What is talent?

[Jonathan]

Michael D writes:

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.

So, when the masses hear Michael D's views that anyone can become the next Einstein or Michelangelo, and they ask him why he hasn't done so, and he answers, "Just because a person is capable of great things doesn't mean that he owes it to himself to do them," will they be inspired to start working really hard at developing their abilities, or will they become hopeless and lazy, reciting Michael's words that just because one could doesn't mean that one ought to?

J

[Judith]

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 don't know that either the NT or the SP type is necessarily particularly competitive or comparative in nature.

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.

If you've studied Jung, to put it briefly, NT corresponds to the Promethian personality and SP corresponds to the Dionysian personality. I've read only one short book on Jung -- enough to know what "synchronicity" is -- and I'd love to know more; so much to do and learn, so little time, the need to make a living....

Judith

Edited November 9, 2006 by Judith

[sjw]

Nice gesture on the "walk off" thing. I didn't really get the point but it sounded good.

Here's the point. The "talent people" have incessantly distorted Michael D's and my position. And they continue to do so since I walked off--everything you guys are responding to is a straw man. Everything you say that we allegedly said or meant is a totally bogus phantom you fabricated, either because you just could not grasp what we said, or worse, that you refuse to. We have tried to set you straight on what we meant (i.e., on what we actually *said* vs. your bizarre distortions), to no avail, so what's the point of continuing? There is no point.

And that's not mentioning Victor and his "art".

Shayne

[Judith]

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.

I have to agree with Rich here. Let's take the example of concert pianists. Why are there some first-rank pianists in their 20s and some second-rank pianists in their 50s and 60s? The older ones have had a lot longer to practice, but the younger ones are getting the gigs at Lincoln Center while the older ones are playing at the minor halls when they can get gigs at all. And it's not necessarily marketing -- the younger ones really are better players.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

Ayn Rand: At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the

potential of awareness -- the mechanism of a human

consciousness -- but no content. Speaking metaphorically,

he has a camera with an extremely sensitive, unexposed

film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex

computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious).

Both are blank.

To my mind, Ayn Rand meant “tabula rasa” in a very specific sense: no innate ideas—which is a very different thing than “aptitude” or “talent.” According to Rand, conceptual knowledge is learned, and done so by effort and choice. So given this, maybe there is no real fundamental clash.

As MSK has noted on some other thread:

“I would call an infant a "conceptual tabula rasa," or use the tabula rasa description as a general metaphor for higher learning, but I would not exclude all the basic drives (including strong innate capacities that we call talent) that most certainly do result in automatic value judgments.” If one consults a philosophical dictionary, one may discover that tabula rasa refers to concepts and conceptual volition”

So there really should not be any clash between the “talent people” and the “tabula rasa” people. They can walk side-by-side in harmony.

Still, a general statement as to why this subject seems to pinch some nerves: I have come dozens of Objectivists over the years who claim that one can be the next Einstein or Edison, or Rand for that matter, simply by the application of effort and the correct philosophical principles. Lord, this seems to me wishful thinking--or what is sometimes called “magical thinking.” But this does not mean that one should not hone and develop the ability or gifts one DOES have.

It is a Marxist fantasy that we all can be a rocket scientist, an artist, a movie star, a model, a musicn, a brick layer, a nuclear physisist, etc—but it is the capitalsit society of speciaization that prevents it. The Blank Slate idea [or as it is understood by some] is a cozy idea for anyone who thinks human beings are essentially interchangeable. But human beings are obviously not born identical: they have different colored hair, eyes and skin, different facial shapes, different hereditary health problems, some are left-handed or right-handed,etc. Is it unreasonable to suspect our brains might be different--and that the differences aren't limited to IQ? Do we not observe that some kids are simply smarter than others --and more talented--and that it isn't always possible to explain these behaviors as a product of "experience" or "conceptual effort"?

And what about genetic dispositions? Does this not vary from person to person?

Victor

Edited November 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Really, why the bunny ears around the word “art”? I'm hurt!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the point. The "talent people" have incessantly distorted Michael D's and my position. And they continue to do so since I walked off--everything you guys are responding to is a straw man. Everything you say that we allegedly said or meant is a totally bogus phantom you fabricated, either because you just could not grasp what we said, or worse, that you refuse to. We have tried to set you straight on what we meant (i.e., on what we actually *said* vs. your bizarre distortions), to no avail, so what's the point of continuing? There is no point.

Shayne

Everything? Dayaamm! How stupid of us. Now why do I get the impression that this is exactly what the "no-talent people" have been doing--and poorly at that? Might it be what is written in their posts?

You know, we don't have to keep this up. It is only done by choice.

Please lower your guns. There's an intelligent discussion going on and this kind of stuff interferes. If you don't want to take part, that's up to you. You have made it clear that you think most posters here are idiots or dishonest. We get it.

(You are wrong, too.)

Now back to the discussion.

To the others:

I am very interested in how to foster talent. I have done this a good part of my professional life. Part of the reason for OL coming into existence was to encourage people to write, create and produce, especially with some kind of Objectivist focus, but not exclusively.

As David Kelley said, an Objectivist thinker must be a thinker first and an Objectivist second. This extends to writers and artists. To be an Objectivist writer, it is necessary to be a writer first, then an Objectivist. I believe that the mistake on inverting this priority is the reason there is so much poor quality writing and art in general from Objectivists.

Even Peikoff complained about this in the DIM course I just listened to, saying that he has seen way too many Objectivists trying to ape Ayn Rand without trying to be artists. He used different words, but that was the gist of his message. (It is somewhere in Lecture 5, if I am not mistaken.) He mentioned an amusing case where a so-called writer claimed that no good Objectivist writing could be done using a farm as a background--a city and industries were needed.

The mistakes I have seen are not so superficial, so they are not that comical. In writing fiction, they usually involve arrogant posturing and pretentiousness, stick figure characters, no real plot to speak of, poor and rigid style, hell, I could go on all night. A refreshing recent exception was Noble Vision by Gen LaGreca, which was a pretty good first novel with good characters, storyline and style.

But back to the issue. When I was learning music, I discovered that within musical disciplines, I had a lot more innate talent for manipulating rhythm and timbre than for pitch. I believe it was important for me to understand that because it allowed me to approach learning in general, and in preparing scores, playing and composing (then later in pop music, producing shows and records) in a fashion that was custom-made for my capacities.

Strangely enough, I don't have much innate talent for keyboard, so I only play piano very haltingly (despite a heroic effort to master it). I just couldn't get it and I only developed enough to get by for composing and testing some harmonies, etc., but that is all. The trombone, however, was another story. I took to it like a fish to water.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

On nourishing talent, a very fast answer: When I was a teacher of teens, I would begin a fresh class by simply having the students complete a few drawings [portraits for example] without any input on my part, leaving the class entirely to their own devices. I would stand-by offering nothing--simply draw as best as you can. At the end of the class, I would gather all the drawings up and file them away. "Good-night, see you next class."

I would then move on--having everybody forget those first drawings. Time would move on. Finally, after grueling months of rigorous classes, assignments and home work, I would, on the very last class, reproduce those crude first drawings placing them side-by-side with the by now more advanced work. The improvement was clearly evident and even shocking. The contrast was immediate and inspiring. "I can't believe this shit is mine...and that I can now do THIS!"

Do you see the method of my madness? My emphasis was to underscore the importance of practice, practice, practice. You see, many students are unable to perceive their improvement when it comes in increments, as they are too busy being self-critical, and this can give way to despair. My way, the contrast from "crude to better" is undeniable--and the accomplishment is due to diligence and practice.

This invigorates the student and motivates them to do his or her homework and practice, practice, practice. This was only one way to nourish talent.

Victor

Edited November 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

As David Kelley said, an Objectivist thinker must be a thinker first and an Objectivist second. This extends to writers and artists. To be an Objectivist writer, it is necessary to be a writer first, then an Objectivist. I believe that the mistake on inverting this priority is the reason there is so much poor quality writing and art in general from Objectivists.

Even Peikoff complained about this in the DIM course I just listened to, saying that he has seen way too many Objectivists trying to ape Ayn Rand without trying to be artists. He used different words, but that was the gist of his message. (It is somewhere in Lecture 5, if I am not mistaken.) He mentioned an amusing case where a so-called writer claimed that no good Objectivist writing could be done using a farm as a background--a city and industries were needed.

YES!! I think too many people assume that an Objectivist novel needs to be a polemic novel. An Objectivist novel just needs to be a novel written by an Objectivist. If the story is good, and the writer writes about people like him/herself, the philosophy will come through naturally, without beating people over the head with it. Rand herself said that plot is everything.

And someone should point out to the dimwit who said that no good Objectivist writing could be done using a farm as a background that many of the heroes in Galt's Gulch were doing just exactly that: farming.

Judith

[Judith]

Do you see the method of my madness? My emphasis was to underscore the importance of practice, practice, practice. You see, many students are unable to perceive their improvement when it comes in increments, as they are too busy being self-critical, and this can give way to despair. My way, the contrast from "crude to better" is undeniable--and the accomplishment is due to diligence and practice.

YES!! God knows, I fall victim to this kind of thing myself only too often, especially in my riding. My riding trainer is often reminding me of how far I've come. Unfortunately, it's not easy to pull out something as concrete as a former drawing to show me my progress; even a video of me riding a year before wouldn't be quite as dramatic, because much of the differences are a matter of feel, and my eye isn't educated enough to see the differences in the horse that result from my own improvements. But if a teacher can overcome that kind of despair by pulling out concrete evidence of progress, it's a godsend.

Judith

Edited November 10, 2006 by Judith

[Rich Engle]

Lowering the guns is always best practice in discussion. The guns can and will come out, and all that does is point out things that all parties involved would best work on. I include myself in that, of course.

It's like Heinlein talked about sex. He said "Sex should be friendly."

And we do have to allow for the medium. Even though the people here all write very well, fluently, tone is ever-so-subtle and easily misconstrued. Yes, there is tone in writing, just like anything else.

The big thing I still see is that somehow things came to pass that two people at least found themselves in a place where it got personal. I am sure that no one wants that. This is supposed to be fun, it's icing on the cake to even have a forum to discuss intellectual ideas.

[Matus1976]

Victor said, and MSK expressed similar sentiment:

“But human beings are obviously not born identical: they have different colored hair, eyes and skin, different facial shapes, different hereditary health problems, some are left-handed or right-handed,etc. Is it unreasonable to suspect our brains might be different--and that the differences aren't limited to IQ? Do we not observe that some kids are simply smarter than others --and more talented--and that it isn't always possible to explain these behaviors as a product of "experience" or "conceptual effort"?”

No, obviously they are not identical, but by what logic do you presume that the same amount of variation that exists in height, skin color, etc, exists for individual organs? Are stomachs from one person genetically that much different from stomachs of another? Spleens? Pancreases? Surely variations exist, but is the percentage of genetic variation as extreme as that which we see in height and skin color? In fact these physical differentiations of body height, skin color, etc, are extremely superificial and are usually related to specific selection advantages in particular climates, tall thin bodies for hot areas, short round bodies for colder climates, epicanthic folds for wind swept regions, etc. etc. Do you think that if you graphed the genetic distribution of height across the population that the graph for intelligence capacity and innate talent would be identical? By what knowledge do you have that you make this presumption? For all you know, the graph could show 1/10 the distribution, or 1/100th. The fact is neither of you know the extent of genetic nueral differences, you have a few stories about ‘gifted’ children, see some short people and some tall people, and extrapolate that as proof that a huge variation of mental capacity exists. It is not logical. Given the fact that virtually anyone can be made to be great or even excellent at virtually anything (I still have heard anyone explain how a father raised 3 chess grandmasters out of his daughters) it’s clear evidence that minds differ from one another to such a limited extent that while it may prevent you from being the greatest ever of all humans who have ever existed in a particular field, it presents no obstacles to becoming good or great at whatever it is you want to do.

Additionally, comparisons between normal physical distributions like height are extremely inaccurate when applied to the brain because people have little ability to affect the structure of their body but an immense amount of capacity to alter their own brain. It would be similar if in routine stretching exercises one could make themselves taller or in squatting exercises fatter, or in long term endurance muscular training convert fast twitch muscle fiber to slow twitch. But they can not (aside from a very limited effect you can have during critical developmental years in childhood) The brain modifies itself with every single new idea and thought you have, new concept you form. And every idea and concept makes learning more easier.

As for the questions on Human Genetic Variation, I have read a similar comment in different biology and science books, but Wikipedia has some references to it as well

Human genetic variation –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse—a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution (Li and Sadler 1991; Kaessmann et al. 2001). For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004).

Googling ‘gifted children’ means nothing, as young children who work hard at something they are interested in are always ‘gifted’ in that something, regardless of any alleged ‘innate’ talent. That ‘gifted children’ exist is certainly not any kind of refutation on my position and that you think it is indicates you seriously misunderstand virtually everything I have been saying. Absolutely nothing about my position precludes intelligent children doing amazing things. The difference is you attribute it to some mystical genetic gift, of which there is no evidence to suggest it exists, and I attribute it to the actions and interests of the child. I have said repeatedly not that there is no differences between people, but that those differences are so minimal as to hardly be worth considering. Thus your ‘logical conclusion’ that I said “there are not innate differences, thus everyone is identical” is, at least, very disingenuous interpretation of what I was saying, and at worst just plain dishonest.

In post #28, I said “It is only your maximum potential and maximum capacity that is limited by any innate talent”

In post #31 I said “it could very well be that you might be a much much better violinist than Yo Yo Ma but you'd never know because you never picked up a violon to find out, let alone spent 100,000 hours perfecting your ability to play it”

In post #35 I said “My point is, it really doesn’t matter, if ‘natural’ talent plays a role, the major role it plays is defining your ultimate limit,”

And “If there is an influence of ‘innate’ talent, it is extremely difficult to identify and would come from a complex interplay of many different genes. You would hardly be able to decipher its influence until you learn what your ultimate limitation was”

In post #37 I said “the ‘natural talent’ myth when hard science shows it, at most, barely relevant.”

In post #43 I said “Abolishing the 'natural talent' myth (which, again, the scientific evidence suggests has very little effect if any) simple means that people will again understand the magnitude of their own potential.”

In post #104 I said “it is very clear, scientifically, and of course subsequently very true, that innate talent plays a marginal and barely detectable role in emergence of geniuses or people who are great in their field”

In post #113 I said “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”

In post #119 I said “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.”

In post #130 I said “And with the previous plethora of evidence showing the massive capacity and plasticity of a human brain and how utilizing it requires a massive amount of effort and hard work, it seems pretty reasonable to consider any kind of innate talent barely relevant if not a complete outright myth.”

And then, after all that, MSK says (in post #150)

“But let us grant your premise, that all infants are born biologically equal in mental capacity”

!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it in wonder that this conversation is aggravating to me? I have said, in almost every single one of my posts, something that acknowledged that innate talent may exist, but emphasizes if it does it is extremely limited in effect, is greatly overshadowed by actual hard work and effort, and probably only really manifests itself as an ultimate limitation. Yet Both MSK and Victor turn around and assert that I am promulgating some communist egalitatarian utopia.

-------

Scientific American “The Expert Mind”

http://scientificamerican.com/print_versio...F9E83414B7F4945

“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.”

“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 school”

What it takes to be great

Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...91794/index.htm

Of note “Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well. British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

The Myth of Prodigy and Why it Matters

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observ...cle.cfm?id=2026

The other way to look at precocity is of course to work backward — to look at adult geniuses and see what they were like as kids. A number of studies have taken this approach, Gladwell said, and they find a similar pattern. A study of 200 highly accomplished adults found that just 34 percent had been considered in any way precocious as children. He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci (“that famous code-maker”). “None of [them] would have made it into Hunter College,” Gladwell observed.

[Rich Engle]

I always like the occasional nuggets you run into when you read articles about this...

He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci (“that famous code-maker”). “None of [them] would have made it into Hunter College,” Gladwell observed.

Uh, why yes, yes indeedy!!

rde

"He was a high-powered mutant: too weird to live, too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson

[Ellen Stuttle]

On the genetic-variation issue (I haven't time now to comment on the rest of MD's post 187):

As for the questions on Human Genetic Variation, I have read a similar comment in different biology and science books, but Wikipedia has some references to it as well

Human genetic variation –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse—a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution (Li and Sadler 1991; Kaessmann et al. 2001). For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004).

I thought so on that one. What's being talked about in the wikipedia source -- and I'd expect in the other sources he's seen as well -- is the issue of racial differences:

[quoting the Wikipedia article]

Any biological model for race must account for the development of racial differences during human evolution. [....] Each model suggests different possible scenarios for the evolution of distinct races.

The small range of intraspecies variability in racial characteristics amongst humans as compared to many other mammalian species says nothing about the possible range of individual variance at birth in human brains.

Re differences from human to human in bodily organs, MD writes:

No, obviously [brains] are not identical, but by what logic do you presume that the same amount of variation that exists in height, skin color, etc, exists for individual organs? Are stomachs from one person genetically that much different from stomachs of another? Spleens? Pancreases? Surely variations exist, but is the percentage of genetic variation as extreme as that which we see in height and skin color?

Googlers here might be interested in checking out the work of nutritionist Roger Williams (I hope I have his name right) for interesting information on the extent of morphological differences in stomachs, spleens, pancreases.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Is it in wonder that this conversation is aggravating to me? I have said, in almost every single one of my posts, something that acknowledged that innate talent may exist, but emphasizes if it does it is extremely limited in effect, is greatly overshadowed by actual hard work and effort, and probably only really manifests itself as an ultimate limitation. Yet Both MSK and Victor turn around and assert that I am promulgating some communist egalitatarian utopia.

I’m not saying that you are purposely promulgating any egalitarian utopia, but rather that you are proceeding from a relevant fundamental premise of the egalitarians, if even by implication, if not intention. I am saying that human beings are not equal—beyond the moral choices they make and their hair color and such. It is this loud 'sameness, sameness' I'm getting from you.

We are, perhaps, tackling this issue from two different angles: of course human being are greatly similar in many ways [hence the concept “human being]—and which you are calling attention to. I am speaking of where we—as human beings--are as unique as finger prints—and that includes finger prints. This is my focus.

More later.

Victor

Edited November 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

If someone is having limitations because of innate talent, that's a psychological issue. It's not the innate ability's fault-- skill is always useful.

There are things that happen, though. For instance, if someone has been determined "gifted," it used to be and sometimes still is that they can get put in all accelerated classes, and then maybe a language or math deficiency develops.

Or, if a young person is told they are "gifted," how they accept/don't accept that knowledge can be a problem. I've heard kids in that place say that they didn't want the "gift," they just want (at that age) to fit in with everyone else.

But still, the talent itself a drawback? I don't see how.

[Matus1976]

[quoting the Wikipedia article]

Any biological model for race must account for the development of racial differences during human evolution. [....] Each model suggests different possible scenarios for the evolution of distinct races.

The small range of intraspecies variability in racial characteristics amongst humans as compared to many other mammalian species says nothing about the possible range of individual variance at birth in human brains.

But it does speak to the idea that the total amount of human variation is extremely limited, which is the point I was making all along. Referencing in comparison to other species was only to convey an understanding about the extent of the genetic variation present in humans, not as proof their brains don't differ. I am pretty confident that you know exactly what I meant and why I quoted that. If you have something productive to contribute please do, like what IS the human genetic variation available in human brains? WHAT DOES THE CURVE LOOK LIKE? Do you have any INFORMATION to contribute, or do you seek only to attack me and twist my comments? What ARE the morphological differences in stomachs and pancreases, what is the average genetic difference between them? How about some INFORMATION.

[Matus1976]

On the genetic-variation issue (I haven't time now to comment on the rest of MD's post 187):

As for the questions on Human Genetic Variation, I have read a similar comment in different biology and science books, but Wikipedia has some references to it as well

Human genetic variation –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse—a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution (Li and Sadler 1991; Kaessmann et al. 2001). For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004).

I thought so on that one. What's being talked about in the wikipedia source -- and I'd expect in the other sources he's seen as well -- is the issue of racial differences:

Ellen, the next sentence is "Two random humans are expected to differ at approximately 1 in 1000 nucleotides, whereas two random chimpanzees differ at 1 in 500 nucleotide pairs." That is certainly not a discussion confined to RACIAL differences, even so, When was it determined that RACE was not a part of genetic variation? Is there some new means of heredity recently discovered that is transferred outside of the genome? I must have missed the Nobel prize handed out for that one. Any discussion of racial differences is inherently a discussion of genetic differences. It's just that race is the genetic difference most people concern themselves with, and not morphological differences in stomachs and pancreases. Never the less, of the nucleotides which direct the growth and development of a stomach, or a human brain, only 1 in 1,000 are different between any two random humans, which means humans tend to differ by about .1%. Given that most of our DNA is junk DNA, the actual percentage difference is even less.

My point being, of course, is that there is not a lot of room in this small variation for huge innate talents to hide.

[Rich Engle]

My point being, of course, is that there is not a lot of room in this small variation for huge innate talents to hide

How much "room" would it require? What would that number be?

Humans are very subtle, complicated creatures. I think maybe a little bit goes a long way. We've been studying ourselves for a very long time and we're still finding new things.

[Rich Engle]

Here's an evolutionary psychology view, from Dutton's "Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology" (The Oxford Handbook for Aesthetics). Just another take, thought it might be interesting.

Evolutionary psychology extends the findings of Darwinian theory to the working of the human psyche. In particular, it treats our mental capacities, inclinations, and desires as adaptations developed in the last two million years-since the Pleistocene era (Barkow et al. 1992). These features of the mind were fully developed in their modern form by about 10,000 years ago, the beginning of the Holocene, the period that saw the introduction of agriculture and cities, and the development of writing and metal tools. Since then, the human brain has not significantly changed in its genetic character (Mithen 1996). Rather than regarding the mind at birth as a content-free, blank slate on which are inscribed the skills and values of the culture of an individual, evolutionary psychology posits the existence of innate interests, capacities, and tastes, laid down through processes of natural and sexual selection. Evolutionary psychology replaces the blank slate as a metaphor for mind with the Swiss army knife: the mind is a set of tools and capacities specifically adapted to important tasks and interests. These acquisitions are adaptations to life in the small hunter-gatherer bands in which our ancestors lived for 100,000 generations before civilization as we now understand it began. They include a long list of universal features of the Stone Age, hunter-gatherer mind: for example language use according to syntactic rules; kinship systems with incest avoidance; phobias, e.g. fear of snakes and spiders; child-nurturing interests; nepotism, the favouring of blood relations; a sense of justice, fairness, and obligations associated with emotions of anger and revenge; the capacity to make and use hand tools; status and rank ordering in human relations; a sense of food purity and contamination; and so forth (Pinker 1997). Some of these features are uniform across the human species; others are statistically related to sex; for instance, females are more inclined towards an interest in child nurturing and have a greater ability to remember details in visual experience, while males are more physically aggressive, and better able to determine directionality and engage in “map reading.”

Two features of art immediately link it with these psychological factors. First, art-forms are found everywhere cross-culturally. There exists no known human culture that does not display some form of expressive making that European cultures would identify as artistic (Dissanayake 1995). This does not mean that all cultures have all artforms: the Japanese tea ceremony, widely regarded as an art, does not have any close analogue in the West; the Sepik River people of New Guinea are passionate carvers, and stand in sharp contrast with their fellow New Guineans from that Highlands, who direct their energies into body decoration and the production of fighting shields, but who carve very little (Dutton 2000). The Dinka of East Africa have almost no visual art, but have a highly developed poetry, along with a connoisseur’s fascination with the forms, colours, and patterns of the natural markings on the cattle they depend on for their livelihoods. That these and other cultures have practices and products that we would recognize as artistic begs for an account from evolutionary psychology. The very universality of art strongly suggests that it is connected with ancient psychological adaptations.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A Newton and Einstein comment.

I often think, when I read statements to the effect that anyone, given diligence and application, could accomplish what Newton and Einstein did, that the person making the statement simply doesn't understand the nature of the achievements involved. This isn't to say that I think that there was necessarily some actual innate brain difference operative in Newton's and Einstein's vastly integrative accomplishments. I think they were both smarter than the average, but there's much more than being smart involved in theorizing with such scope as they brought to the issues they considered. And there's also the factor -- in addition to the way in which they approached questions -- of their both being at a fortuitous junction-stage in the development of science. The time as well as the mind was right. "Genius" is multifaceted. It doesn't result from some single factor. It's an intersection of personal ability, effort, and historical context. My point isn't to diminish the contribution of effort. But I think that in an odd obverse fashion, if effort (fueled by interest) is seen as providing by far the largest part of the mix, this diminishes what the really great thinkers have done. Others could expend as much or more effort and not get close to forming the sort of major insights produced by a Newton or Einstein.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

What I find interesting—and reveling—is that extraordinary children are tacitly recognized—except they are being argued away as being the product of “Mommie Dearest” type parents who pressure their children—as if force would imbue the children with the gift for art, music, math and such. Let’s not grant the existence of gifted human beings at all costs. Any such ostensible gifts being displayed must have something to do with “external factors” such as environment...or Joan Crawford...or the hundreds of hours of practice the children have not yet utilized.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, the next sentence is "Two random humans are expected to differ at approximately 1 in 1000 nucleotides, whereas two random chimpanzees differ at 1 in 500 nucleotide pairs." That is certainly not a discussion confined to RACIAL differences, even so, When was it determined that RACE was not a part of genetic variation?

HUH?? Who said that race isn't a part of genetic variation?

Is there some new means of heredity recently discovered that is transferred outside of the genome? I must have missed the Nobel prize handed out for that one. Any discussion of racial differences is inherently a discussion of genetic differences. It's just that race is the genetic difference most people concern themselves with, and not morphological differences in stomachs and pancreases. Never the less, of the nucleotides which direct the growth and development of a stomach, or a human brain, only 1 in 1,000 are different between any two random humans, which means humans tend to differ by about .1%. Given that most of our DNA is junk DNA, the actual percentage difference is even less.

Michael, the point of the article is that subspecies differences aren't extensive in humans, not that there isn't considerable individual variation from one human to another. I think you are mixing up two issues.

My point being, of course, is that there is not a lot of room in this small variation for huge innate talents to hide.

Judging from your post 187, you appear to have an idea of what "innate talent" even means which is different from what others here are thinking of. You do seem to have an extreme environmentalist view -- like that of Behaviorism. (John Watson famously said he could take any child and condition it to any result.) I'm wondering, too, if you're someone of an extreme AI approach or something like that...your emphasis on the supposed enormous plasticity of the brain is one often encountered among AI enthusiasts. I recommend that you read Pinker's The Blank Slate if you haven't read that. (There are respects in which I think Pinker is open to serious question also, but he does provide some excellent counterweight to extreme environmentalism.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

But [the Wikepedia article] does speak to the idea that the total amount of human variation is extremely limited, which is the point I was making all along.

Michael, that article gets nowhere to demonstrating the views you're propounding. Not even out of the starting gate.

I am pretty confident that you know exactly what I meant and why I quoted that.

Your confidence is misplaced. I do not know what you meant or what you mean. I think what you're doing is misinterpreting and misapplying your "data point." As to the variation available in human brains, I do not know what "the curve" looks like, and neither do you, and neither does anyone else at this stage of investigation. We're very much still in the stage of hypothesizing.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael D,

We are starting to make some progress. As I understand your position, you claim that natural talent exists, however its real importance in learning is minuscule or nonexistent.

Is that fair?

Now here is where we have been getting into trouble. In one breath you claim that its importance should have no bearing on a person's attitude toward developing a skill and that he should go as far as his biology will let him, and in another, you claim (and constantly insinuate) that it has insignificant bearing on the actual development of a skill.

Then you have the typical aggressive posture in O-Land of accusing those who look and say, "This exists," as wanting to propagate hopelessness and those kind of weird conclusions. (I could say some really sarcastic things about motives here, but I will not. I prefer to appeal to the best within you and get back to reason.)

If we can cut out the gratuitous stubbornness and urge to insult others, we can actually use the best part of our minds for understanding (the rational part) and get somewhere.

As I understand it, the problem under discussion is what to do about innate talent and you actually agree that this is the issue also. We disagree on degree.

So here are my thoughts on degree. If your contention is to not let innate talent negatively affect your attitude in learning something, realizing that the brain can be trained to go beyond its apparent limitations, I fully agree and would even like to go into this by discussing strategies, identifying self-defeating behavior, analyzing how to keep morale up, etc. If your contention is to ignore innate talent completely, especially in educational considerations, I completely disagree and consider such a stance as rationalistic to the extreme and damaging to both gifted and limited children.

You certainly don't help your case by trying to prove through Wikipedia that innate talent differences are so minuscule that they need no consideration whatsoever. They are part of reality and pretending they don't exist flies in the face of common sense and universally experienced events.

Michael