Are you born with talent or do you adapt it over time? (Split from TOGS' thread)

[sycld]

We're tangling a whole bunch of issues up. First this thread was about nature vs. nuture, then it became something about how much financial success is determined by genetics vs. incidences in a person's life, and now it's about whether evolution is still functioning among humans or not. Even though these are somewhat related issues, they are not identical.

At any rate...

I get the distinct impression that you just don't understand what I'm saying. Because what you've just posted here in no way says that evolution is being killed. Evolution may not be working in the same obvious ways that it did for our ancestors, but that hardly means it isn't working at all. Sexual selection is still taking place every day. Furthermore, evolution has no sentience. It is blind and deaf, stone-hearted and it absolutely cannot plan for the future. Evolution doesn't just stop existing because a species goes backwards instead of forwards.

I think it's nonsense to say that evolution is working as it always has been. In these discussions, it seems like people forget how evolution works. It only works if fitter individuals have more offspring due to inheritable traits and if their offspring then have more reproductive success due to these traits. The fitter individuals' genes eventually flood the rest of the population.

So are you going to tell me that there is a correlation between wealth and number of offspring? Good luck with trying to support that proposition. If anything, it seems that the opposite is true.

On this point, we'd both need proof to establish any kind of truly serious argument. Evopsych and genetic researchers - as far as I know - have come up with quite a few ways in which sexual selection has been and continues to improve us, even if it is on an individual scale. On average (and there are exceptions, of course), the prettiest marry the prettiest and they have beautiful children. The fat marry the fat because the fat can't often get a more attractive mate. If the weight of the parents is due to genetics, the offspring are also fat. The intelligent marry the intelligent and have intelligent babies, and so on. This means we are still selecting for certain traits all the time. We don't always get what we want, and primates are unique in that they conceal ovulation (which makes longterm fitness indicators based in consistent behavior vital) as well as the fact that males can be almost as choosy as females when picking a mate, but fitness indicators are at work in any human being on this planet that reproduces.

IF this is true (which is a big "if"), then at most this means that those with inferior genes will form a separate population from those with superior genes. But is there any evidence that more intelligent people have more offspring and thus increase the frequency of their genes in the population than less intelligent people?

It's certainly possible that I'm just brainwashed by the idea of individual merit being important. I don't really think I feel that way, but it's possible. It's also possible that Gladwell and you are ignoring biology in favor of a rose-colored world in which every person can be anything they want to be, no matter what their genetic makeup is.

Nobody is claiming that anyone can be successful no matter what their genetic makeup is. Show me where we said that. Don't purposefully make our statements more extreme than they are in order to derail our arguments.

What we are claiming is that the baseline inherent ability that someone needs to posses to be successful is significantly lower than people might expect. The intelligence of an average college graduate is sufficient to make it to the highest levels of success. That's still above the population's average.

I have never tried to say that hard work doesn't contribute to success. Of course it does. There is overwhelming evidence. But the advanced behavioral sciences, including evopsych, are making progress every day in showing how much human behavior is based in genes. There are even genes for work ethic, you know.

I do have to concede that in these sorts of arguments, people never even admit the possibility that work ethic is or could be as genetically pre-determined as certain aspects of intelligence.

[solecistic]

I think it's nonsense to say that evolution is working as it always has been.

But I never said that, nor do I think so. I just think it's absolutely incorrect to say that evolution is dead or no longer relevant to our species. That's all.

In these discussions, it seems like people forget how evolution works. It only works if fitter individuals have more offspring due to inheritable traits and if their offspring then have more reproductive success due to these traits. The fitter individuals' genes eventually flood the rest of the population.

Well, saying that evolution "works" in a success/fail sense is a little shaky. It's really all about the species succeeding or failing at continuing itself indefinitely through the process of evolution. Sexual selection has a tendency to make big changes very quickly. Consider a species of bird whose females have evolved a taste for long tails. At first, almost all of the birds have short tails. Those who have slightly longer tails will produce more offspring because their long tails have become sexual ornaments. Those offspring will produce offspring with even longer tails. But eventually, if the tails become too long, they will impede the birds' ability to survive. If that species dies out due to this process, it doesn't mean evolution wasn't working. It just means that species failed to reign in its own sexual preferences. Evolution has also killed species by totally random and harmful mutation - that doesn't mean evolution didn't operate.

What I was responding to was the idea that evolution somehow has stopped functioning in humans. It hasn't.

So are you going to tell me that there is a correlation between wealth and number of offspring? Good luck with trying to support that proposition. If anything, it seems that the opposite is true.

No, of course not. I never said anything about financial success being linked to the number of one's offspring. What I was saying is that certain genes can help one to become successful (and when I say successful, I don't necessarily mean in a financial sense). Intelligence comes from your genes. None of these traits we've been talking about are black and white - there are varying degrees of intellect or athletic prowess. There are varying degrees of fitness among members of any species.

IF this is true (which is a big "if"), then at most this means that those with inferior genes will form a separate population from those with superior genes.

I don't think that's true. For one thing, there are plenty of ways for less fit organisms to "trick" mates into thinking they're more fit and gain access to better choices. As social creatures, we are capable of lies and manipulation. We have fancy technology that enhances our bodies to make them appear to have come from better stock: plastic surgery, makeup, hair dyes, tummy tucks, boob jobs, steroids, etc. Even some other species engage in this kind of tricky behavior in order to get better mates.

But is there any evidence that more intelligent people have more offspring and thus increase the frequency of their genes in the population than less intelligent people?

Not that I know of. But again - evolution isn't sentient. It seems to us, because we are logical and rational creatures, that evolution could do a much better job if only it would plan for X or start doing Y. Evolution doesn't make active decisions. It is a mindless process that can go in any direction at any time based upon any number of different factors. Just because we aren't seeing ourselves evolve into athletic geniuses doesn't mean that we aren't evolving at all.

Nobody is claiming that anyone can be successful no matter what their genetic makeup is. Show me where we said that. Don't purposefully make our statements more extreme than they are in order to derail our arguments.

That really isn't my intention. I'm responding based on having seen Atmosfear constantly downplay genetics in favor of hard work. That attitude seems to indicate, at least, to me, this idea that anyone can do anything if they are in the right place at the right time and they work for 10,000 hours. My whole point in bringing up genetics in response to that is to illustrate that without the right genes, no amount of work can make you into something you're not. His response to that is that evolution is dead anyway and 10,000 hours can definitely let you do anything. If I have misread that sentiment in him, then I'm not even sure what we're arguing about.

What we are claiming is that the baseline inherent ability that someone needs to posses to be successful is significantly lower than people might expect. The intelligence of an average college graduate is sufficient to make it to the highest levels of success. That's still above the population's average.

If Atmosfear had said this very thing to me in the beginning, I don't think this would have become such a long-winded string of arguments. It may have been my own error in jumping to a conclusion and anticipating his meaning without carefully reading, and if I've done that, I apologize. I was under the impression that his argument was that genetics are insignificant (except in extreme cases like disability) in comparison to hard work, which I just fundamentally disagree with. It seems to me that without the genetics in place to give you the ability to do that work and succeed at it, the work itself is meaningless. That is all I have ever really tried to get across on that front.

[solecistic]

Right. I'm not talking about those people. I assumed Atmosfear simply meant that declining need to always be assuring one's own survival was the issue. Obesity is another issue altogether.

[coqauvin]

It was poorly written. Crichton has always been a little heavy-handed in getting his point across, his characters are unidimensional and never develop and the ideas he expounds are woefully underdevelopped. This is mostly a generalization, because he has, on occasion, displayed some flashes of genius (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain). But his last two books (State of Fear, Next) were really disappointing - the writing was rushed and sloppy, the characters unmemorable, he has a couple good concepts but either fails to develop them satisfactory, or they get only the briefest mention.

Mostly, it was his writing technique that bothered me the most.

[no_brains_no_worries]

I never really thought of it that way Coq and Sole. I keep getting the song Evolution by Korn in my head when I read your posts. Do you really think that if enough of these "unfit" genetic are passed on, the human race could devolve over time?

[Kozzle]

Seriously, it's foolish for anyone to argue that the determinant factor in anything is 100% genetics or 100% environment. There is always an interaction between the 2.

[Absolution]

Do you guys think its possible to be born with a talent or that you adapt it over time?

From when, 2005?

[Atmosfear]

I don't think the threshold for work ethic is any higher than any other genetic determinant.

[sycld]

I don't think the threshold for work ethic is any higher than any other genetic determinant.

It probably isn't, but it seems as though many people treat it as though it is purely determined by nurture in discussions like these.

[coqauvin]

I'm going to just state my view on this so that I don't get confused about what it is later. I think that everyone is born with a disposition to prefer a certain job or task for various elements, but this disposition to enjoy or even have a slight edge doesn't guarantee excellence. There are those who, through consistent effort to improve, over enough time (as a basis, let's go with the 10,000 hours, or roughly 5-6 years of full time work) will excel at their chosen field/task, but these will succeed regardless of their genetic preference or abilities. As long as they continue to apply themselves, even if they have a slight handicap in the field, they will become leaders in it, provided they continue to truly apply themselves.

Generally, people enjoy doing things they are good at, for any number of reasons. If there is a genetic preference for a task or field, people are much more likely to choose that and excel at it, partly because they enjoy that field (creative work vs. concrete, hands-on work as an example), and partly because they gain recognition, encouragement and support from their environment because they are good at it. Genetic preference is more of an impulse, a preference in a certain direction, but a person's own choices and amount of dedication (which, as Sole pointed out, can be genetic) to a field are what determines whether or not you succeed. Anyone who is slightly above average can reach to the greatest levels of success, either in terms of physical talent, financial success or academia, provided they apply themselves.

I would say generally people work harder and prefer work that they receive recognition and appreciation for, and would thus be more willing to apply themselves to that field. Environment plays a large role.

Evolution, as it affects us in these times, is more a matter of social preference and quality than who is more fit to survive. People generally make subconcious choices for their mates rather than conciously choosing (well, I want to have his babies because he has lovely blue eyes and a sense of compassion). Evolution still affects us, in a way easily compared to the movie Idiocracy, although I doubt it will ever reach that extreme. Essentially, whoever has more babies, wins, and generally the elite have fewer children on average.

Well, that's enough pretentious BS from me for today.

edit:

It probably isn't, but it seems as though many people treat it as though it is purely determined by nurture in discussions like these.

I would argue that nurture could override genetic disposition in this area.

[sycld]

I would argue that nurture could override genetic disposition in this area.

Based on what evidence?

[Kal El]

AI out of AI

Oh wait

[Think]

Also, although I'm not as hardline as Atmosfear on this one, I veer closer to him than to Sole (at least as far as mental abilities are concerned) for the following reason: Human genetics encode for plasticity. That is to say, a human child is capable of learning, for example, a whole language in it's infancy. This is not inherent, a child can adapt to whatever language it is born into, and whatever culture; grasp metaphysical notions, understand, for example, the connotations of a tie, this thing that you wear around your neck which has no reference to anything in the EEA. A human being can be scared of the most ridiculous things, because fear is not always an inherent thing (although it arguably can be with some things like spiders and snakes, if trials with monkeys are anything to go by), but something which can be LEARNED rapidly. In the face of this overwhelming capacity for plasticity that our genetics afford us, I would argue that nurture has by far the greatest say because the natural component is so open to learning, developing skills in ANYTHING. This is SLT and behaviourism's greatest lesson.
To clarify, though, I don't take Atmosfear's "Evolution is not applicable lol" line, nor am I stating that there can't be any degree of heritable ability in some areas. I am particularly not arguing that some physiological attributes cannot give us an advantage in some areas, particularly sports and practical work.

[solecistic]

Think, I think it's important to note that a sexual ornament doesn't have to have any other purpose. There are certainly examples of traits that are both sexually ornamental and genetically beneficial in other ways, as you've clearly shown - and in those cases, it certainly makes sense for females to select for those traits. But many times - if not most times, sexual ornaments are just sexual ornaments. Instead of one trait (a large jaw) being about a very specific underlying other trait (high testosterone), a sexual ornament can exist as a window into the genome of another organism. A peacock's tail has absolutely no value except as a sexual ornament, but the fact that the peacock has a high enough energy budget to grow a magnificent tail shows that as an organism, he is genetically fit. The tail has no other use, no other purpose, and no specific underlying trait. It exists only to attract mates. The reason it works as a fitness indicator is that a very beautiful tail costs a lot of energy to grow, due to its complexity and size. A peahen who chooses a beautifully-tailed peacock as a mate is more likely to produce offspring of better quality in larger quantity, thus ensuring that her own genes will continue on for more generations.

[Think]

The tail has no other use, no other purpose, and no specific underlying trait.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you there. No one knows why yet, but peacocks with superior tails are far less likely to be eaten by predators (research study by Petrie in 1992). It's not conclusive, sure, but it suggests to me it's another flag ornament, that there's a heritable trait accompanying it.

The reason it works as a fitness indicator is that a very beautiful tail costs a lot of energy to grow, due to its complexity and size.

Ok, yeah, following you here. The handicap principle. I totally agree that this can be a large part of sexual ornamentation.

Now, here's my position: I can totally see where you're coming from, but I feel that for a phenotype to be attractive within a population, it needs to have some sort of utility, at least to start with. I would agree that sexual ornaments can just be sexual ornaments, but I would argue that they originated for a reason. The structure of the male face, preference for an hourglass figure in females, preference for childlike features in female faces, preference for averagely proportioned faces - all of these desirable physical features have some sort of original practical purpose, even if they're mostly just ornaments now.

EDIT: it's funny, the only thing we're really not in accord about is the bit completely glossed over in the quote from the book you provided: "(It doesn't matter why they evolve this preference -- perhaps there was a mutation affecting their sexual preferences, or their vision happened to respond more positively to large than to small objects.)"

[solecistic]

There are a few ways that regular traits can become fitness indicators. A trait always starts out being a regular trait, of course, and like anything else, they have a variety of uses or reasons for existing. To become a sexual ornament, the trait must be able to interact with another organism's senses. Many species have certain sensory biases for a variety of reasons - for example, primate color vision evolved in part to notice brightly colored fruits (incidentally, the fruit evolved brighter colors to display its ripeness to attract primates and birds because their vehicle for reproduction is to pass through the digestive tract of those animals). Primates develop the visual bias because eating the fruit is beneficial. If a mutation occurs that gives a primate a red face, females can become attracted to that trait due to their visual bias for bright colors. This could influence the direction of sexual selection in that species.

Of course, this is only a first step. A red face may be attractive to females because of their sensory bias, but that red face would be a fairly weak fitness indicator. Getting the attention of a potential mate is very important, but it is by no means a guarantee for access to reproduction. Primates are social creatures and live in large groups, so it's safe to say that finding a mate is not difficult. As Miller puts it, they're "spoiled for choice." It's not too useful for a species if a sexual ornament isn't a credible fitness indicator.

So I think you're right that a trait has to have a use in order to become an ornament. But be careful not to assume that a sexual ornament must evolve to be a survival trait first - it is just as likely that the peacock's tail is coincidentally linked to lower mortality rates. It serves a much greater purpose as a fitness indicator to mates than as an intimidating display for predators - there are far less costly ways for prey animals to avoid being mangled between a strong pair of jaws.

[Think]

I love you so much right now