6 ms·

Talent certainly exists. To pretend it doesn’t is to reject reality.

solardev 3y ago
One can be quite talented at rejecting reality
ryandrake 3y ago
I'm not really convinced. What is the mechanism by which "talent" functions? Can we observe and/or test for "talent" without observing the task the subject is claimed to be talented at? Or do you have to observe the subject performing the task exceptionally well, and then conclude "it must be talent". Sounds like mysticism like Chakras and Chi Energy to me. Genetics is different: You're 6'7" tall, giving you a physical advantage at basketball. When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages?
- solardev 3y ago
  Why do you find it easy to believe in genetic advantages for basketball, but not other activities? It would be strange if other talent did NOT have a genetic (and maybe hormonal, etc.) component, wouldn't it, when most everything from intelligence to obesity can be inherited? Exceptional aptitude only makes sense measured against the median performance. So yes, of course you'd observe or otherwise measure the subject somehow. But from there, if you come up with some concrete measure of ability (easier in some fields than others), you can work backwards to try to identify and isolate biological and environmental components. Some random examples from a quick google: chess correlations with different intelligences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...), genetic factors helping chess and science ability (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204), music and genes plus practice (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9). There is a much bigger discussion on this exact topic here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 Or a Wikipedia summary of an opposing viewpoint, that talent is NOT involved at all, only practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del... TLDR aptitude at something is usually a combination of many things, from genes to hormones to upbringing to deliberate practice. Yes, we have vague concepts like "talent" and "intelligence" that are often hard to nail down, and used lazily in day-to-day life to mean whatever the speakers wants it to mean. But you can still reframe it in a more precise way, like "Is ability at X activity partially heritable/genetic?" or "Given a group of people practicing Y similarly for Z duration, do they arrive at roughly similar outcomes?" There's nothing mystical about any of this. It's the same sort of work as trying to trace the genetic components of anything we experience, whether that's aptitude or disease or personality or behavior. At the extreme ends, it's easy to see this across species; why are some so much faster, or able to solve certain kinds of problems, or can navigate by starlight, or can sleep half-awake, whatever. I think the counter view -- that humans alone, of all the animals, are created absolutely equal and environment alone shapes our outcomes -- is far more mystical. That requires the belief that the brain and mind is some sort of super-natural device not subject to normal biological evolution, replication mistakes, natural selection, etc. If talent didn't have a biological component, we should be able to train everything from apes to whales to do exactly what we do, given enough practice.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages? "Talent" is the genetic component of the advantage. What's so hard to understand?
  - em-bee 3y ago
    what's hard to understand is why there is no evidence that such a genetic component exists. so far all claims are unproven speculation
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      If you honestly believe there's no genetic difference in cognitive ability (or physical ability), then you might be deliberately being obtuse or not arguing in good faith.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        i believe in evidence. it may well be that there are genetic differences. but until we have proof and the ability to measure the difference, i also think that believing in talent being genetic is dangerous as it holds back people who are perceived to be untalented. if i believe that the talent of my kids is genetic then i will be less likely to try to foster them to do better. this is especially dangerous for teachers. our society suffers a lot from believing that people are poor because they have no talent to do better. and worse some apply this based on race. we can talk about talent being genetic when we no longer have poor people and have abolished all racism, but until we have done everything we can to allow everyone to develop their talent, we risk misusing this belief as an excuse not to support people to do better because we lack the believe that they even could do better.
        strken 3y ago
        Do you believe in the evidence of partial heritability of cognitive function that we see in twin studies like TEDS? https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds I think it can be simultaneously true that we suffer from believing ability is partly inherited, and also that we live in a world where that's actually the case. Though I also think it's cruel to tell a man with an IQ of 87 who's working as a chicken processor that the only reason he's not a Harvard professor is a bad education, bad parents, and his own failings.

One can be quite talented at rejecting reality

I'm not really convinced. What is the mechanism by which "talent" functions? Can we observe and/or test for "talent" without observing the task the subject is claimed to be talented at? Or do you have to observe the subject performing the task exceptionally well, and then conclude "it must be talent". Sounds like mysticism like Chakras and Chi Energy to me. Genetics is different: You're 6'7" tall, giving you a physical advantage at basketball. When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages?

solardev 3y ago
Why do you find it easy to believe in genetic advantages for basketball, but not other activities? It would be strange if other talent did NOT have a genetic (and maybe hormonal, etc.) component, wouldn't it, when most everything from intelligence to obesity can be inherited? Exceptional aptitude only makes sense measured against the median performance. So yes, of course you'd observe or otherwise measure the subject somehow. But from there, if you come up with some concrete measure of ability (easier in some fields than others), you can work backwards to try to identify and isolate biological and environmental components. Some random examples from a quick google: chess correlations with different intelligences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...), genetic factors helping chess and science ability (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204), music and genes plus practice (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9). There is a much bigger discussion on this exact topic here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 Or a Wikipedia summary of an opposing viewpoint, that talent is NOT involved at all, only practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del... TLDR aptitude at something is usually a combination of many things, from genes to hormones to upbringing to deliberate practice. Yes, we have vague concepts like "talent" and "intelligence" that are often hard to nail down, and used lazily in day-to-day life to mean whatever the speakers wants it to mean. But you can still reframe it in a more precise way, like "Is ability at X activity partially heritable/genetic?" or "Given a group of people practicing Y similarly for Z duration, do they arrive at roughly similar outcomes?" There's nothing mystical about any of this. It's the same sort of work as trying to trace the genetic components of anything we experience, whether that's aptitude or disease or personality or behavior. At the extreme ends, it's easy to see this across species; why are some so much faster, or able to solve certain kinds of problems, or can navigate by starlight, or can sleep half-awake, whatever. I think the counter view -- that humans alone, of all the animals, are created absolutely equal and environment alone shapes our outcomes -- is far more mystical. That requires the belief that the brain and mind is some sort of super-natural device not subject to normal biological evolution, replication mistakes, natural selection, etc. If talent didn't have a biological component, we should be able to train everything from apes to whales to do exactly what we do, given enough practice.
antisthenes 3y ago
> When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages? "Talent" is the genetic component of the advantage. What's so hard to understand?
- em-bee 3y ago
  what's hard to understand is why there is no evidence that such a genetic component exists. so far all claims are unproven speculation
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    If you honestly believe there's no genetic difference in cognitive ability (or physical ability), then you might be deliberately being obtuse or not arguing in good faith.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      i believe in evidence. it may well be that there are genetic differences. but until we have proof and the ability to measure the difference, i also think that believing in talent being genetic is dangerous as it holds back people who are perceived to be untalented. if i believe that the talent of my kids is genetic then i will be less likely to try to foster them to do better. this is especially dangerous for teachers. our society suffers a lot from believing that people are poor because they have no talent to do better. and worse some apply this based on race. we can talk about talent being genetic when we no longer have poor people and have abolished all racism, but until we have done everything we can to allow everyone to develop their talent, we risk misusing this belief as an excuse not to support people to do better because we lack the believe that they even could do better.
      - strken 3y ago
        Do you believe in the evidence of partial heritability of cognitive function that we see in twin studies like TEDS? https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds https://www.teds.ac.uk/about-teds I think it can be simultaneously true that we suffer from believing ability is partly inherited, and also that we live in a world where that's actually the case. Though I also think it's cruel to tell a man with an IQ of 87 who's working as a chicken processor that the only reason he's not a Harvard professor is a bad education, bad parents, and his own failings.