3 ms·

Let's take this point by point. Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well established in the literature. Art: Of course our

by sskates 16y ago

Let's take this point by point. Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well established in the literature. Art: Of course our cognitive abilities that set us apart from other species is genetic. The article you link to makes no claim as to whether the best artists are better than the rest of us because of their genes. Music: There's a gene which makes 1 in 20 tone deaf and it looks like perfect pitch has a basis in genetics (either way, it's something you can't train). Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all. I think the overarching point is that if the OP prefers politics to programming, then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing. He can be just as good at politics if he's willing to put in the time to learn.

hackinthebochs 16y ago
Just to take the musician example: >far more important to being a successful musician are three components I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply "pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome. A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic aptitude for music is extremely rare. >then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example: I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it very hard to believe that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.
xiaoma 16y ago
I suspect the only reason people concede athletic differences is that they are far easier to spot. The actual amount of evidence isn't that different than it is for some other pursuits. The link about art wasn't talking about other species. It was about the development of our species. Genetic shift doesn't happen to an entire species at once, it's a gradual shifting of allele frequencies. If you admit that genetic differences make us more capable artists than our ancestors, it's difficult to defend the claim that all current and ongoing variation in people is irrelevant to artistic skill. >"Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all." This is just utter bullshit and it convinces me you have no direct experience with the field. I grew up in a family of professional musicians and have seen overwhelming evidence that nurture and nature both have significant effects. For a heartbreaking personal example see my comment on another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295

by sskates 16y ago

hackinthebochs 16y ago

Just to take the musician example: >far more important to being a successful musician are three components I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply "pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome. A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic aptitude for music is extremely rare. >then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example: I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it very hard to believe that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.

xiaoma 16y ago

I suspect the only reason people concede athletic differences is that they are far easier to spot. The actual amount of evidence isn't that different than it is for some other pursuits. The link about art wasn't talking about other species. It was about the development of our species. Genetic shift doesn't happen to an entire species at once, it's a gradual shifting of allele frequencies. If you admit that genetic differences make us more capable artists than our ancestors, it's difficult to defend the claim that all current and ongoing variation in people is irrelevant to artistic skill. >"Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all." This is just utter bullshit and it convinces me you have no direct experience with the field. I grew up in a family of professional musicians and have seen overwhelming evidence that nurture and nature both have significant effects. For a heartbreaking personal example see my comment on another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295