive but instead a statement of the negative. The claim being questioned was that there's no such thing as an innate aptitude which gives some people an edge (I used "aptitude" instead of "talent" as being less loaded). None of the statistical material Michael Dickey cites demonstrates the negative claim.

On the other hand, anecdotal evidence of particular cases where it sure does look as if some specific person has a learning edge over others does raise questions for a statement of the negative (there's no such thing as an innate edge).

For instance, in Mozart's case: If the entirety of his ability is attributed to early learning, then why did he shoot off like a skyrocket whereas his sister, who was taught from an early age by the same father, did not? You're going to have to simply presume that there are unidentified additional factors -- Leopold spent more time on Wolfgang because of his being a boy, e.g. -- to account for the difference if you want to say that the difference had nothing to do with any innate edge possessed by Wolfgang.

And then you'll have a problem with, for instance, a case like Schubert. Schubert's father did not want him to become a musician and put impediments in the way of his pursuing a musical career. But "the muse" would not be denied. Schubert's an interesting example because he felt actually driven to write music -- as one in the grip of a demon. He'd even wake in the night feeling compelled to write down music -- he took to keeping pen and inkstand, score paper and his glasses on the nightstand, ready for such "nocturnal emissions" (too tempting an allusion to resist).

Or I'll give another anecdotal example, this one pertaining to ease at learning poetry, specifically my ease thereat. When I was in eighth grade, the literature teacher set as an assignment that everyone had to memorize at least 50 lines of poetry. Some of the students found even memorizing that much a difficult task. In a month's time, I memorized 2000 lines, maybe half of it by Poe, whose poems I found especially easy to memorize, but material by others as well. I could "just do it," with shorter poems often on only one reading. It could be said that I had an advantage from prior experience over many of the other students, since I'd always been keen on reading and I'd read a lot more literature than most of my classmates had. But a few had read as much or close to as much as I had. One of the others, a girl who'd been a good friend of mine since we were in kindergarten and with whom I often shared and talked about books, could memorize poetry with considerable proficiency and came in at 1000 lines, the second highest number to my 2000. Still, even as compared to her, I just did it more easily.

Another occasion was a day in one of my other classes when the teacher wanted us all to memorize a patriotic poem about "the flag," some twelve stanzas, doggerelesque (I didn't like the poem). I read through it twice and proceeded to entertain myself reading something else. The teacher noticed that I didn't have the poem in front of me any longer and -- she was in an irritable mood that day -- snappishly asked me what was I doing, I was supposed to be memorizing the poem. "I already did," I said. "Then show us!" she said, and told me to stand in front of the class and recite the poem. Which I did, without error.

That example from my own experience gives me a sense of what Mozart's facility at remembering music might have been like. It was something which, as I experienced it, I could just do, I didn't know why or how. I still don't know, but I can't see that "hard work" was the key, since I hadn't put in "hard work." "Familiarity with literature"? OK. But then why was I nevertheless better than my friend (who, I'll add, enjoyed acting and had had experience, which I didn't have, at memorizing dialogue)?

I don't see that some sort of native "edge" can be ruled out in such out-of-the-norm cases of ability. But, again, my understanding of the question being asked to begin with was the negative question -- can such an "edge" be ruled out? -- rather than the positive claim that such an "edge" is required in order to become "an expert or genius" at something.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Off-topic comment to Judith:

Speaking of dressage...

The second day (of the all-too-short four days) my husband and I were in Vienna this last summer, we discovered that the headquarters and performance hall of the Spanish Riding School were in a state palace a few blocks from our hotel. I flipped out. (Eeeee!!) The horses weren't there, since it was off-season; they were at their summer stables. But in the lobby to the performance hall a constant-replay video was being shown of a performance. They look as if they are dancing on air; they are so incredible.

I saw a performance live, years ago when I was a junior or senior in college. Some of the horses, though not their very best, were brought to the states. They gave a series of performances at the stockyards show-ring ampitheater. When they do the airs above the ground, the audience gasps. It seems unbelievable that a horse could be doing that.

Re your reference to horses teaching riders, they have a saying at the Spanish Riding School:

"An old master teaches a young horse, and an old horse teaches a young master."

Ellen

___

Edited November 8, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael D. says that Victor and MSK "have a lot more work to do to prove that innate talent is a fundamental component of becoming an expert or gen[ius] at something." But question: Did either Victor or MSK make that claim? I don't see where either of them did. Nor do I see anyone denying that "the overwhelming majority of experts and gen[iuses]" put in a lot of sustained work.

(...)

But, again, my understanding of the question being asked to begin with was the negative question -- can such an "edge" be ruled out? -- rather than the positive claim that such an "edge" is required in order to become "an expert or genius" at something.

Ellen,

This is exactly correct. However, I detect an underlying but unstated current causing the short-circuit. I keep perceiving--through the emotional excesses and the wrong positions stubbornly attributed to some despite clear texts to the contrary--an insinuation that Rand's reputation is at stake and that some enemy or the other of Objectivism needs to be "trounced."

Essentially it is an emotional reaction to an unstated subject and this leads to mistakes in understanding the issue at hand.

Michael

[Judith]

The second day (of the all-too-short four days) my husband and I were in Vienna this last summer, we discovered that the headquarters and performance hall of the Spanish Riding School were in a state palace a few blocks from our hotel. I flipped out. (Eeeee!!) The horses weren't there, since it was off-season; they were at their summer stables. But in the lobby to the performance hall a constant-replay video was being shown of a performance. They look as if they are dancing on air; they are so incredible.

I saw a performance live, years ago when I was a junior or senior in college. Some of the horses, though not their very best, were brought to the states. They gave a series of performances at the stockyards show-ring ampitheater. When they do the airs above the ground, the audience gasps. It seems unbelievable that a horse could be doing that.

Re your reference to horses teaching riders, they have a saying at the Spanish Riding School:

"An old master teaches a young horse, and an old horse teaches a young master."

They are amazing, aren't they! It takes amazing muscular development, patiently cultivated over years, to be able to dance like that, much like human ballet dancers. The horses get very excited when they know they're going to be asked to do the airs above the ground; they start snorting and dancing and sweating, because it's such an athletic thing to do -- much like show jumpers get excited about taking jumps. It's very unusual for a horse to know more than one of the airs, since it takes so many years to train them.

I've never had the chance to get on a really high-level schoolmaster. I've learned a lot by having my own horse trained to a level well above my own and then having lessons on him, but he's not anywhere near that level, or even anywhere near Grand Prix dressage level.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

This is exactly correct. However, I detect an underlying but unstated current causing the short-circuit. I keep perceiving--through the emotional excesses and the wrong positions stubbornly attributed to some despite clear texts to the contrary--an insinuation that Rand's reputation is at stake and that some enemy or the other of Objectivism needs to be "trounced." Essentially it is an emotional reaction to an unstated subject and this leads to mistakes in understanding the issue at hand.

It’s important to be clear where I stand in contrast to Shayne and Matus: They are putting a sustained stress on environment along with bloody hard work as the basis for being great or successful in a given area—and I don’t dispute that. They have underhandedly attributed to me words and positions that I have never stated. I suspect they know this, and that intellectual dishonesty is truly disappointing. I have clearly indicated my own struggle and the “sacrifices” I have made for my craft, the rigorous work I take to hone my skill—a skill I can feel developing painting by painting. I have simply suggested that there is something to be said for innate talent as a “format on the hard disk” in human beings. I have made it clear that I base my thinking on my own experiences.

Over all, there is much that we, as human beings, have in common but there is much that makes us very different. I need to stress again and again—and I’m glad my statements are a matter of record on this thread—I don’t disagree with the whole idea of devotion, practice and diligence in the pursuit of excellence, but human beings are not born equally. The existence of innate talent does not contract or undermine the necessity of practice and meticulousness to succeed at the game of life.

Innate talent AND hard work? I could have very well decided to not hone my talent from childhood and it could have lain dormant—just as so much unexplored potential. I could have decided—at the age of three—never to draw again—only to pick up a paint brush today and tackle the canvas--and I know that my ability would not be as sharp as it is today. But I also know this: a discernable ability, a level not found in those who maintain “I can’t draw a stick man” would be present. Some nucleolus of ability would have been evident--as it was when I was a child.

There is much to be said for innate talent, and there is always something to be said for practice and hard work. Thankfully, hard work and innate talent don't clash.

Victor

**

Edited November 9, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

During my music days, it was common knowledge that those who achieved greatness with a strong boost from innate talent were in general poor teachers and those who had to struggle to become what they were ended up being excellent teachers.

EXACTLY!! Things learned from the struggle can be passed along to one's students.

I will go with your equation: aptitude = innate talent. They are synonyms for all practical purposes.

However, there are two considerations. First, I think it is futile to say that "talent" should only be confined to one definition. It is possible to add a new meaning to a word when the popular use is different (like Rand did with selfishness), but I have yet to see anyone subtract a meaning from the general use in a culture at large. "Talent" is commonly used by today's public to denote both innate and developed qualities.

I'm not so sure that it is. I've often said that "I have no natural talent at [for example] shooting; I've had to sweat and bleed for every advance I've made, and I learn very slowly." People seem to understand exactly what I mean, and no one says that I'm "a talented shooter" even if I'm doing very well that day.

Also, there is a component missing (or at least not very evident) in "aptitude" that should be remembered. All organisms grow from small things near birth into bigger things as they mature. This is a universal organic law. Any trait of a living organism that is innate is biological, so it is organic by nature--and it observes the same organic laws that all other living things, or parts of living things, observe. This means that an inborn aptitude will develop automatically up to a certain extent as the child grows. He doesn't have to do anything except stay alive and stay healthy. Growth takes care of the rest (up to a point).

If this aptitude is not acted on, when a child gets older, all he will have to do is try out the activity where he is a natural and shortly he is doing better than many who have studied for years. (A very drastic case of this is Bill Traylor--see here and here and here--who was an illiterate and born a slave, and who started drawing at 83 for some unknown reason. I came across him looking for late starters and I found his story absolutely charming. People may not like his work, but the strong command of certain formal elements is clearly evident.)

One of the reasons I like the term "innate talent" is because it insinuates this automatic growth while "aptitude" gives me the feeling of something static and fixed.

One of the hardest parts of measuring this is that another growth usually takes place in parallel, volitionally guided growth (learning and practicing).

Part of what you're saying is a matter of semantics and connotation. I don't have the same associations with "aptitude" and "talent", so the words don't have quite the same meanings to me. But I agree with what you're saying about growth.

That reminds me of another aspect of "talent" or "aptitude" or whatever words one wants to use for the speed at which one develops a particular ability and the level to which one rises in it. I've noticed, as have most of us, I'm sure, that we learn faster as we get older. That's because we've acquired other analogous abilities that we can use to learn the new ones. I've used things I know from music to help my shooting, and things I've learned from riding to help my music, and things I've learned from shooting to help me at work, etc. Life just gets better with age! (except for the creaking parts)

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They have underhandedly attributed to me words and positions that I have never stated. I suspect they know this, but that intellectual dishonesty is truly disappointing.

Victor,

This is exactly what I am talking about. I have evidence of a mistake. I have evidence of too much emotion. I have no evidence of underhandedness or dishonesty. I imagine Michael D is a good person, and from my off line contact with Shayne (and observations), I know he is.

Until underhandedness or dishonesty become manifest, such accusations are empty Objectivist foodfight tactics. They lead nowhere except counter-accusations.

Frankly, if you think either is underhanded or dishonest, why even talk and bare your soul to them? I wouldn't.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is one way to ensure the objectivity of justice and promote a fertile intellectual environment.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Following along the lines of where I just quoted you, and the constant experience of having words and positions improperly attributed to me, it would be an understandable mistake --if I am wrong. I’m willing to pursue this topic with them and hopefully the communication will improve.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Wise choice. You, as an artist, have much you can teach others in art.

Here is how I handle it. If someone tries to teach me something, even in a loud tone of voice, I listen. If I discern he knows more than me, I try to learn. If I discern that he is an amateur or grossly mistaken, I try to correct him. If he persists, I stop.

His loss, not mine.

In your case, after a foodfight, regardless of who wins (and it is usually the audience who loses), you still draw and paint well. That is what you really have to offer.

The most important posts you have made recently were your interactions with Jonathan about caricatures, or your story about your students, etc. A year from now, if anybody reads any of this, those posts will have value. The silly accusations back and forth will be skimmed over.

All that's bullshit. You have real value to offer. And the precious minutes of your life are running. They don't come back. How important are they to you?

Michael

[Judith]

At the risk of annoying people by continuing to harp on Myers-Briggs personality types (sorry, folks -- it's one of my hobbies), one of the strengths of SP types -- which predominate among those with "innate talent" (which, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume exists) in areas like music, sports, dance, and many other fields of endeavor requiring lots and lots of practice -- is that they are perfectly happy practicing for hours and hours on end simply as an end in itself. The activity is the joy in life. In contrast, for NT folks like most of us, competence is the major joy in life. We practice so that we can be good at something; doing something WELL is the major joy in life. It's a subtle but very real difference. The SP doesn't see practicing as "work"; he/she is simply having fun. The NT is working toward an end; the practice is fun only when competence is achieved, and COMPETENT practice can be enjoyed as an end in itself; until then, it's merely a chore.

When I was a teenager, I begged my parents for years to buy me a piano. They finally succumbed to my nagging, and I was ecstatic. I had taught myself to play the first movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" in the practice rooms at school by laboriously penciling in the letters for each note on the music score and memorizing it, and I'd go to the music dealers and play it until my parents were eventually shamed into buying me a piano of my own. About five months after I got my own piano I played the Rachmaninoff C# Minor prelude in a school recital. I was seriously motivated to learn and I loved that piece. In the summer, the upstairs of the house wasn't air conditioned, and I, who have always loathed the heat, would sit up there in a halter and shorts for six hours at a time practicing happily. You see, I thought I was good. Practicing was an end in itself, and I enjoyed doing it for hours at a time. My piano teacher happily let me work on whatever I wanted, even if it was well beyond my ability -- the Grieg piano concerto, all kinds of stuff by Ravel, etc. I'd sit at the piano and play all this hard music, and people who knew I'd been playing for only a year and a half would listen and be really impressed.

When I went to college, I no longer had time to practice. I did, however, continue growing in musical sophistication from choral singing and lots of listening. Then, when I was 29, I bought myself a Steinway upright. It had magnificent sound. Finally, I thought, I can play again.

Well -- no.

My musical sophistication had grown greatly -- to the point where I realized that my technical abilities really stank. Badly. It wasn't that they were merely rusty, it was that I had never really had them to begin with. I started up with lessons again, and the two people who taught me were really encouraging, but I never could get the heart to practice. What I heard in my head and what my hands could do were so VERY far apart, and it seemed that it would take SO long for the two to converge, that eventually I gave up in despair. When I was in high school, I didn't have the musical sophistication to tell the difference between the way I played Satie and the way Cliburn played Satie. Now I did, to my great dismay. While my mind had exquisite musical sensitivity, my hands had the musical sensitivity of a musk ox.

Were I one of those hardy SP types, I'd just sit there for six hours a day and practice happily again and get really good. But I'm one of those NT types who can't bear to torture myself with mediocrity while my hands catch up to my mind. Sigh.

Judith

[Ellen Stuttle]

At the risk of annoying people by continuing to harp on Myers-Briggs personality types (sorry, folks -- it's one of my hobbies), [...].

I for one am intrigued by what you wrote. In my life I've been skilled -- including very skilled -- at a number of activities. But I've never cared (except in circumstances where my livelihood depended on performance) about any kind of comparative assessment. I've done, as much as cicumstances permitted, what I enjoyed and/or had some other personal reason to pursue (such as some kind of question the answer to which made a difference to my own happiness).

I don't know what I'd test on the Myers-Briggs. I've never cared to find out, even though I have an interest in typology. But, you see, I've been studying Jung himself for upward of 25 years. (I'm on the board of directors of an organization here in the Hartford area which gives lectures and workshops on Jungian theory; I know my way around what and how Jung thought.) I've always found the Myers-Briggs keeping the letter and missing the spirit.

I've noticed that you've posted in the "Type Talk" forum, but I confess to only having glanced at most of the posts there. Possibly later I'll have time to read the details and see how the SP/NT difference pans out in terms of my own understanding of typological differences. At minimum we might end up exploring some fascinating stuff.

Ellen

___

[Matus1976]

Michael,

Following along the lines of where I just quoted you, and the constant experience of having words and positions improperly attributed to me, it would be an understandable mistake --if I am wrong. I’m willing to pursue this topic with them and hopefully the communication will improve.

Victor

Speaking of incorrectly attributing positions to someone, I have never once stated, as my premise, that 'all humans are created equally' Michael and Victor, that is not my premise at all. I have never stated that each and every human being is perfectly identical in every way, form, and capacity. Despite your suggestions to the contrary and Victors continual parallels to Marxist utopian ideals, that is not my claim. I have stated repeatedly that

1) the human genetic variation is limited, is in fact the most limited of all species on this planet

2) any genetic contribution to overall talent almost always rears itself as an ultimate limiting force, i.e. the ability for your blood to absorb oxygen or the percentage of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers, etc.

3) The vast majority of great achievers became so only after decades of long, hard, strenuous work.

4) child prodigies are more often than not the result of an emotionally or physically abusive upbringing which forces a child to partake in activities from a very young age that gives them a significant head start over the rest of humanity.

Additionally, the main point I am discussing this is because as an individual, it really is completely irrelevant how much of someone’s ability comes from ‘innate talent’ and ‘hard work’. It is irrelevant because

1) the actual practical effect of any innate ability is extremely limited and is almost entirely confined to limiting your ultimate maximal potential instead of giving you a fundamental neurophysiological advantage over ‘normal’ folk and

2) it serves to psychologically artificially shackle ones own perception of their self perceived abilities and

3) it doesn’t really matter because virtually all people can become good or excellent at virtually anything they decide they want to be good or excellent at.

With that, I believe I will have to bow out of this conversation now because I don't feel it can progress any more. If you guys want to forge your own chains, I can't stop you, I only find it sad and disheartening and would additionally do what I can from preventing these scientifically innacurate concepts from being propogated to the masses, breeding hopelessness and laziness.

[sjw]

Speaking of incorrectly attributing positions to someone, I have never once stated, as my premise, that 'all humans are created equally' Michael and Victor, that is not my premise at all.

And neither did I. In fact I said the opposite, early in this thread. And I objected later when they started claiming that I said the opposite of what I actually said. So it's not as if this hasn't been repeatedly pointed out to them.

With that, I believe I will have to bow out of this conversation now because I don't feel it can progress any more. If you guys want to forge your own chains, I can't stop you,

I agree, but I'm not bowing out, I'm walking off.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Two bad, both times. It looked like the air was starting to clear, communication was being refined, and there was a heading back to the actual ideas.

Still a worthwhile thread, to date.

[Victor Pross]

POST 30: You hit the nail on the head. And raised a good question too: what is the point of deciding that someone's drawing ability is innate? Is it in order to "help" someone figure out when they should give up? What's the practical purpose of knowing the answers to that kind of question?

And that's what the talent people here are doing: deciding. They have no facts to prove their claims. They are obviously biased. E.g., Victor says that if someone doesn't become a good artist, then they must have had no inborn talent. The thing is you can't get inside someone's head (and a person that's inside his own head isn't necessarily good at introspecting). Maybe they used their minds to their fullest and that was as good as they could do, or maybe they had a bunch of hang-ups that in subtle ways made them less able to learn. Maybe some guy *would* have been the next Michelangelo if he had only dug a little deeper. You just can't know. But Victor presumes he knows and decides that the guy must not have had inborn talent.

Shayne,

I have just gone over the chronological progression of this thread to see where the communication break-down occurred—and spotting this contribution from you spoke volumes to me: this one is, I think others would agree, is gruff and defensive and you speak in belittling language by referring to me [and others presumably] derogatorily as “the talent people” and that I presume this and that. It seems to me that nerves were pinched and that was not my original intention, I was entirely an explorer of this subject, taking no definite stand. And yet you suggest that I’m presuming all types of positions --including being able to read minds!

I invite those to read the above post --and the one’s preceding and succeeding it. I think it will help, for other threads and discussions, all to see where communication skills can improve. Having said this, Shayne, you have made very interesting remark and you are clearly a very intelligent person. I don’t say this lightly. You have your own gifts.

Victor

Edited November 9, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

It seemed to me there was an assumption being made, along the lines of "if there is someone that is teaching who believes in innate talent, then recognizes a low level of innate talent in someone they are mentoring/teaching, that belief in innate talent will poison the teacher's approach to effectively helping the student.

And I've seen that happen. I could tell you nightmare stories about stuff that went on at a famous music conservatory-- firsthand stories.

But, it is not an always situation. Dedicated, compassionate, work-smart teachers don't let things like that get in their way, unless they have their own problems (self-esteem comes to mind), in which case they are capable of being destructive.

And then, there's Matus apparently considering this an absolute, among others:

3) it doesn’t really matter because virtually all people can become good or excellent at virtually anything they decide they want to be good or excellent at.

I remain unsure of this because I've seen otherwise. Or did they just not try hard enough? I'm talking some major, long-term sweat and sacrifice here. There seems to definitely be cases where at the least it would be impractical to try to force into something, when the possibility of a greater and smoother success at something else might be possible.

All you need is one exception, and this point 3 is not an absolute.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I started to dig in on your arguments, but I get stumped right at the start.

I have never once stated, as my premise, that 'all humans are created equally...

I admit that this is a deduction. If you say that there is no innate talent, you are saying that there can be no innate differences in talent (because there can be no differences in something that doesn't exist). Thus the conclusion is that, talent-wise, all men are born equal. Do you have any logic that would arrive at a different conclusion?

All the rest of your conclusions are simply unfounded opinions not worth addressing. At the very end, you even made an amazing claim:

If you guys want to forge your own chains, I can't stop you, I only find it sad and disheartening and would additionally do what I can from preventing these scientifically innacurate concepts from being propogated to the masses, breeding hopelessness and laziness.

(Incidentally, the proper spelling is "inaccurate" and "propagated." I suggest using a spelling checker.)

My own experience as a teacher, which takes into account natural talent and uses different strategies for different aptitudes, has been the exact opposite of what you speculate. Instead of "breeding hopelessness and laziness," my students (both gifted and normal) have become high achievers in life. And I certainly have not abused any of them.

I find your opinion that "child prodigies are more often than not the result of an emotionally or physically abusive upbringing" not only inaccurate (and I do wonder if your main source of information is soap operas and The National Enquirer), it is gratuitously insulting to their parents. Here are some links to organizations devoted to gifted children, oodles of children with innate talents (or aptitudes) whose parents most definitely do not abuse their children:

National Association for Gifted Children - If you are interested, see the essay, WHAT IS GIFTED?, and you will see a wide range of differences on definitions, however innate capacity that develops automatically is definitely one of them (and some do call this talent). In terms of semantics and definitions, I liked Gagné's approach so much that I will quote from the article. I think his work bears closer examination. (The only limitation I see is a strong comparative age group focus as a fundamental premise for classification, and the groups could change over time, but you have to start somewhere. I also am in doubt about "extrasensory" as a category.)

Gagné: Gagné proposes a clear distinction between giftedness and talent. In his model, the term giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities (called aptitudes or gifts) in at least one ability domain to a degree that places a child among the top 10% of his or her age peers. By contrast, the term talent designates the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places a child's achievement within the upper 10% of age-peers who are active in that field or fields. His model presents five aptitude domains: intellectual, creative, socioaffective, sensorimotor and "others" (e.g. extrasensory perception). These natural abilities, which have a clear genetic substratum, can be observed in every task children are confronted with in the course of their schooling. (Gagné, F., 1985)

The National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children - There is a quote in the opening article that is especially poignant. Notice that public education implements your (Michael D's) assertion that there are no natural talents by imposing the same curriculum at the same speed on all children.

Many gifted children are being destroyed in the public education system. Many gifted children are being falsely labeled with ADD as well as ADHD. And many parents are unaware their child/children could be potentially gifted.

Prufrock Press - "Prufrock Press Inc. publishes books, textbooks, teaching aids, journals, and magazines supporting gifted education and gifted children."

The American Association for Gifted Children

Gifted Child Society

The Hollingworth Center for Highly Gifted Children

Council for Exceptional Children, particularly a page entitled Gifted Education/Dual Exceptionalities

Gifted Development Center

Hoagies

Now this is simply a list of links on the first page of a Google search I made using the words: gifted children. I got a total of 2,750,000 hits. That is a hell of a lot of evidence to ignore.

I strongly suggest you check your premises--especially "... as an individual, it really is completely irrelevant how much of someone’s ability comes from ‘innate talent’ and ‘hard work’." As you can see, for an individual child, in education, this difference is particularly relevant--even crucial at times--especially when he is misdiagnosed with learning/behavior disorders and subjected to unneeded medication.

Thankfully, there are many people who do address the issue of innate talent and are doing something positive to provide proper educational environments for asynchronous development needs. I am glad I made a Google search and looked at some of these places. The educational situation for children with innate talents is far better than I suspected. Life as a human being is pretty darn good at times.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael Dickey's post #166 has features of a type which really irritate me. I get irritated when people proclaim in the name of science that something is positively known which is nothing of the kind. A current large-scale (and potentially mega-unfortunate in practical terms) example is that of the global-warming scare. I couldn't begin to tell you how often I hear -- and even from a dismayingly large percentage of scientists -- that it has been conclusively demonstrated that there is human-caused global warming. Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated. It hasn't even been conclusively demonstrated that there's long-term global warming, period, let alone that if there is, there's an anthrogenic contribution.

"Science" taken as authority can be hazardous to one's health.

Michael D. asserts:

1) the human genetic variation is limited, is in fact the most limited of all species on this planet

Where, I wonder, is he getting that? Variation measured how? Variation in what respects?

Next:

2) any genetic contribution to overall talent almost always rears itself as an ultimate limiting force, i.e. the ability for your blood to absorb oxygen or the percentage of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers, etc.

I find this statement incredible. What is he saying? Is the claim, for instance, that he knows that there are no genetic contributions to differences in ease of learning, both in general (what's called "general intelligence," if there is such a factor) and in particular (differences in ease at learning specific skills)? Is the claim, for instance, that a person who's tall, slim, well-coordinated, swift at running has no advantage as a basketballplayer over a short, stocky, clumsy person? (Would he say that there's no genetic contribution to these physical differences?) Etc., etc. "Overall talent" is a big category, and he's ruling out by fiat at least "almost" all possibility of initial advantage.

3) The vast majority of great achievers became so only after decades of long, hard, strenuous work.

And? So what? Even if this is true, it's a statement about percentages. It doesn't demonstrate the negative, that there are NO people who exhibit skill prior to putting in "decades of long, hard, strenuous work." (In other words, how to use statistics to eliminate variability. AR, btw, would have had a fit; she was extremely negative on the practice of drawing conclusions from statistics.)

4) child prodigies are more often than not the result of an emotionally or physically abusive upbringing which forces a child to partake in activities from a very young age that gives them a significant head start over the rest of humanity.

Same comment as to (3).

He then continues to say that the reason he's discussing the subject is "because as an individual, it really is completely irrelevant how much of someone’s ability comes from ‘innate talent’ and ‘hard work’."

I can agree with that much, as stated. In exercising a skill, it doesn't matter where the skill comes from. I also agree that it would be psychologically harmful if a person believes that there are those with talent and he/she isn't one of them thus he/she might as well give up. I can sympathize with Michael's worry about people being dissuaded from various pursuits by self-limiting ideas about the nature of talent.

But I object to his concluding sentiment:

If you guys want to forge your own chains, I can't stop you, I only find it sad and disheartening and would additionally do what I can from preventing these scientifically innacurate concepts from being propogated to the masses, breeding hopelessness and laziness.

The first sentence indicates to me that he still isn't paying attention to what others here are in fact saying. No one here is forging any chains. As to scientific accuracy, I suggest that Michael himself has some learning to do about correct procedures of scientific conclusion-drawing.

I've written this post speaking in the 3rd person instead of the 2nd person -- that is, speaking to the general audience about what MD wrote instead of directing my remarks to MD -- since (a) he's said he's bowing out; and (b ) I don't think he reads my posts in any case (e.g., he never answered though I asked politely three times what years he meant about Einstein).

Ellen

___

Edited November 9, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And I objected later when they started claiming that I said the opposite of what I actually said.

Shayne,

Part of that "they" was me and I did not maintain that point after you objected (you can check the posts). I did not formally retract it, I just started treating your arguments correctly. I took my cue from you. I figured, from your behavior with respect to other points where you were corrected--especially some wrong presumptions about other posters, you did not need a retraction. I figured that since you didn't retract, you wouldn't require this of anybody else.

(Nice gesture on the "walk off" thing. I didn't really get the point but it sounded good. For the record, if and when you discuss the ideas, your input is more than welcome. It is valued. If and when you wish to impose nastiness on the discussion, I actually prefer you to have "walked off.")

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Gagné: Gagné proposes a clear distinction between giftedness and talent.

[....]

Many gifted children are being destroyed in the public education system. Many gifted children are being falsely labeled with ADD as well as ADHD. And many parents are unaware their child/children could be potentially gifted.

You posted while I was writing my post, MSK. I like Gagné's distinction between giftedness and talent. I think it clarifies the issues.

As to the fate of gifted children in today's public education system: Ain't it the truth?

I shudder to think of what would become of me were I a child today in today's school system, by contrast to what did happen in my own schooling. I was always what today would be diagnosed as "hyperactive." I wouldn't be surprised if I'd be drugged were I kid in school today. Furthermore, to be held back to the pace of others... (Horror.) As it was, from the start of my schooling career I was blessed by very fine teachers -- all but a couple of them were very good; a few were spectacularly good. Starting when I was in first grade, provisions were made so that I could pursue little projects of my own. A particularly notable example was in fourth grade when my best friend and I were given the use of a spare room in which to produce a little play which I had written (it was performed, by actors from our class, for the whole school). Or in eighth grade when my grammar teacher, recognizing my interest in and knack for grammar, left me alone to study by myself her collection of esoteric grammar tomes. I ended up teaching her a trick or two. And she utilized my knowledge to leave me to teach the class while she went off to work on other chores (she was the editor of the gradeschool newspaper, also the director of the school choir). When I got to high school, instead of my having to sit through "study halls," I was allowed from freshman year on (usually the privilege wasn't extended until junior year) to be a "page." This meant that I got to carry messages from the school office around through the halls -- say, a message that a teacher was supposed to phone a particular person, or this, that or other detail of school business.

I think that were I in the public school system today, I'd instead feel that I was in prison -- and my whole "attitude" would be different than it was.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

I have never once stated, as my premise, that 'all humans are created equally...

I admit that this is a deduction. If you say that there is no innate talent, you are saying that there can be no innate differences in talent (because there can be no differences in something that doesn't exist). Thus the conclusion is that, talent-wise, all men are born equal. Do you have any logic that would arrive at a different conclusion?

What an excellent post, Michael.

Yes, exactly. I might have been a tad overstated by tossing in Marxist egalitarianism—but I have said numerous times that we are simply not created equally, this being the logical implication of granting the premise that all of us can do anything--if we just really “work hard at it” Dog-gone it.

I wish I performed the simple expediency of googling “gifted children,” Michael, but I suppose I overlooked it—or my bulb is simply not as bright as yours.

Victor

Edited November 9, 2006 by Victor Pross