3 ms·

Yeah, sorry, that was confusing. I guess I was just trying to point out that for behavior to arise that is beneficial to a species (like the eusocial behavior i

Yeah, sorry, that was confusing. I guess I was just trying to point out that for behavior to arise that is beneficial to a species (like the eusocial behavior in bees), it has to increase fitness for everybody, otherwise that kind of behavior would never evolve. If you want to draw the parallel to creatives vs. workers in the modern workplace, I don't really see that analog or metaphor (or literal interpretation for that matter) working very well – one half gets all the money and recognition, the other half gets zilch. It just seems very unlikely to me to posit that human talent is variable because of genetic specialization within the species. It's much more likely that talent is influenced by thousands of genes, and lots of different combinations lead to lots of different outcomes. Not a biologist though.

vegabook 11y ago
I agree with this. However if you accept that the circumstances of a society's existence are highly variable too, that each of the many different genetic outcomes you speak of is relevant only under very specific circumstances, then we could have a situation where a "talent" is viable at some times, and not viable at others. In that case, we have an evolutionary interest in maintaining many different talents, many of which will remain latent/unused, in our multi-individual society, until circumstances wish? Furthermore, and unrelated, it is also my personal opinion that highly "talented" people in the definition that society places on the word, often have deficiencies in terms of other prerequisites for success. It's a bit of a zero-sum game in some ways. I happen to be an excellent mathematician, but I massively envy the (far less inspired) discipline that one of my colleagues has allowing him to be much more effective in the day to day grind of business. Basically, I'm highly talented by most definitions, more than him (again by the societal definition) but I'm not very effective at making money in a world where that seems to be the scoreboard. Try as I might, I just do not have his work ethic. I just cannot do it. So who has the talent? Him or me?

vegabook 11y ago

I agree with this. However if you accept that the circumstances of a society's existence are highly variable too, that each of the many different genetic outcomes you speak of is relevant only under very specific circumstances, then we could have a situation where a "talent" is viable at some times, and not viable at others. In that case, we have an evolutionary interest in maintaining many different talents, many of which will remain latent/unused, in our multi-individual society, until circumstances wish? Furthermore, and unrelated, it is also my personal opinion that highly "talented" people in the definition that society places on the word, often have deficiencies in terms of other prerequisites for success. It's a bit of a zero-sum game in some ways. I happen to be an excellent mathematician, but I massively envy the (far less inspired) discipline that one of my colleagues has allowing him to be much more effective in the day to day grind of business. Basically, I'm highly talented by most definitions, more than him (again by the societal definition) but I'm not very effective at making money in a world where that seems to be the scoreboard. Try as I might, I just do not have his work ethic. I just cannot do it. So who has the talent? Him or me?