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

[solecistic]

I haven't read Gladwell so my comments here are limited by a certain degree of ignorance, but based on your description, it sounds like this fellow has not accounted for evolutionary psychology whatsoever. Talents, if you want to call them that, are fitness indicators before they are anything else.

While it is certainly true that practice and determination and repetition can let someone become a painter/writer/dancer/scientist/etc, they have to be genetically fit enough to learn those things in the first place. Some people, however, are born with the genes to help them be much better at those things than someone born without them.

Let's say Person A is born with strong math and science genes, and Person B is born without them. And let's say that Person A and Person B put the same amount of work into becoming scientists. Person A will always be the better scientist. Person A has better reasoning skills because Person A was born with a strong predisposition towards it.

Of course, not everyone is born into situations where they can achieve their potential, and sometimes their interests just don't coincide with their natural genetic abilities. Person A and Person B will only show their real genetic predispositions if their situations are identical. Same opportunities, same socio-economic backgrounds, etc. But the science behind their genes is real, and the evidence for it has been piling up rapidly since the human genome was cracked almost six years ago.

I just don't buy this idea that "beyond a certain talent threshold, success is determined primarily by the amount of time put in". I've witnessed lazy, unmotivated genius standing beside driven mediocrity. I think work is required to reach your potential, certainly, but some people really don't have to do the work. They may be few and far between, but they exist because evolution requires them to.

[no_brains_no_worries]

I haven't read Gladwell so my comments here are limited by a certain degree of ignorance, but based on your description, it sounds like this fellow has not accounted for evolutionary psychology whatsoever. Talents, if you want to call them that, are fitness indicators before they are anything else.

While it is certainly true that practice and determination and repetition can let someone become a painter/writer/dancer/scientist/etc, they have to be genetically fit enough to learn those things in the first place. Some people, however, are born with the genes to help them be much better at those things than someone born without them.

Let's say Person A is born with strong math and science genes, and Person B is born without them. And let's say that Person A and Person B put the same amount of work into becoming scientists. Person A will always be the better scientist. Person A has better reasoning skills because Person A was born with a strong predisposition towards it.

Of course, not everyone is born into situations where they can achieve their potential, and sometimes their interests just don't coincide with their natural genetic abilities. Person A and Person B will only show their real genetic predispositions if their situations are identical. Same opportunities, same socio-economic backgrounds, etc. But the science behind their genes is real, and the evidence for it has been piling up rapidly since the human genome was cracked almost six years ago.

I just don't buy this idea that "beyond a certain talent threshold, success is determined primarily by the amount of time put in". I've witnessed lazy, unmotivated genius standing beside driven mediocrity. I think work is required to reach your potential, certainly, but some people really don't have to do the work. They may be few and far between, but they exist because evolution requires them to.

I'm a firm believer in nurture over nature. Genetics may play certain roles (Michael Jordon's height) but conditioning is more important (I mean, he sucked at basketball but trained until he was the best).

Sorry for a really watered down example but I haven't read anything about genetics or nature vs. nurture in years (unless you count the novel Next.)

[solecistic]

I'm a firm believer in nurture over nature. Genetics may play certain roles (Michael Jordon's height) but conditioning is more important (I mean, he sucked at basketball but trained until he was the best).

Sorry for a really watered down example but I haven't read anything about genetics or nature vs. nurture in years (unless you count the novel Next.)

Sociology tells us how culture plays its role in shaping our personalities, prejudices, and interests.

Evopsych tells us why culture puts those pressures on us in the first place. Michael Jordan's height isn't the only thing that makes him a superior basketball player. He also has genes that give him better hand/eye coordination, better depth perception, faster speed, more agility, and so on. Michael Jordan wasn't born with a basketball gene, of course. That skill set may also have lent itself to him being a fantastic fighter pilot - except for the height, really. The point is that Michael Jordan is a great basketball player because of "nature" (DNA) and nurture (social pressure), but his high genetic fitness made it possible for the nurturing to have any effect. Many kids are "nurtured" into working at athletics or math or art by their parents or peers, but they cannot and will not excel if they aren't built for it.


editing to say that I'm not sure whether Michael Jordan actually has all of the aforementioned attributes, but a superior basketball player would need at least some of those things. The work and training he did to become a good player were instrumental, without doubt - my point is just that all the work in the world wouldn't have mattered if he didn't have the genes.

[no_brains_no_worries]

Sociology tells us how culture plays its role in shaping our personalities, prejudices, and interests.

Evopsych tells us why culture puts those pressures on us in the first place. Michael Jordan's height isn't the only thing that makes him a superior basketball player. He also has genes that give him better hand/eye coordination, better depth perception, faster speed, more agility, and so on. Michael Jordan wasn't born with a basketball gene, of course. That skill set may also have lent itself to him being a fantastic fighter pilot - except for the height, really. The point is that Michael Jordan is a great basketball player because of "nature" (DNA) and nurture (social pressure), but his high genetic fitness made it possible for the nurturing to have any effect. Many kids are "nurtured" into working at athletics or math or art by their parents or peers, but they cannot and will not excel if they aren't built for it.


editing to say that I'm not sure whether Michael Jordan actually has all of the aforementioned attributes, but a superior basketball player would need at least some of those things. The work and training he did to become a good player were instrumental, without doubt - my point is just that all the work in the world wouldn't have mattered if he didn't have the genes.

True, but in your opinion which one is more vital to success? Genetics and his psychical makeup set him on the path, but it was the pressure (I prefer the term nurture though, lol) that really allowed him to hone his skill.