What is talent?

[Rich Engle]

As I understand it, the problem under discussion is what to do about innate talent

I guess the first thing to do is recognize that it exists, and that if a person who has it and pretends it doesn't matter or is a trivial issue is fooling themselves. Depending on degree, what the aptitude is, etc., it's going to have something to do with what a person ends up like and how they get there (and how fast).

A key thing in mentoring those with innate talents is to know specifically what the strengths are, what the weaknesses are, and what things are more or less average.

It certainly doesn't mean that a person with drawing talent has to be an artist. But if they do, that's nice!

But the main thing I'm getting at is that I have seen (as in there it was in firsthand reality, why would I bother making it up) a number of instances where a person with a particular gift might also have a particular deficiency, and the gift might or might not (probably not) outweigh the impediment of the deficiency. For instance, I have known a number of people displaying strong natural talent(s) that are coupled with things like ADD and ADH. I don't know why that is but I know it's there sometimes. Another one is dyslexia.

Fortunately, there seems to be a lot better approach to evaluating and working with kids now than before.

But as far as classic tabula rasa goes, I don't buy it a bit. They're not the whole story, just bringers of new things to the table, but the evolutionary psychologists have enough to convince me in the non-existence of tabula rasa.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Judith]

Now that I think about it, Rand herself, despite the single quote upon which we have been focusing, doesn't seem to have believed that all children really were born equal. Didn't she make a number of disparaging comments about school systems that required all students to keep to the level of the slowest children? Wasn't she herself often bored in elementary school because she got the lessons before her classmates did? Didn't Dagny Taggart do the same in Rand's novel?

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

ALL of Rand's fictional heroes were created as being born highly gifted, and they also applied themselves. They had the best of both qualities--non-volitional and volitional. They were also physically attractive (another non-volitional advantage). Most of them kept their physical attractiveness despite being careless with grooming and proper diet, which were always sacrificed to enthusiasm for work.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Can't believe how I missed this thread. Just came up with a thought experiment: Consider how expert we are--you, me, et al.--at being who we are and what THAT means.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Another way to consider talent... Mozart talent and Beethoven talent.

If you look at Mozart manuscripts, they just flow along, very few corrections. Take a look!

If you look at Beethoven's, there's all kinds of toil, crossouts, corrections. You can practically feel the sweat.

Now, both were brilliant talents. Both worked hard to achieve. But, are those not two very different types of talent?

Different needs, different approach, very different end results, albeit results of genius.

*sigh* The nature/nurture thing is always such a pain in the ass...

Rich: How hard would Mozart have to work to compose a Beethoven-type symphony? We don't know, I think. I do think, also, that Mozart is the lesser talent from the perspective of what he did do--also lesser to Bach. But we don't know what he would have done if he had lived longer. We really can't parse genius the way you have tried here. Reminds me of Tesla and Edison. Edison sweated. Tesla didn't? We really don't know. If a genius makes corrections on paper or in his mind, what's the significant difference?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I didn't need much talent to be me. But I needed a whole lot of talent, innate and developed, to stay me and survive!

Actually, Beethoven and Mozart are used in composition classes (at least when I went to college) as as examples of two types of creative minds. One is more immediately intuitive and the other has a vaguer image of what he wants and has to work out a lot through trial and error. (This last is my type of brain.)

You asked how hard it would have been for Mozart to compose a Beethoven-type symphony. That goes the other way, too. How hard would Beethoven have had to work to create a Mozart-type symphony? (The Jena symphony is all right, but not really great.)

I really disagree about Mozart being a lesser talent. I think the types of music composed was so different between the two that it is hard to compare them.

Paul Hindemith had a Mozart-type mind for creating (doing it all in his head first, then writing it out). In his case, he used many overly-complex harmonic formulations, so doing it in his head was quite a feat in itself. One of my college teachers knew him when he was alive. He said that you could go up to him and he would be talking to you, then say, "It's about half done." Later he would say, "It's about two-thirds done." And so on. Then one day he would sit down and put a full composition all to paper in one fell swoop.

No rewrites.

My way sure ain't that way. I works hahd fo mah results...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

ALL of Rand's fictional heroes were created as being born highly gifted, and they also applied themselves. They had the best of both qualities--non-volitional and volitional. They were also physically attractive (another non-volitional advantage). Most of them kept their physical attractiveness despite being careless with grooming and proper diet, which were always sacrificed to enthusiasm for work.

M,

The only exception here would be Howard Roark, who is not considered conventionally good-looking at all. He is described as masculine but not as handsome. Rand seems to stress this point, going on to even describes Roark’s orange-red hair as “ridiculous looking”--especially when dressed in black tax and tie. Of course Dominique finds him handsome but that’s because Roark’s individuality—his inner beauty, as it were, makes Howard Roark the most attractive man in the world, as far as Dominique is concerned. More over, given the way Rand describes Roark’s background, one may assume that his incredible talent is innate and later honed to lazar-like perfection. Roark knows he has "the goods" but needs to learn much and that's why he wants to work with Cammeron.

Victor

Edited November 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I didn't need much talent to be me. But I needed a whole lot of talent, innate and developed, to stay me and survive!

Actually, Beethoven and Mozart are used in composition classes (at least when I went to college) as as examples of two types of creative minds. One is more immediately intuitive and the other has a vaguer image of what he wants and has to work out a lot through trial and error. (This last is my type of brain.)

You asked how hard it would have been for Mozart to compose a Beethoven-type symphony. That goes the other way, too. How hard would Beethoven have had to work to create a Mozart-type symphony? (The Jena symphony is all right, but not really great.)

I really disagree about Mozart being a lesser talent. I think the types of music composed was so different between the two that it is hard to compare them.

Paul Hindemith had a Mozart-type mind for creating (doing it all in his head first, then writing it out). In his case, he used many overly-complex harmonic formulations, so doing it in his head was quite a feat in itself. One of my college teachers knew him when he was alive. He said that you could go up to him and he would be talking to you, then say, "It's about half done." Later he would say, "It's about two-thirds done." And so on. Then one day he would sit down and put a full composition all to paper in one fell swoop.

No rewrites.

My way sure ain't that way. I works hahd fo mah results...

Michael

Michael, I was primarily trying to assess genius by the end result. In terms of pure genius Mozart may have had it all over all others. The tragedy of humanity, so far, is that the world is awash in unrealized genius. In a hundred years how wonderful I hope it will be!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I didn't need much talent to be me. But I needed a whole lot of talent, innate and developed, to stay me and survive!

Michael: Think twice! Think how hard it would be for me to make myself into anything like you!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

You made me curious so I looked up orange and some other things on the CDROM. From what I read, Rand did not describe Roark in terms of handsome or ugly. She usually intermingled architectural images with descriptions of him, or used vague words like "tall" or "gaunt." She mentioned his orange (red) hair a lot. Both Keating and Dominique found the orange hair preposterous, one occasion each, but there was a strong attitude each time suggesting that this was not really a judgment of good looks. Only the color of the hair has been mentioned as out of place.

Here are some descriptions:

His body leaned back against the sky. It was a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes. He stood, rigid, his hands hanging at his sides, palms out. He felt his shoulder blades drawn tight together, the curve of his neck, and the weight of the blood in his hands. He felt the wind behind him, in the hollow of his spine. The wind waved his hair against the sky. His hair was neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange find.

He did not laugh as his eyes stopped in awareness of the earth around him. His face was like a law of nature—a thing one could <tf_16> not question, alter or implore. It had high cheekbones over gaunt, hollow cheeks; gray eyes, cold and steady; a contemptuous mouth, shut tight, the mouth of an executioner or a saint.

Keating stopped when he recognized the preposterous orange hair in the darkness of the porch.

Roark sat still, the shadows sharp on his face, a black wedge on a sunken cheek, a long triangle of black cutting across his chin, his eyes on Cameron.

She looked down. Her eyes stopped on the orange hair of a man who raised his head and looked at her.

She stood very still, because her first perception was not of sight, but of touch: the consciousness, not of a visual presence, but of a slap in the face. She held one hand awkwardly away from her body, the fingers spread wide on the air, as against a wail. She knew that she could not move until he permitted her to.

She saw his mouth and the silent contempt in the shape of his mouth; the planes of his gaunt, hollow cheeks; the cold, pure brilliance of the eyes that had no trace of pity. She knew it was the most beautiful face she would ever see, because it was the abstraction of strength made visible. She felt a convulsion of anger, of protest, of resistance—and of pleasure. He stood looking up at her; it was not a glance, but an act of ownership. She thought she must let her face give him the answer he deserved. But she was looking, instead, at the stone dust on his burned arms, the wet shirt clinging to his ribs, the lines of his long legs. She was thinking of those statues of men she had always sought; she was wondering what he would look like naked. She saw him looking at her as if he knew that. She thought she had found an aim in life—a sudden, sweeping hatred for that man.

He came in. He wore his work clothes, the dirty shirt with rolled sleeves, the trousers smeared with stone dust. He stood looking at her. There was no laughing understanding in his face. His face was drawn, austere in cruelty, ascetic in passion, the cheeks sunken, the lips pulled down, set tight. She jumped to her feet, she stood, her arms thrown back, her fingers spread apart. He did not move. She saw a vein of his neck rise, beating, and fall down again.

She was certain that he intended no insolence; it was not in his voice nor his manner; but insolence had been her first impression of him. He wore evening clothes and they looked well on his tall, thin figure, but somehow it seemed that he did not belong in them; the orange hair looked preposterous with formal dress; besides, she did not like his face; that face suited a work gang or an army, it had no place in her drawing room.

He stopped. He looked at her. She thought that she was standing straight; that it was simple and normal, she was seeing the gray eyes and the orange hair as she had always seen them.

After a long time he glanced about him—and then he saw that he was not alone. Some steps away from him a man sat on a boulder, looking down at the valley. The man seemed absorbed in the sight and had not heard his approach. The man was tall and gaunt and had orange hair.

He walked straight to the man, who turned his eyes to him; the eyes were gray and calm; the boy knew suddenly that they felt the same thing, and he could speak as he would not speak to a stranger anywhere else.

This selection is by no means complete, but it is clear that Rand did not highlight Roark as handsome, but she does not make it apparent he was not good looking either. She used the orange hair as an identifier and focused much more on his expression when describing how he looked.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Hmm, damn, I wish I could find the passage that stuck out at me when I first read it, but roughly speaking now: At some party, I recall Dominique belittling Roark in front of some people—giving the impression of something she does not really think—and goes on to say that a saving grace of his is, at least, his “good looks”. A listener scoffs Dominique asking her what on earth she is talking about, saying “the man is not good looking at all”. It is here that Dominique’s sexual attraction is revealed to the listeners and, perhaps, to herself. It was Rand's way of telling the reader that Dominique has the hots for Roark. Also, take note that Peter Keating is described as a dark haired pretty boy, yet Dominique loathes him. I found this interesting. This is one of the ways in which Rand tells us that Dominique is not a shallow woman --but rather it’s the inner qualities of a person that excites her interest.

Victor

Edited November 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I found the "party" passage you mentioned:

When Roark left, Dominique stood counting the minutes, to be certain that he would be lost to sight in the streets before she could trust herself to go out. Then she moved to leave.

Kiki Holcombe's thin, moist fingers clasped her hand in parting, clasped it vaguely and slipped up to hold her wrist for a moment.

"And, my dear," asked Kiki Holcombe, "what did you think of that new one, you know, I saw you talking to him, that Howard Roark?"

"I think," said Dominique firmly, "that he is the most revolting person I've ever met."

"Oh, now, really?"

"Do you care for that sort of unbridled arrogance? I don't know what one could say for him, unless it's that he's terribly good-looking, if that matters."

"Good-looking? Are you being funny, Dominique?"

Kiki Holcombe saw Dominique being stupidly puzzled for once. And Dominique realize that what she saw in his face, what made it the face of a god to her, was not seen by others; that it could leave them indifferent; that what she had thought to be the most obvious, inconsequential remark was, instead, a confession of something within her, some quality not shared by others.

"Why, my dear," said Kiki, "he's not good-looking at all, but extremely masculine."

"Don't let it astonish you, Dominique," said a voice behind her. "Kiki's esthetic judgment is not yours—nor mine."

Dominique turned. Ellsworth Toohey stood there, smiling, watching her face attentively.

In the same conversation (p 264) Toohey also tells Dominique: "For instance, it was interesting to discover what sort of thing appears good-looking to you. It's nice to have you classified firmly, concretely. Without words—just with the aid of a certain face."

So here it is clear that Roark was masculine-looking but not particularly handsome. At least he wasn't effeminate.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Great! Yes, that's it. Damn, how do you find these passages at the snap of a finger?

Rand placed “selectivity” as a high esthetic priority in her art, and I find it very interesting why she choose to describe Roark as...not particularly good looking, and the despicable Keating as a pretty boy. There are probably other reasons other than to show Dominique’s attraction to inner depth. Maybe that’s just it, Roark’s inner qualities—his independence and talent—are the things to highlight. That's what I take from it.

Victor

Edited November 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

ALL of Rand's fictional heroes were created as being born highly gifted, and they also applied themselves. They had the best of both qualities--non-volitional and volitional. They were also physically attractive (another non-volitional advantage). Most of them kept their physical attractiveness despite being careless with grooming and proper diet, which were always sacrificed to enthusiasm for work.

They undoubtedly applied themselves, but things also came easily to them. Remember Dagny telling Francisco that the other girls in school hated her because she got As effortlessly without having to study? Remember Francisco as a child learning things by watching them done once, such as watching the boat seller show James how to run a motor boat, and Francisco teaching himself how to do differential equations? Remember Hank Rearden saying something to the effect that things in business that were hard for others were effortlessly easy for him?

Judith

[Rich Engle]

Judith brings up a point I find very interesting, this built-in talent factor in Rand heroes.

Nature, nurture?

I've been sitting around thinking about the nature of main characters in novels, mainly because I got very interested in the characters John Irving did in a book called "A Widow For One Year." I rarely touch fiction, haven't hardly at all for years and years. But these characters, and the writing style, I was very impressed.

Anyway, it occurred to me, that basic principle is that somehow, the protagonist generally has to have some quality that is sympathetic, or endearing to the reader.

Now, the Roark character, maybe that's it... the focus was, it seems to me, more on the ruggedness, and strength, and character. There was always that sympathy you felt to him because you watched him get nothing handed to him... I just assumed physical attributes in him when I read TF. He was a composite... but above all, lots of masculine built into him, I think.

I remember going through phases of the book where I looked on him a little differently here and there... but basically he was a very sturdy character, and even a pliant one when need be.

[Johnny]

I've come to the conclusion many Objectivists across many different Objectivist forums think they have an expertise in just about every singe Science field there is to know and thus are able to pontificate on matters they know very little about.

At least Matus has done some work, has done some research, but other people matter of factly state their opinions without so much as any expertise in the field they are discussing or even a bare minimum knowledge in genetics and biology.

I would like to know how many people participating in this thread is either

1) Geneticist

2) Biologist

or

3) Neuroscientist

And if you are none of the above, and haven't spent anytime researching the subject, how is it that you have come to formulate an opinon on this matter? Did you people just grab it out of your [self censored expletive]?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Johnny,

I am going to allow just this one post that is derogatory of OL members in the hopes you have some kind of idea you wish to discuss.

Cut the crap if you want to discuss something. OL is not for bickering. Do that elsewhere, not here.

To answer your question, I am not a specialist in any of the fields you mentioned, but I have done some reading of Sylvan Tomkins (at the urging of Steven Shmurak, a professional psychologist and friend--please see The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion, which is a prelude to an essay with video CD in the upcoming issue of JARS.) This work provides empirical evidence of affects from recorded observations of very young infants, and the studies are overwhelmingly convincing.

Also, I am slowly plowing my way through Neurophilosophy by Patricia Smith Churchland. It is hard going, but I am starting to understand some of the more technical things like the different parts of the brain. My main areas of interest so far that are pertinent to this discussion are the hippocampus and the amygdala, but I still am in learn mode and my interest in these came from earlier studies. (Surprisingly enough, I am not nearly as interested in the neocortex, despite this being the place where most reason occurs.) I am also fascinated by the functioning of neurons. At this point in my study of the Churchland book, I am covering synaptic end bulbs of motor neurons and the functions of their different parts like astrocyte processes, boutons, the oligodendrocyte, dendrites, axon, etc. And yes, I do this for fun.

At times like this, I really miss Dragonfly...

What knowledge do you have? Since you asked in such an aggressive manner, I presume you do have knowledge in at least one of these fields.

And then, more importantly, what would you like to discuss?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

MSK: What knowledge do you have? Since you asked in such an aggressive manner, I presume you do have knowledge in at least one of these fields.

Johnny,

I was hoping MSK’s question—seen above--would have been answered. That's a good place to start. It might lead somewhere this time around.

Victor

Edited November 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Johnny,

*sigh*

Would you not agree that, by nature of what it does, that empirical science surely identifies "what is," but we have to use other means to determine what it "means."

That's one thing.

And, I might suggest to you that defining/valuing "credentials" can be tricky business. And, to also ask you how you value life experience, in conjunction with credentials.

There's no guarantee in getting the truth just because someone shows you a piece of sheepskin.

And there are some who have no sheepskin that can offer you remarkable insight and understanding!

You have to make your own decisions, right? Will you limit yourself only to scientists?

best

rde

[Jonathan]

I recently heard a Performance Today replay of little Anna Lee at the Aspen Music Festival, and it reminded me of this discussion. Pretty amazing kid. This is the only link that I could find, and unfortunately the "Hear the Interview, Performance" button isn't working on my machine, but maybe it will work for others:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4803376

J

Speaking of Performance Today, have you ever listened to Bruce Adolphe's Piano Puzzler challenges? The November 8th challenge was the first one I had heard where I got both the tune and the composer. Fun stuff:

http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=4464231

[Victor Pross]

I would like to revive this subject with one more contribution seen below. Angie sent me an email telling me about this wonder genius boy, and I immediately thought of this thread and wanted to share it:

“[i’m] watching TLC right now about a 12 year old boy in India that has the IQ of Einstein. His passion is medicine right now. He's already performed many successful surgeries, treats people in his village. Was talking and writing at the age of 10 months. Reading Shakespeare by the age of 5. Says he is on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer as well as aids. He's succeeding in the medical field that today's scientists are baffled over but he comes in and shows them the way. He is also working on the human genome and how to correct the defective genome. obviously in college already and he is learning so fast that the teachers there find that he ends up teaching the class as well as the teachers so basically he takes over the class and teaches the students as well as the teachers. Okay, I really like this kid. The PhDs, etc., were talking to him about faith, etc. He said he rejects all forms of faith and everything should be judged objectively. He says it is all a bunch of rubbish. He is known as the faith healer in India and he laughs at this idea as he doesn't believe in faith or any form of mysticism. He's been labeled as the smartest boy in the world.”

[CNA]

I actually recorded the program and will watch the program again as it was fascinating and mind boggling to watch. Here are some links about the 7 year old prodigy that performed his first successful surgery in India where he lives.

http://www.rdfrights.com/Programme.aspx?id=2540

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

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040828/saturday/main1.htm

Akrit Jaswal (11) from Nurpur in Himachal Pradesh is a child prodigy. As per the US-based Gifted Development Centre where his psycho-evaluation was done in 2001, it was found that he had an IQ level that beats that of Einstein.

He's had many tests performed. Although is extremely intelligent, he has some weaknesses. But I am sure as time goes on and he ages as he is only 12 these areas of weaknesses may very well develop into strengths. He's been reported to have an IQ that surpasses Einstein at the age of 11 or 12. But others state that he is highly intelligent but they believe it is too premature to state that he is a genius or his IQ surpasses that of Einstein despite all the tests that have been performed. This is definitely one kid to keep an eye on.

Angie

Edited December 18, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Now it really begins to hit home remembering Shayne’s commits about wonder kids being nothing more than a product of high pressuring parents and how foolish that is--as if anybody could cajole the type of genius seen here. Shayne was clearly talking through his ass. How would he explain away this kid?

Edited December 19, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Now it really begins to hit home remembering Shayne’s commits about wonder kids being the nothing more than a product of high pressuring parents how foolish that is--as if anybody could cajole the type of genius seen here. Shayne was clearly talking through his ass. How would he explain away this kid?

Speaking of "talking through your ass"--I never said that wonder kids were a product of high-pressuring parents nor did I comment on it being foolish nor did I ever say anything resembling either of these remarks.

Michael doesn't like plain and direct speaking going on in his "living room", while he lets total fabrication and lies and continued insults get slung at a "guest" who prefers to remain silent pass without comment.

You both owe me an apology.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am unaware of total fabrications and lies, etc., as complained, and am also unaware that I dislike plain speaking (you learn something new everyday, so maybe it's time to refresh on Socrates: "Know thyself!").

But on the insults, Shayne's comments have merit. He has been keeping his peace about other posters. Hell, he has been keeping his peace, period. So what gives, folks?

Michael