I'm about 95% convinced that "natural talent" is another name for hard work. I'm now in my 7th decade of living and have been told I had a "natural talent" for a couple of skills. Baloney! I worked my tail off for years at both of them. Musically, I'm something of a hack, but I'm a lot less of a hack when I'm playing totally alone. Another funny thing is that I can play alone, record something on a tape, play it back and it sounds pretty good, but I CANNOT play anything without crashing if my audience members have less than four feet each or are greater than 50 feet away and ignoring me. However, I have that obsession some mentioned, and I'll get there eventually. Practice and enjoy yourself. I do.
My goodness, sad days indeed, I'm still awake thinking of a christmas champagne breakfast I have to host after the kids have got their prezzos.
Talent? Real talent? Of course it is genetically determined. Why the hell do you get some people who are dingbat tosspot numpty cabbages and others who are kings and queens at their game? Whatever the game is. That's the way life is. Just accept the fact and you'll be happier for doing so. All people are *not* equal. But they should all be given equal opportunities. The fact that lip service is paid to equal opportunities is lamentable and has resulted in us being governed by a little sh!te called Cameron, who got every oppportunity going and is still a little sh!te.
I agree with both Hup and Rudall. Some people need to work much harder than others to get the same thing, some people will never get it no matter how hard they try. But talent alone doesn't do it neither, everyone needs to put a little effort.
I think that there are two types of talent, the intelectual and the physical, and we all have them in different degrees. If one of the two talents is low it's going to be very hard. So for instance, a person with a good knowledge and understanding of the music but with bad tendons and nervous connections is going to have a hell of a time trying to make it sound as he likes.
>I think that there are two types of talent, the intelectual and the physical
I think there are many many different types of talent, combining various intellectual, physical, emotional, spiritual and other elements.
Happo chrimbo.
The Guardian article: So, anybody can do <blah-blah> if they just work hard enough for long enough. And if they didn't do <blah-blah>, then obviously they didn't work hard enough or long enough, right? Sorta begs the question, dudnit?
Of course, the harder, longer and better you work, the more you'll accomplish. Did anybody really doubt that? Is it surprising that the best violinists worked longer, harder and better than the others? Does that say anything about genius? Can we even define genius? Is there really any point in having the concept at all?
And what about the possibility that some of the best violinists worked harder, longer and better because they were able to, not vice versa?
The border between nature and nurture is somewhat blurred, but can you express a gene that's not present?
Back in college in the 80' I took a psychology class in which I did some research for a paper on exactly that topic. The scientific articles on studies with twins separated after birth and raised in different social environments lead me to the conviction that a lot is actually genetically based. However, in the 80', the official opinion was all in favor of nurture. Just give a child the right environment and s/he can do practically everything. I only got a C- on my paper because apparently I had read the wrong articles. ;P
Interestingly enough, during the last couple of years scientists have isolated more and more specific genes responsible for all kinds of traits and abilities, which one would never have thought genetically based. According to those findings, nature has to be just right so that nurture can have the fullest effect. Without nurture, nature can not fully unfold, but without nature, nurture won't help.
Music, however, is one of the most fundamental abilities of mankind. All so-called "primitive" cultures have music/singing, percussion and dance. This would suggest that pretty much everybody should have the "music gene" and with it a good dose of talent for music. Everybody should be able to learn to make music to some extend, just as pretty much everybody is able to learn how to speak.
To make the most of any talent, lots of other things come into play. Humans (and animals) generally work best when there is some kind of reward at the end. Maybe those people develop their various talents the furthest that have some kind of their own reward system in place that makes even long hours of practice extremely rewarding.
I come from a family in which music didn't play any role. There was hardly any radio or records played when I grew up. When I was 5, I taught myself to read music and play the recorder. I could claim that this was due to my musical talent breaking through without any nurturing whatsoever. However, I think my strongest motivation was that I wanted to do the same stuff my 3 1/2 years older brother was doing, who was learning to play the recorder in school (and hated it). But I thought that this was the "grown up" thing to do, so I sat down secretly (because my brother would beat me up if he found out that I had touched his recorder) with the booklet with children's songs and his recorder and did it. I guess I built my own reward system very early on, which did not depend on external input, but shaped my own drive to learn.
My brother's first experience with music, however, was the hated recorder. He never touched another instrument until he was much older and I was playing several instruments by that time. He started to borrow my guitar and got really good at it fast. So he probably has the same music gene(s) I do. But in his later teens, he had already carved out his role as the computer geek, whereas I was the musician. Paired with sibling rivalry, he probably felt that he could never compete with me in this regard. Music never came to play such a strong role in his life as it does in mine.
I'm sure there are differences in regard to how easily things like music come to people, but I think there are very complex reward systems around (as well as the opposite punishment systems) that motivate people to try and excel at certain things (or in the opposite case: avoid or fail), and they are different for each person. And the older one is when starting to learn something new, the more different and complex reward and punishment systems interact and influence our learning curve and our success rate.
David Shenk ~ on genetic determinism (vs. influence)
Most people look at child geniuses like Mozart and conclude that his gifts had to be the result of fortuitous genes. Presumably you disagree?
"I am not trying to diminish his achievements, of course. But the more you look at his life, or the life of any other genius, you realise that this was a process. He reacted to an environment that was almost uniquely perfect for moulding him into a child star."
...
"The more we read about new genes being discovered for human conditions, the more our belief in genetic determinism gets stronger. Yet the vast majority of geneticists would not want that to happen."
Do you think genetics research is going to provide us with more data that suggests that genius is acquired rather than inherited?
"Modern studies are only just beginning to unravel issues about gene expression and epigenetics, the study of how the environment modifies the ways genes are expressed. Genes are constantly activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli: nutrition, hormones, nerve impulses and other genes. There is no golden genetic windfall bestowed at birth, but constant interaction between the outside world and our DNA."
In other words, your genes do not place a limit on your potential in any way?
"Yes. That is right. Our genes influence our lives, but equally our lives influence our genes."
before Bad Finger ...
In that case I'll point out that I would not say, "Real talent? Of course it is genetically determined."
I have not read Shenk's book, though I think he might agree that it is inaccurate to equal out the two factors (in terms of current research). What he is mainly bringing up, imho, is about gene expression (& lack of) being researched in a relatively new way through epigenetics.
"10,000 hours with instrument in hand ought to do it. "
Exactly. Talent matters but it tends to be overrated, playing is a matter of skill, and it's not so much how much potential you have (talent), as how much you actually use (work).
Talent matters a lot if you want to be at the top of a highly competitive game, but if you just want to become good and enjoy yourself it matters little, love of music with a healthy dose of obsession will take you far over time.
Merry Christmas all! I've got a bottle of Jameson from my sister and some new strings from myself (Passione solos, they're amazing) so what am I doing here? Laters.
Yes, the 10,000 hour rule as outlined in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers,ought to do the trick. And very often 'nature' is not appreciated by the begiven (my coinage) . That's the wasted talents parable. Then there are those who nurture a modest talent and ultimately excel. Whether or which, just buck up and be glad to be who and what you are....provided you're a fairly sound cove. I'll bet you are 'n all!
When a Thomsons Gazelle is born, it can run in under an hour. A human child can run in maybe two years if it is shown. If it isn't shown, it can never run.
Music is entirely taught. The idea that a human can have an instinct for music is stupid nonsense.
>Music is entirely taught. The idea that a human can have an instinct for music is stupid nonsense.
I'd say that we all have an instinct for music, that it came with our instinct for language. The idea that there is a human without that ability seems to me pure nonsense.*
I don't think, though, that my only disagreement with Michael here is in the phrasing, the substance of the claim is the same. That instinct is not a magic ticket, it's a latent ability which can only be developed by a combination of hard work and good teaching.
*(No other animal, you'll notice, has either music in the way we mean it or language in any serious sense at all)
Analogies between language and music have become so ubiquitous that it's often easy to forget that one of the defining differences between the two is that we are indeed genetically predisposed for language, but not music?
Nature or Nurture?
Nature or Nurture?
I'm about 95% convinced that "natural talent" is another name for hard work. I'm now in my 7th decade of living and have been told I had a "natural talent" for a couple of skills. Baloney! I worked my tail off for years at both of them. Musically, I'm something of a hack, but I'm a lot less of a hack when I'm playing totally alone. Another funny thing is that I can play alone, record something on a tape, play it back and it sounds pretty good, but I CANNOT play anything without crashing if my audience members have less than four feet each or are greater than 50 feet away and ignoring me. However, I have that obsession some mentioned, and I'll get there eventually. Practice and enjoy yourself. I do.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by sfarrell
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Hard work won't do it if the talent is not there, sadly. And the
talented don't have to work so hard.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Hup
Re: Nature or Nurture?
...hey,and Merry Christmas too! What are we doing here anyway?
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Hup
Re: Nature or Nurture?
My goodness, sad days indeed, I'm still awake thinking of a christmas champagne breakfast I have to host after the kids have got their prezzos.
Talent? Real talent? Of course it is genetically determined. Why the hell do you get some people who are dingbat tosspot numpty cabbages and others who are kings and queens at their game? Whatever the game is. That's the way life is. Just accept the fact and you'll be happier for doing so. All people are *not* equal. But they should all be given equal opportunities. The fact that lip service is paid to equal opportunities is lamentable and has resulted in us being governed by a little sh!te called Cameron, who got every oppportunity going and is still a little sh!te.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Nature or Nurture?
I agree with both Hup and Rudall. Some people need to work much harder than others to get the same thing, some people will never get it no matter how hard they try. But talent alone doesn't do it neither, everyone needs to put a little effort.
I think that there are two types of talent, the intelectual and the physical, and we all have them in different degrees. If one of the two talents is low it's going to be very hard. So for instance, a person with a good knowledge and understanding of the music but with bad tendons and nervous connections is going to have a hell of a time trying to make it sound as he likes.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Gallowglass
Re: Nature or Nurture?
>I think that there are two types of talent, the intelectual and the physical
I think there are many many different types of talent, combining various intellectual, physical, emotional, spiritual and other elements.
Happo chrimbo.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Nature or Nurture?
We've been here before. For 'talent' read 'ability'.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by gam
Re: Nature or Nurture?
read what you want. that's just semantics. but it's in yer genes
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Talent does what it can.Genius does what it must.( from the cover of Scott Skinner's Strathspey king.)
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by cos
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Did he consider himself a genius then?
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Gallowglass
Re: Nature or Nurture?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/may/02/david-shenk-genius-genetics
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Nature or Nurture?
10,000 hours with instrument in hand ought to do it.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by David Levine
Re: Nature or Nurture?
The Guardian article: So, anybody can do <blah-blah> if they just work hard enough for long enough. And if they didn't do <blah-blah>, then obviously they didn't work hard enough or long enough, right? Sorta begs the question, dudnit?
Of course, the harder, longer and better you work, the more you'll accomplish. Did anybody really doubt that? Is it surprising that the best violinists worked longer, harder and better than the others? Does that say anything about genius? Can we even define genius? Is there really any point in having the concept at all?
And what about the possibility that some of the best violinists worked harder, longer and better because they were able to, not vice versa?
The border between nature and nurture is somewhat blurred, but can you express a gene that's not present?
I'm rambling, so I'll quit.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Bob himself
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Back in college in the 80' I took a psychology class in which I did some research for a paper on exactly that topic. The scientific articles on studies with twins separated after birth and raised in different social environments lead me to the conviction that a lot is actually genetically based. However, in the 80', the official opinion was all in favor of nurture. Just give a child the right environment and s/he can do practically everything. I only got a C- on my paper because apparently I had read the wrong articles. ;P
Interestingly enough, during the last couple of years scientists have isolated more and more specific genes responsible for all kinds of traits and abilities, which one would never have thought genetically based. According to those findings, nature has to be just right so that nurture can have the fullest effect. Without nurture, nature can not fully unfold, but without nature, nurture won't help.
Music, however, is one of the most fundamental abilities of mankind. All so-called "primitive" cultures have music/singing, percussion and dance. This would suggest that pretty much everybody should have the "music gene" and with it a good dose of talent for music. Everybody should be able to learn to make music to some extend, just as pretty much everybody is able to learn how to speak.
To make the most of any talent, lots of other things come into play. Humans (and animals) generally work best when there is some kind of reward at the end. Maybe those people develop their various talents the furthest that have some kind of their own reward system in place that makes even long hours of practice extremely rewarding.
I come from a family in which music didn't play any role. There was hardly any radio or records played when I grew up. When I was 5, I taught myself to read music and play the recorder. I could claim that this was due to my musical talent breaking through without any nurturing whatsoever. However, I think my strongest motivation was that I wanted to do the same stuff my 3 1/2 years older brother was doing, who was learning to play the recorder in school (and hated it). But I thought that this was the "grown up" thing to do, so I sat down secretly (because my brother would beat me up if he found out that I had touched his recorder) with the booklet with children's songs and his recorder and did it. I guess I built my own reward system very early on, which did not depend on external input, but shaped my own drive to learn.
My brother's first experience with music, however, was the hated recorder. He never touched another instrument until he was much older and I was playing several instruments by that time. He started to borrow my guitar and got really good at it fast. So he probably has the same music gene(s) I do. But in his later teens, he had already carved out his role as the computer geek, whereas I was the musician. Paired with sibling rivalry, he probably felt that he could never compete with me in this regard. Music never came to play such a strong role in his life as it does in mine.
I'm sure there are differences in regard to how easily things like music come to people, but I think there are very complex reward systems around (as well as the opposite punishment systems) that motivate people to try and excel at certain things (or in the opposite case: avoid or fail), and they are different for each person. And the older one is when starting to learn something new, the more different and complex reward and punishment systems interact and influence our learning curve and our success rate.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by heike
David Shenk ~ on genetic determinism (vs. influence)
Most people look at child geniuses like Mozart and conclude that his gifts had to be the result of fortuitous genes. Presumably you disagree?
"I am not trying to diminish his achievements, of course. But the more you look at his life, or the life of any other genius, you realise that this was a process. He reacted to an environment that was almost uniquely perfect for moulding him into a child star."
...
"The more we read about new genes being discovered for human conditions, the more our belief in genetic determinism gets stronger. Yet the vast majority of geneticists would not want that to happen."
Do you think genetics research is going to provide us with more data that suggests that genius is acquired rather than inherited?
"Modern studies are only just beginning to unravel issues about gene expression and epigenetics, the study of how the environment modifies the ways genes are expressed. Genes are constantly activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli: nutrition, hormones, nerve impulses and other genes. There is no golden genetic windfall bestowed at birth, but constant interaction between the outside world and our DNA."
In other words, your genes do not place a limit on your potential in any way?
"Yes. That is right. Our genes influence our lives, but equally our lives influence our genes."
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Nature or Nurture?
hmmm. I wouldn't say equally.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Nature or Nurture?
I'm not bothered reading so long posts.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Gallowglass
Re: Nature or Nurture?
before Bad Finger ...
In that case I'll point out that I would not say, "Real talent? Of course it is genetically determined."
I have not read Shenk's book, though I think he might agree that it is inaccurate to equal out the two factors (in terms of current research). What he is mainly bringing up, imho, is about gene expression (& lack of) being researched in a relatively new way through epigenetics.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Nature or Nurture?
"10,000 hours with instrument in hand ought to do it. "
Exactly. Talent matters but it tends to be overrated, playing is a matter of skill, and it's not so much how much potential you have (talent), as how much you actually use (work).
Talent matters a lot if you want to be at the top of a highly competitive game, but if you just want to become good and enjoy yourself it matters little, love of music with a healthy dose of obsession will take you far over time.
Merry Christmas all! I've got a bottle of Jameson from my sister and some new strings from myself (Passione solos, they're amazing) so what am I doing here? Laters.
# Posted on December 25th 2010 by Marklar
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Yes, the 10,000 hour rule as outlined in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers,ought to do the trick. And very often 'nature' is not appreciated by the begiven (my coinage) . That's the wasted talents parable. Then there are those who nurture a modest talent and ultimately excel. Whether or which, just buck up and be glad to be who and what you are....provided you're a fairly sound cove. I'll bet you are 'n all!
# Posted on December 28th 2010 by Christmas Eve
Re: Nature or Nurture?
When a Thomsons Gazelle is born, it can run in under an hour. A human child can run in maybe two years if it is shown. If it isn't shown, it can never run.
Music is entirely taught. The idea that a human can have an instinct for music is stupid nonsense.
# Posted on December 28th 2010 by ...
Re: Nature or Nurture?
>Music is entirely taught. The idea that a human can have an instinct for music is stupid nonsense.
I'd say that we all have an instinct for music, that it came with our instinct for language. The idea that there is a human without that ability seems to me pure nonsense.*
I don't think, though, that my only disagreement with Michael here is in the phrasing, the substance of the claim is the same. That instinct is not a magic ticket, it's a latent ability which can only be developed by a combination of hard work and good teaching.
*(No other animal, you'll notice, has either music in the way we mean it or language in any serious sense at all)
# Posted on December 28th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Nature or Nurture?
There's plenty of species which use music the way we mean it ~ To get laid!
# Posted on December 28th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Nature or Nurture?
Analogies between language and music have become so ubiquitous that it's often easy to forget that one of the defining differences between the two is that we are indeed genetically predisposed for language, but not music?
# Posted on December 30th 2010 by ...