Are People Born with Talent or Is It Developed?

[Newtons Apple]

Hello everyone, I'm sure this conversation will go no where, but I dont' see anything wrong with a bit of philosophy. For me personally, I love physics, I think science and mathematics are really really fascinating and definitely a beauty to behold. That being said...I'm horrid at math. Calculus I took every fiber of my being to complete with a C+. Anyway this got me thinking, do you all think that people are born with the innate ability for mathematics, or art? That whole left vs right brain thing? Or is it something that is taught from very young? Myself I really believe that innate ability is born not created. While I know if I study every day and really push myself I could grasp the concepts I don't think I'll ever be as good as someone who is born with such talent. I think math people and art people see the world in two different views, and you have to be born with talent with either... Thoughts?

 

[DiracPool]

Hello everyone, I'm sure this conversation will go no where, but I dont' see anything wrong with a bit of philosophy. For me personally, I love physics, I think science and mathematics are really really fascinating and definitely a beauty to behold. That being said...I'm horrid at math. Calculus I took every fiber of my being to complete with a C+. Anyway this got me thinking, do you all think that people are born with the innate ability for mathematics, or art? That whole left vs right brain thing? Or is it something that is taught from very young? Myself I really believe that innate ability is born not created. While I know if I study every day and really push myself I could grasp the concepts I don't think I'll ever be as good as someone who is born with such talent. I think math people and art people see the world in two different views, and you have to be born with talent with either... Thoughts?

Nice name, even though it compete's with my friend wbn. But we'll overlook that. If you've read any of my posts, you'll know I'm a big left brain right brain guy. But you're confusing nature and nurture. Evolution is an epigenetic process. Mammals have windows in their ontogenetic development where certain skills need to be expressed, such as language. So yes, I believe that some people are genetically geared for a more creative right brain mentality and some for a more analytical left brain mentality, but the environmental contribution plays such an equally compelling role it's hard to pigeonhole it.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think people who are good at things are seen as talented, and people who are bad at things are seen as not talented.
That's really not useful.
To assume someone is talented, to me, sort of takes away from the hard work they put into it.
Same thing applies to good professional athletes. People say all the time they have amazing genetics. Really? Have they analyzed their genome? No. They just see someone who's good at something and assume they didn't have to work as hard as everyone else to get to that point. It's almost an insult.

Personally, when I work hard at something, I can do well. When I do something half-assed, I do horrible. When I worked hard at math and did the right things, I could ace the course. When I didn't work hard and do the right things, I could get surprisingly low scores.
Last semester I took differential equations. I was failing early in the course because I wasn't studying enough, and not studying PROPERLY. Then I started studying properly and began acing every quiz and did very well on the test. Then on the final, I didn't study like I should have and got like a 50. Barely made it out of the class with a C.

It just seems like people want an excuse beyond their control for doing poorly. Most people don't want to just take responsibility for failing.

 

[FlexGunship]

It just seems like people want an excuse beyond their control for doing poorly. Most people don't want to just take responsibility for failing.

This is universally true.

If you really want something to tag as genetic: eagerness to surrender.

I feel like everything I've ever put serious effort into I've done well. Everything that I've done halfheartedly has gone poorly. The line is clear for me. All it would take for me to fail at something is to not seek to do it well. I don't think this stops at things tagged as "talent" skills, either. Job hunting, home repairs, financial responsibility, crafts, music, etc...

To play devil's advocate, there are individuals that legitimately lack the ability to comprehend complex ideas or to integrate new ideas into their thought processes yet may still posses a non-trivial talent.

 

[phyzguy]

I think that, while we might not want to admit it, both innate talent and hard work play a role. I could work my a** off for my whole life, and I will never be able to hit a baseball as well as Derek Jeter, or "bend it like Beckham". On the math and physics side, you see this as well. Some people have an innate talent, and others don't. Of course, by working hard, you can extend your abilities and learn new things, but we all have our limits. From what I've seen the people that really excel are the ones with innate talent and the motivation to work hard.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I agree. Some people seem to not want to admit it but some people are simply better at picking up math and physics than others. The same goes for other walks of life: I could try my entire life to be as good a drummer as Bonham but I'll never get there-he just had the innate ability man.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think that, while we might not want to admit it, both innate talent and hard work play a role. I could work my a** off for my whole life, and I will never be able to hit a baseball as well as Derek Jeter, or "bend it like Beckham".

But how do you know?

I could try my entire life to be as good a drummer as Bonham but I'll never get there-he just had the innate ability man.

Again, how do you know?

This is another problem I have. People not only making excuses for why they didn't succeed, but also making predictions about what they couldn't do even if they tried.
If the two of you can provide a good explanation for how you know that in an alternate life you couldn't have became one of the best at something, then you may be more talented than you think.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Because I've tried drumming for years and years and it just hasn't clicked for me like guitar has. Similarly, I have tried to teach basic physics and math to friends who have asked for help and no matter how much they tried they just couldn't get it. Claiming that anyone and everyone can be good at something if they put their mind to it is a nice slogan for the next Pixar movie but everyone has their mental and physical limitations.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Because I've tried drumming for years and years and it just hasn't clicked for me like guitar has.

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

Similarly, I have tried to teach basic physics and math to friends who have asked for help and no matter how much they tried they just couldn't get it.

Maybe they don't practice afterwards like they should. Maybe they're only doing it because they have to and not because they enjoy it (which easily leads to not doing well). Maybe you're just not that good at teaching.
There's lots of reasons someone may not understand something. I don't see how we can ignore all these variables and go straight to "they just suck at it".

Claiming that anyone and everyone can be good at something if they put their mind to it is a nice slogan for the next Pixar movie but everyone has their mental and physical limitations.

How do we know what those limitations are? I tried doing a kickflip on a skateboard for a month and never really got it. Do I suck at doing skateboard tricks? Are skateboard tricks beyond my limitation? Lazy answer: yes.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I will propose a very difficult concept to understand idea: Different people are different.

Now, if we're willing to assume that that statement is true, then why is it such a shock that some people are naturally better at something than others? Hard work certainly plays a role, but I wasn't doing my father's taxes when I was three (Gauss), nor did I revolutionize mathematics and physics as a teenager (Newton). This is due to inherent limitations in my mental faculty, limitations that neither of these men possessed. It's absurd to think that everyone is capable of everything, because it simply isn't true. Maybe I could reach the level of knowledge of someone whose intelligence is deemed greater than mine, but my path to that point would be more arduous and painstaking than what would be required of him to reach that same level.

How do we know what those limitations are? I tried doing a kickflip on a skateboard for a month. Do I suck at doing skateboard tricks? Are skateboard tricks beyond my limitation? Lazy answer: yes.

The kickflip is considered a beginner move, which many accomplished in far less time than you, and who then moved on to more advanced tricks which I wouldn't doubt are out of your grasp. Correct answer: yes.

 

[phyzguy]

leroyjenkins - What are you trying to argue - that innate ability plays no role? Do you really think that it if you trained hard enough you could run 100 meters in 9.6 seconds like Usain Bolt? Or that height makes no difference when playing basketball and that someone who is 5' 6" tall can be just as good as someone who is 7' tall if they practice hard enough? It seems obvious that in physical contests, accidents of genetics and development play a significant role. Why not the same in mental pursuits?

 

[lisab]

My $0.02 -

Sure ability plays a role, but so what? If you are passionate about something, or maybe you just want it really really bad, then you should go for it. If you are happy learning something, who cares if someone else learns it faster? If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

That last sentence, btw, is from a prose-poem called http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~gongsu/desiderata_textonly.html.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It's fairly difficult to separate "is passionate about something and works hard to succeed" from "is naturally talented at something" because if you're really good at something, you tend to enjoy doing it and will spend more time working at it.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway this got me thinking, do you all think that people are born with the innate ability for mathematics, or art?

Or is it something that is taught from very young?

Thoughts?

Those two questions are mutually exclusive. By definition, a "talent" is innate, which means you are born with it and can't learn it.

But don't confuse that with "skill".

 

[Nikitin]

We are all born with different ways of thinking, bodies and so on. From this it obviously follows that some must be innately better and others worse at stuff like running, lifting, math etc. However, there are two sides to being good. Hard work and opportunity (free & widely available education etc.) is needed for somebody to capitalize on his innate strengths.

 

[physicsphun1]

I am not as good at manipulating numbers without a physical explanation as I am a conceptual learner by forte, however I am one of the top students in my year in physics whilst being one of the poorest in maths as I never pay much attention to the subject for a range of attributing factors. One of these factors is relevance (I don't see it, as I find it boring as I can't relate it do a physical being). However, I pick up maths very quickly in physics. I believe it is 50% nature and 50% nurture.
I was never nurtured in maths, but was in conceptual based subjects.

 

[dreamLord]

Born with talent. And I refuse to see any arguments to that! It's one of the things I have always felt strongly about, ever since I saw a couple of geniuses back in high school doing stuff I managed to comprehend after a LOT of hard work - and they didn't need to spend hours doing it.

 

[Solkar]

I tend to consider the human brain before and shortly after birth simply as an widely untrained neural network, not significantly predisposed to anything.

Incoming neural stimuli train the brain one way or the other; and that's, up to my private, totally unsupported, laymanly theory, the process during which intelligence and talents are "created".

Or not, if the stimuli are too few or inconsistent.

 

[nitsuj]

didn't Michael Jordan try his hand at baseball? I believe he is a huge stickler for practicing/improving.

 

[Bandarigoda]

Hmmm, I can say yes. But to reveal your true abilities, u will have to work for it. No one is born with high genius brain. Not even Einstein was. His way of success was working very hard. Imagine that he spent 10 years for his relativity some part. (I exactly don't remember the one)
But he had the courage, wanted to follow his curiosity.
Umm...I'm now in grade 13. The last exam for me to achieve the entrance to the university will be held on Next year August.
So I wrote my last two term exams well. Without being a book reader. Like girls do. And the results is fine. I'm happy with it. But in my former years I had to do many things, to work hard. So I guess, everything from what I did in past. So don't forget who u are. Nothing is impossible. U only have to try.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
--A.E

 

[zoobyshoe]

I tend to consider the human brain before and shortly after birth simply as an widely untrained neural network, not significantly predisposed to anything.

Incoming neural stimuli train the brain one way or the other; and that's, up to my private, totally unsupported, laymanly theory, the process during which intelligence and talents are "created".

Or not, if the stimuli are too few or inconsistent.

I agree with this, which is a restatement of the old "Tabula Rasa" view. Whether or not you become a math or art or music adept has more to do with how you're stimulated in the first years of life than anything else.

 

[FlexGunship]

I tend to consider the human brain before and shortly after birth simply as an widely untrained neural network, not significantly predisposed to anything.

Incoming neural stimuli train the brain one way or the other; and that's, up to my private, totally unsupported, laymanly theory, the process during which intelligence and talents are "created".

Or not, if the stimuli are too few or inconsistent.

I agree with this, which is a restatement of the old "Tabula Rasa" view. Whether or not you become a math or art or music adept has more to do with how you're stimulated in the first years of life than anything else.

I agree with this x2, but I think there's some subtleties missing here. You can have an autistic child born into a family with non-autistic children. Surely, there could be an argument made that not every brain is equally "untrained"; likewise, not every brain is equally "trainable". Stimuli alone intelligence does not make.

Now, the idea that a 30-year-old guy sitting on the couch drinking beer, collecting welfare checks and food stamps, and yelling at his girlfriend at 2AM is incapable of learning how to stock shelves at a grocery store is preposterous.

 

[daveyrocket]

I agree with this, which is a restatement of the old "Tabula Rasa" view. Whether or not you become a math or art or music adept has more to do with how you're stimulated in the first years of life than anything else.

I tend to consider the human brain before and shortly after birth simply as an widely untrained neural network, not significantly predisposed to anything.

Incoming neural stimuli train the brain one way or the other; and that's, up to my private, totally unsupported, laymanly theory, the process during which intelligence and talents are "created".

Or not, if the stimuli are too few or inconsistent.

Curious, is there any actual science behind this?

 

[Evo]

Curious, is there any actual science behind this?

I'll answer with my two children. My oldest daughter was born to draw, it's all she did from the moment she was capable of holding anything that could make marks. She was drawing recognizable stick figures sometime between the age of 12-18 months and by 18 months she was able to explain the story behind the drawings. One was of a man that was obviously jumping in the air, his legs were bent up at the knees and there was a pile of money under him and dollar signs in his eyes, she told me he was jumping for joy because he was rich (I attribute this to watching tons of tv). All of the faces focused on the eyes, the position of the irises (up, down, right left...) represented what the person was thinking/feeling. It was almost scary that she grasped these concepts at that age. By age three she was composing little songs and accompanying herself on her toy piano, she was putting on plays where she would be all of the characters using props she created. This was not due to anything I did. My second daughter was raised the same as the first and she never had a desire to draw or be creative.

 

[Ken Natton]

I too think that this idea of being born with a gift is bunkum. I mean, nature v nurture, I get it. Undoubtedly some people do have certain genetic advantages, and I suppose you could characterise those advantages as a gift. But what I mean is that the idea that Mozart was as extraordinary as he was because he was born with a gift actually diminishes what he really was. Exactly what is so extraordinary about him is that he was human, just like you and me. Even for those born with genetic advantages, real achievement requires real effort. Extraordinary achievement requires extraordinary effort.

 

[DiracPool]

I agree with this, which is a restatement of the old "Tabula Rasa" view. Whether or not you become a math or art or music adept has more to do with how you're stimulated in the first years of life than anything else.

I completely disagree with this oversimplified statement. 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. It's OK, it doesn't mean that anyone is more special than anyone else. It does, though, mean that some people have a better natural proclivity for math and some for painting. What you're exposed to in your first years of life have an influence but it's not as influential as the complicated process through which progenitor neuroepithelial stem cells time their delays to create the areal divisions of the cortex. These processes are different in different individuals and yield different local areal dynamics in relation to global brain function.

How these areal dynamics play out is currently what cutting edge neuroscience is investigating right now. We've recently had a big surge of data into the literature from fMRI studies and others but its still a pioneering area of research so its hard to make definite conclusions. I personally have found, though, that a safe haven for generalization is the of the cliche left brain right brain dichotomy. I know this because I stink at math no matter hard I try but I can sing and write one heck of a song. I don't why, but I'm guessing my ancestors liked to sing and dance more than they did to measure fenced yards. I'm trying, though, and wbn is helping me through it. I'm trying Griffiths next

 

[DiracPool]

She was drawing recognizable stick figures sometime between the age of 12-18 months and by 18 months she was able to explain the story behind the drawings.

Just a note Evo, the human brain undergoes it's principal explosion of synaptogenesis in the frontal cortex between 12-18 months, so that's a trivia byte for you Huttenlocher pioneered that research if you want to look it up. I eat that stuff up.

 

[daveyrocket]

I just saw the movie Trading Places last weekend. Funny movie, but hardly believable.

 

[Evo]

I too think that this idea of being born with a gift is bunkum.

Call it a proclivity or propensity instead of a "gift". Art was all my older daughter wanted to do, it's now her career. My other daughter was/is the complete opposite. Of course even showing such a strong desire to do something at a very early age requires practicing it, but some people do seem to have a natural desire and/or ability to do things easier than others. Even if they were raised similarly by the same person.

 

[daveyrocket]

I definitely had to work much less hard at learning mathematics when I was young than any of my peers did. I do remember one year where the cool thing to do among the fourth-grade boys was drawing, and we did that all the time. Even with all that practice, my stick figures were still substandard.

 

[Ken Natton]

Call it a proclivity or propensity instead of a "gift".

Yes, I meant no disrespect to your post Evo, though proximity might make it seem otherwise. I think we had one of those where your post appeared while I was composing mine. I also have two boys, born a year or so apart, same mother, same father, same upbringing – very close because of a wealth of shared experience – who are nonetheless very different in character. The older one is very charismatic, very gregarious, shows many characteristics of leadership, and is more technical in his talents. The other is quieter, much more insular, sometimes outrageously self-centred, and of an altogether much more artistic temperament. I suppose this reinforces the point about the complexity of the point under discussion, but I was really talking about something very different. There are those, my own mother among them, who when confronted with someone displaying an extraordinary talent – a musician of exceptional ability for example – are won't to declare it something that person was born with. That, as I said, seems to me to diminish their genuine achievement.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The kickflip is considered a beginner move, which many accomplished in far less time than you, and who then moved on to more advanced tricks which I wouldn't doubt are out of your grasp. Correct answer: yes.

Did I say how much I practiced? Did I say at what age I started trying to do it? Did I say I could even skateboard before even trying to do the kickflip? Did I give any information other than the duration I practiced? No. I could have practiced one kickflip a day for a month. You don't know. So with so little information, why are you so confident in your answer?

leroyjenkins - What are you trying to argue - that innate ability plays no role? Do you really think that it if you trained hard enough you could run 100 meters in 9.6 seconds like Usain Bolt? Or that height makes no difference when playing basketball and that someone who is 5' 6" tall can be just as good as someone who is 7' tall if they practice hard enough? It seems obvious that in physical contests, accidents of genetics and development play a significant role. Why not the same in mental pursuits?

Why couldn't I beat Usain Bolt in a race if I trained hard enough? I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by your necessarily fabricated reason.

Height makes a difference in basketball because of the nature of the game. Just like a shorter person would naturally be better at limbo dancing. Now if you could tell me the specific trait that makes someone better at skateboarding kickflips, then I'd love to hear it.
Genetics plays a role? Ok, which skateboarding genes does Tony Hawk have that I don't?
What genes does Bobby Fischer have that makes him good at chess that I don't have? You say it's genetic, then you must know the specific genes responsible for it.
"It must be genetics" isn't an argument unless you provide evidence that, for example, Usain Bolt is more genetically fit for running fast than I am (which still doesn't prove that I would never be able to beat him in a race. You could never prove that, so I don't know how you can argue it.)

 

[WannabeNewton]

This argument is pointless. In the end, the truly successful and talented people will care little about this. They actually have the success to show for it. Until then it is all moot.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Did I say how much I practiced? Did I say at what age I started trying to do it? Did I say I could even skateboard before even trying to do the kickflip? Did I give any information other than the duration I practiced? No. I could have practiced one kickflip a day for a month. You don't know. So with so little information, why are you so confident in your answer?

My goodness you would be a difficult person to converse with.

Were you skateboarding when you were 8 months old? When you were 80 years old? No to both?

Were you trying to do tricks on a skateboard before having learned how to skateboard? No to that too?

Did you attempt one kickflip a day? Highly unlikely, considering that's akin to reading a sentence out of a large novel each day, with the hopes of actually finishing it one day.

So as you can see, I was being reasonable with my response, in assuming that you were a.) old enough to be physically capable of doing a kickflip (why else would you be attempting to do one, otherwise?), b.) knew how to ride a skateboard, and c.) practiced at a reasonable rate over the course of a month.

All of this is entirely pointless banter, anyway, considering it's dealing with a tiny anecdote that you provided.

 

[leroyjenkens]

My goodness you would be a difficult person to converse with.

Difficult in what way?

Were you skateboarding when you were 8 months old? When you were 80 years old? No to both?

No. Does that mean unless I'm under 8 months or above 80 years, age doesn't matter in regards to getting good at skateboarding?

Were you trying to do tricks on a skateboard before having learned how to skateboard? No to that too?

Maybe. That's just more information you lacked when you complacently made your conclusion.

Did you attempt one kickflip a day? Highly unlikely, considering that's akin to reading a sentence out of a large novel each day, with the hopes of actually finishing it one day.

You don't know what my hopes were. Yet more information you lacked.

So as you can see, I was being reasonable with my response, in assuming that you were a.) old enough to be physically capable of doing a kickflip (why else would you be attempting to do one, otherwise?), b.) knew how to ride a skateboard, and c.) practiced at a reasonable rate over the course of a month.

You were being reasonable, but you just proved the very point I was making earlier that people just want the easy answer. You're prepared to ignore all of the information you lacked, and all the variables that go into a situation like that, and go ahead and make a conclusion. Not only did you not care about those things, but you seemed taken aback that I would even mention them as relevant.

All of this is entirely pointless banter, anyway, considering it's dealing with a tiny anecdote that you provided.

The tiny anecdote is all that's needed to reveal the responses that I was just arguing were illogical.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

...

I wasn't about to interview you over an asinine anecdote, inquiring as to your age, intentions, time spent each day, etc. I made reasonable conclusions from the given information.

Regardless, this whole argument is based on psychology, and you never really get anywhere when arguing about psychology because of the inability to conduct most experiments, or to reproduce many results. I just thinks it's cute that you think that you can run as fast as Usain Bolt if you *really* wanted to.

 

[phyzguy]

Why couldn't I beat Usain Bolt in a race if I trained hard enough? I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by your necessarily fabricated reason.

Well, if you really think that you could train hard enough to beat Usain Bolt in a 100 meter dash, then I guess there's nothing more to say. However, I think if you're honest with yourself, you know this isn't really true.

Genetics plays a role? Ok, which skateboarding genes does Tony Hawk have that I don't?
What genes does Bobby Fischer have that makes him good at chess that I don't have? You say it's genetic, then you must know the specific genes responsible for it.

How do you figure that? 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?

 

[Group_Complex]

Talent is genetic, you are born with it.

 

[Solkar]

I tend to consider the human brain before and shortly after birth simply as an widely untrained neural network, not significantly predisposed to anything.

Incoming neural stimuli train the brain one way or the other; and that's, up to my private, totally unsupported, laymanly theory, the process during which intelligence and talents are "created".

Or not, if the stimuli are too few or inconsistent.

Curious, is there any actual science behind this?

As I said, that's my layman's pov only.

It's only "based" on my personal reading of some Freud writings, some very good (physics) mentor's advice regarding learning efficiency and subsequent observation and self-observation and attempts to recap what I learned at which age and why.
And on some knowledge of neural networks, of course.

But this

the human brain undergoes it's principal explosion of synaptogenesis in the frontal cortex between 12-18 months, so that's a trivia byte for you Huttenlocher pioneered that research if you want to look it up.

fits quite well into my little model.

---

Let's consider the following "stimulus" for fun.
Little Spock is simply not hungry but Mama Amanda looks sad because little Spock does not eat his Plomeek broth (a Vulcan delicacy).

So little Spock "learns" he has to like(!) his Plomeek broth to make Mama happy, regardless of his appetite.

The hitchhikers guide even has info that an Earthling named 'Watzlawick' provided an example of mothers demanding that kids should like doing their homework. But the Vulcan Science Directorate has decided that this scenario is absurd, even by Earthling's standards.

Does that stimulus contribute to the development of logical thinking?
Does that stimulus promote emotional competence or creativity?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I completely disagree with this oversimplified statement. 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. It's OK, it doesn't mean that anyone is more special than anyone else. It does, though, mean that some people have a better natural proclivity for math and some for painting. What you're exposed to in your first years of life have an influence but it's not as influential as the complicated process through which progenitor neuroepithelial stem cells time their delays to create the areal divisions of the cortex. These processes are different in different individuals and yield different local areal dynamics in relation to global brain function.

I think all this is irrelevant. It's not the hand you're dealt, it's how you play it. Those who get the right stimulation at an early age are better players. Feynman was no math genius. The reason he taught himself calculus at 15 was because his father encouraged him to be curious and analytical. Asians aren't all born with better "math lobes" than everyone else. They tend to do better because academic excellence is stressed at home by their parents. The majority of people demonstrate a genius ability to pick up their native language and speak it fluently, just as their parents speak it, regardless of the fact that they all have different language centers, some much better than others. Langauge is constantly stimulated. I think math and art can be equally stimulated or neglected.

 

[DiracPool]

I think all this is irrelevant. It's not the hand you're dealt, it's how you play it.

Hmm, well, if your dealt a 3 of clubs, a 4 of hearts, and a 7 of spades, your not going to beat the guy with 3 aces, now are you? I don't care how good your poker face is.

Of course, that all depends on the rules of the game. We could invent a game where a 3, 4 and 7 was the best you can do. That's how it is with biology. Organisms adapt to their environments, and it's more genetic than the popular sentiment would lead you to believe. I do agree with you, though, that perseverance can overcome some otherwise perceived limitation. But that is a human quality. You don't find this anywhere else in the animal kingdom. You also don't find organisms pretending that all brains are tabula rasa's because it sounds nice. That's the other side of the human coin. But the OP's question is important to him/her, and I think you may be sugar coating the truth, which might not get him what he's looking for. From the original post:

For me personally, I love physics, I think science and mathematics are really really fascinating and definitely a beauty to behold. That being said...I'm horrid at math. Calculus I took every fiber of my being to complete with a C+. Anyway this got me thinking, do you all think that people are born with the innate ability for mathematics, or art?

This is a classic nature-nurture question. I personally want to know what I'm up against with my innate capacities and perhaps less-so capacities when I enter a project. Nothing is worse than feeling you've had a tabula rasa equal shot at something and then feel like you failed when you really didn't. You just needed to approach it from a different angle. I think in pictures when I try to solve physics problems. Equations just don't come to my head. Should I feel like I had an equal shot and messed up somewhere? Sometimes I do, but I counter that by knowing I'm a right brain thinker, which means the intuition of physics problems comes to me very quickly, but the quantitative takes more work than a left brain thinker. But this insight has only come through many years of studying the brain. I used to beat up on myself a lot unnecessarily when I was younger, because I didn't understand that.

...regardless of the fact that they all have different language centers, some much better than others.

Where did you get that info? The language system straddles the left perisylvian region in all humans from my awareness. Some right, just as some people have their hearts on the right side. But the language system is a pretty conserved feature in human brain anatomy/physiology.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hmm, well, if your dealt a 3 of clubs, a 4 of hearts, and a 7 of spades, your not going to beat the guy with 3 aces, now are you?

Feynman and Einstein won Nobel Prizes and the physicists around them who were much better pure mathematicians did not.

This is a classic nature-nurture question. I personally want to know what I'm up against with my innate capacities and perhaps less-so capacities when I enter a project. Nothing is worse than feeling you've had a tabula rasa equal shot at something and then feel like you failed when you really didn't. You just needed to approach it from a different angle. I think in pictures when I try to solve physics problems. Equations just don't come to my head. Should I feel like I had an equal shot and messed up somewhere? Sometimes I do, but I counter that by knowing I'm a right brain thinker, which means the intuition of physics problems comes to me very quickly, but the quantitative takes more work than a left brain thinker. But this insight has only come through many years of studying the brain. I used to beat up on myself a lot unnecessarily when I was younger, because I didn't understand that.

The stimulation I'm talking about is external and beyond your control. The "tabula rasa" is written on by what you're taught and what you experience, how you're stimulated. The best example is the stories Feynman tells about how his father shaped and guided his attitude toward the world, encouraging his curiosity and analytical thinking. By the time you're in a position to acquire knowledge on your own, the basic abilities have already been stimulated or not.

Where did you get that info? The language system straddles the left perisylvian region in all humans from my awareness. Some right, just as some people have their hearts on the right side. But the language system is a pretty conserved feature in human brain anatomy/physiology.

Oh, don't play this game. When I say "different" language centers I'm obviously referring to language centers of different quality, as per you:

Just like some people have big noses and little hands, some people have big anterior cingulates and little red nucleus's.

There's no doubt there's a difference in the quality of the hardware from one individual to another, yet we all end up fluent in our own native language due to constant early exposure. "Fluent" in the simple sense we all pass as native speakers, a thing that becomes harder and harder the older you are when you learn. (Beyond 12, no one without language can learn any language properly.)

People who are not stimulated in math (or art, or whatever) very early on may never develop their full original potential and will atrophy, just as the girl who was kept locked in a room here in San Diego till she was 12 could never learn to speak English properly the rest of her life.

Feynman and Einstein were not that advanced as far as mathematicians go. This may have been a "hardware" issue. Regardless, they were stimulated enough that they could acquire all the math they needed for their purposes. They didn't have to be Gauss (stipulating momentarily, for the sake of argument, that he represents the best in math "hardware") to accomplish what they accomplished.

On the other hand, we have to consider that Gauss' mathematical hardware may have been perfectly ordinary, genetically, and his parents stumbled on a kind of perfect stimulation of it by sheer, random accident, stimulating it with the same comfortable ease they stimulated his acquisition of language.

Everyone's "tabula" may be different, genetically, but they're all still "rasa" to start with, and what gets written early on makes the big difference.

The issue that confounds things the most, I believe, is pathologies, not genetics. Pathologies can lead to all kinds of imbalances and the development of "apparent" talents, talents that don't really reflect superior genes but which are, in fact, over compensations for deprivations in other areas.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I wasn't about to interview you over an asinine anecdote, inquiring as to your age, intentions, time spent each day, etc. I made reasonable conclusions from the given information.

Do you make it a habit of pretending that other pertinent information doesn't exist/doesn't matter in favor of giving the quick, easy answer? All you did was serve as a perfect example of the type of people I was talking about at the beginning of this thread.

Regardless, this whole argument is based on psychology, and you never really get anywhere when arguing about psychology because of the inability to conduct most experiments, or to reproduce many results. I just thinks it's cute that you think that you can run as fast as Usain Bolt if you *really* wanted to.

It's not based on psychology at all, and I have gotten somewhere. I've argued my point pretty well. My point was that people like to say, basically that "he's just naturally good at it" or "he's just naturally bad at it" while comparing two people, even though there's an almost limitless amount of variables involved that people like you choose to ignore.

And I think it's condescending to say it's cute that I think I could run as fast as Usain Bolt if I really wanted to.
First of all, I never said I could, I simply asked how he knows I couldn't. That's a big difference. He apparently didn't have an answer to that question, and apparently neither do you. Acting flabbergasted that I believe I could (even though I never said I could), isn't an argument against why I couldn't. Crazy how that works, huh?
Or do you think court cases go like this...
Lawyer: "Your honor, I think it's cute that you think my client actually committed this crime."
Judge: "Well, now that you put it that way, I find the defendant innocent of all charges. He's free to go."

Well, if you really think that you could train hard enough to beat Usain Bolt in a 100 meter dash, then I guess there's nothing more to say. However, I think if you're honest with yourself, you know this isn't really true.

Lawyer: "Your honor, if you think my client actually committed this crime, then I guess there's nothing more to say. However, I think if you're honest with yourself, you know this isn't really true."
Judge: "Your logic blows my mind. Take those cuffs off the defendant right now and let him go home to his family."

Sound familiar? It's your argument put in a different setting. I hope it illustrates why your argument, or lack thereof, is illogical.

How do you figure that? 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?

There's specific physiological features (due to genetics) that everyone knows about that causes a cheetah to be faster than a cow. You can look at a cheetah and know that genes play a role. It's been proven scientifically what makes a cheetah faster than a cow.
So if you want to use that analogy, what is it genetically about Tony Hawk that makes him better than everyone else at skateboarding? You know it must be genetics because he's the best? That's an argument from ignorance.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Lol. Look you can believe whatever you want; if you think you can truly work really hard and excel at anything you put your mind to then go for it because the only thing that can stop you is reality. Arguing with hypotheticals for something like this is absolutely useless.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Lol. Look you can believe whatever you want; if you think you can truly work really hard and excel at anything you put your mind to then go for it because the only thing that can stop you is reality. Arguing with hypotheticals for something like this is absolutely useless.

What hypotheticals am I arguing with? I never said I could do anything hypothetically. You've misconstrued what I'm arguing if you think I'm arguing that anyone can hypothetically do anything they want if they just put their mind to it. I never once argued that. I'm arguing against the illogic that people commonly display, but no one calls them out on.

But I'm against telling anyone they can't do something. If someone says they want to train to be faster than Usain Bolt, why would I tell them that's impossible? First of all, I can't possibly know that. Usain Bolt has lost some races to people who were probably told by someone growing up that they won't be the fastest in the world. Bolt himself may have even been told that. What's the point of saying that to someone?

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... But I'm against telling anyone they can't do something. If someone says they want to train to be faster than Usain Bolt, why would I tell them that's impossible? First of all, I can't possibly know that. Usain Bolt has lost some races to people who were probably told by someone growing up that they won't be the fastest in the world. Bolt himself may have even been told that. What's the point of saying that to someone?

I know a kid who has been, and will be, constrained to a wheelchair for his entire life due to his genetics. Go ahead and tell him that his genes are equivalent to those of Usain Bolt, and that he just needs to be training harder.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I know a kid who has been, and will be, constrained to a wheelchair for his entire life due to his genetics. Go ahead and tell him that his genes are equivalent to those of Usain Bolt, and that he just needs to be training harder.

You said this in response to me saying that I can't possibly know that someone will never be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt no matter how much they train.
So since you brought up the example of someone in a wheelchair, that must mean you think that since you can definitely say that someone in a wheelchair will never beat Usain Bolt, that means you can definitely say that about anybody? Is that really what you're arguing? If not, then I don't understand the relevance of bringing that up.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Like I said, you can tell people whatever you want to tell them. You can fill them with as much hope as you want. In the end it is reality which lends a helping hand or deals the fell blow. There is no point in arguing this; people who are truly intelligent at something and who have a passion for said something have the tools to succeed regardless of where the intelligence comes from. I highly doubt they themselves care where it came from in the end, only the bystanders seem to care based on the plethora of posts that have come up regarding this topic.

 

[DiracPool]

Oh, don't play this game. When I say "different" language centers I'm obviously referring to language centers of different quality, as per you:

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

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

You said this in response to me saying that I can't possibly know that someone will never be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt no matter how much they train.
So since you brought up the example of someone in a wheelchair, that must mean you think that since you can definitely say that someone in a wheelchair will never beat Usain Bolt, that means you can definitely say that about anybody? Is that really what you're arguing? If not, then I don't understand the relevance of bringing that up.

It's a bit odd that you think you're being logical, but you really aren't.

"You said this in response to *my saying that I can't possibly know that someone will ever be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt no matter how much they train."

I obviously provided you with an example that proves this statement to be false. My friend has malfunctioning legs. His body is incapable of running. This is due to a genetic disease that he has had since birth. Once again: He cannot run. Not being able to run means that he will never beat Usain Bolt in a race, because races require their participants to be able to run, which my friend cannot do. Understand?

"So since you brought up the example of someone in a wheelchair, that must mean you think that since you can definitely say that someone in a wheelchair will never beat Usain Bolt, that means you can definitely say that about anybody? Is that really what you're arguing?"

No, that's obviously not what I'm arguing. Your reading comprehension has room for improvement. You supplied a statement saying "we cannot know this" yet I provided you with an example, "an" meaning ONE, which proved that statement to be false. All that is required of me is to provide you with one counter-example to show that what you said is false. In no way, whatsoever, did I ever even hint at the implication of my statement applying to everyone, and how you've drawn that conclusion baffles me.

"If not, then I don't understand the relevance of bringing that up."

Your inability to understand it is not my concern.