Are People Born with Talent or Is It Developed?

[DiracPool]

Personally, I think we're all crazy from the heat. That's my conclusion. Man, it's burnin' up in my house. I think I'm going to go to Home Depot and buy one of those portable air conditioners I've been trying to avoid buying for the last decade.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Personally, I think we're all crazy from the heat. That's my conclusion. Man, it's burnin' up in my house. I think I'm going to go to Home Depot and buy one of those portable air conditioners I've been trying to avoid buying for the last decade.

My basement's nice and chill

 

[DiracPool]

My basement's nice and chill

This is "Antifreeze" boasting about this?

 

[Intrastellar]

leroy's argument is actually pretty clear, all that he is saying is that there are too many variables in determining whether someone will succeed or not.

 

[DiracPool]

leroy's argument is actually pretty clear, all that he is saying is that there are too many variables in determining whether someone will succeed or not.

Well, of course there's too many variables, montadhar. That's the way with most things in life. But that's why we come here to PF, to do our best to "bring them down to size."

 

[nitsuj]

I can say with confidence that the genetics of a cheetah makes it faster than a cow. That doesn't mean that I can point to the specific genes which differ between a cheetah and a cow that make the cheetah faster. Or do you think the cheetah is faster because it trains harder?

Wow! thanks for the "belly laugh"...that was awesome! Nice point too!


So hyperbole does have it's uses.

 

[goingmeta]

I tend to think that in an area for discussion like this (sub)forum, people should be open to questions and should strive to address them as long as the people asking them are sincere. Instead, "general discussion" here is taken to mean "non-philosophical discussion" and "discussions only among those who already agree with certain ideas and definitions", which is remarkably anti-intellectual.

This discussion has already been had hundreds of times. It will probably get closed again. Don't bother asking questions here.

 

[DiracPool]

I tend to think that in an area for discussion like this (sub)forum, people should be open to questions and should strive to address them as long as the people asking them are sincere. Instead, "general discussion" here is taken to mean "non-philosophical discussion" and "discussions only among those who already agree with certain ideas and definitions", which is remarkably anti-intellectual.

This discussion has already been had hundreds of times. It will probably get closed again. Don't bother asking questions here.

Just because some people bring their a priori bias's to a discussion such as this, doesn't mean that the discourse isn't constructive. If nobody talks about it, they're sure to retain those a priori biases.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Last time I checked, a "center" was a location, not a size.

You're still playing that game I told you not to play. The line I quoted from you about size was the summary line of this paragraph:

You look different from your best friend, your girlfriend, the taxi driver, and a turtle. Those are phenotypic traits determined by a complicated sequence of Hox gene expression and transcription factors that shape all of us. The new science of epigenetics/Evo-devo is where you need to look for the answers to these questions. We don't look the same, and our brains are not the same, they are not tabula rasa. Just like some people have big noses and little hands, some people have big anterior cingulates and little red nucleus's.

Your point wasn't about size, per se, but about difference, and I granted the validity of that point. Now you're trying to side shuffle your own statements out of the context you delivered them into make it look like I need anatomy lessons and trips to the dictionary I don't need.

I'm also granting your point that some blank slates are better than others for certain purposes, but what gets written on any blank slate early on is more important than the quality of the slate.

 

[DiracPool]

but what gets written on any blank slate early on is more important than the quality of the slate.

Are you sure you want to post that for the record? Do you think you'd perform better tap dancing on a field of sand, or a nice marble floor?

Edit: this is all in good humor and the spirit of scientific argument, btw. I love a good passionate debate but am always afraid of getting an infraction when I do it here

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you sure you want to post that for the record? Do you think you'd perform better tap dancing on a field of sand, or a nice marble floor?

I know a very intelligent American businessman who tried to learn French at about age 45. He got nowhere. Every single French person with Down's Syndrome who was raised speaking French from birth speaks better French than this guy could ever manage. His English, though, was wonderful, and he was a very effective public speaker. He never learned to say, "field of sand," or "marble floor" in French, though, things every French person with Down's could probably say.

Edit: I didn't answer your question. I would rather tap dance on a marble floor, but my point is that a marble floor won't help if you don't learn to tap dance at a young age.

Further edit: My real, real point is I'd take a wooden floor and a really good tap teacher over a marble floor and a mediocre tap teacher.

 

[DiracPool]

Further edit: My real, real point is I'd take a wooden floor and a really good tap teacher over a marble floor and a mediocre tap teacher.

Well said, Zoob. I like your real real point analogy. But that just highlights the point that there's really no easy solution to the nature-nurture issue, which is why it's still an issue. By the way, life handed me a pair of Dutch clogs and a half rotted wood deck to dance on, so cry for me.

Edit: Oh, I forgot...http://instantrimshot.com/

 

[ecoo]

People are born with different brains. The genes that give one man more neural connections at specific parts of the brain (e.g. Analytical part of the brain or the part that deals with numbers) may give him an advantage (in learning math) over another man who's brain has more neural connections in different parts of the brain (the creative side).

Now, the person with an advantage has a higher propensity for mathematics, he can learn faster and compute faster. However, of the person who started with a disadvantage works hard, he can build up his skills and possibly surpass the man who started with an advantage and never developed his skills.

So I do believe that some have a natural talent for something (like mathematics) but it is because they got "lucky" and their brains developed in a specific way geared towards a subject. However, one still has to work VERY hard to build up a skill. Even though the talent may be there, one still has to work to build the skills.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Perusing my old posts in this made me briefly think, "Man, that AnTiFreeze character's a real arsehole."

 

[Pythagorean]

You don't think there's more variables to it than simply "I just suck at it"?

I agree with this for myself on the specific topic. I'm not as interested in drums as guitar. I've worked my butt off to be able to play it. Drums are more expensive and less available. But I was impressed with how easily I started to pick up drums once I was taught "boots and cats". But I'd never work as hard at it as I have with guitar.

But with pure math I think I do actually lack innate talent. I'm more of a scientist than a mathematician at heart. Math is more of a toolbag to me and I don't think like my fellow abstract thinkers.

 

[Pythagorean]

People are born with different brains. The genes that give one man more neural connections at specific parts of the brain (e.g. Analytical part of the brain or the part that deals with numbers) may give him an advantage (in learning math) over another man who's brain has more neural connections in different parts of the brain (the creative side).

Now, the person with an advantage has a higher propensity for mathematics, he can learn faster and compute faster. However, of the person who started with a disadvantage works hard, he can build up his skills and possibly surpass the man who started with an advantage and never developed his skills.

So I do believe that some have a natural talent for something (like mathematics) but it is because they got "lucky" and their brains developed in a specific way geared towards a subject. However, one still has to work VERY hard to build up a skill. Even though the talent may be there, one still has to work to build the skills.

To nitpick, it's not always genes. It can be nutrtition, trauma, and just general developmental course in the womb. Theres's also a lot of things that can happen in youth (nutrition, toxicity, exposure to appropriate stimuli) that influence brain development before learning math ever occurs.

 

[AlephZero]

People are born with different brains.

Theres's also a lot of things that can happen in youth (nutrition, toxicity, exposure to appropriate stimuli) that influence brain development before learning math ever occurs.

Even in adults, brains can change structurally depending on how they are used.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)01267-X

 

[zoobyshoe]

Even in adults, brains can change structurally depending on how they are used.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)01267-X

Note that some people didn't qualify and didn't have the brain changes. It could be suggested they were genetically incapable of that. Just sayin'.

 

[Pythagorean]

One of main the mechanisms of permanence in the brain is perineuronal nets. Their formation can be delayed. Not sure if it's genetic or environmental or (more likely) a combination of both.

Anyway, I think this:

"Even in adults, brains can change structurally depending on how they are used."

Gets more towards being learned than innate or biological.