Nature/Nurture, Genius and Talent
Discussion
I used to be a teacher, I never once saw/met talent/genius in a child.
I don't think Natural ability exists, only Nurture, hard work, circumstance and environment.
The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
I have seen no evidence that brains can operate faster/slower at birth. I have seen some evidence that brain size is correlated to intelligence, but I cannot be sure the brain didn't grow because of intelligence/use, and not the other way around. This link does not indicate talent however.
Is there any proper definitive scientific evidence that shows a person can be born with a specific talent or talent?
I don't think Natural ability exists, only Nurture, hard work, circumstance and environment.
The analogy I would use is all babies are born like a raspberry PI. The brilliance of each PI depends on what code it has been given. Do nothing with it and it will not perform. Spend a lifetime working on it, improving and developing the code and it will be amazing.
I have seen no evidence that brains can operate faster/slower at birth. I have seen some evidence that brain size is correlated to intelligence, but I cannot be sure the brain didn't grow because of intelligence/use, and not the other way around. This link does not indicate talent however.
Is there any proper definitive scientific evidence that shows a person can be born with a specific talent or talent?
A friend of my daughter is naturally gifted at music, she can pick up just about any instrument and play it well. She is just about the laziest person I have ever met and her parents are far from pushy when it comes to getting her to work so no way is this down to hard work. Speaking to one of my daughter's music teachers my daughter's friend just has an unnaturally good ear for music. I know plenty of kids who work far harder than she does and frankly suck at music in comparison.
I also know of other children in my children's year at school who work damn hard, have plenty of support from their parents, some even have a succession of private tutors, and yet they never get better than Bs for any subject. I know of other kids who do F all work and walk As. This is hardly unique to my children's school and as a teacher you must have seen this time and again?
I also know of other children in my children's year at school who work damn hard, have plenty of support from their parents, some even have a succession of private tutors, and yet they never get better than Bs for any subject. I know of other kids who do F all work and walk As. This is hardly unique to my children's school and as a teacher you must have seen this time and again?
Genetics has surely got to play a significant part in all of it?
I can only really speak from my own experiences but my Dad was a pretty bright bloke, unfortunately not really channeled when he was a kid at school in the 1940/50s but he did well for himself, got a City and Guilds in petrochemistry after finishing National Service and a well paid job in the oil industry. Both my brother and I went on to do science and engineering, whilst we had help from our parents with study most of it was learnt by ourselves with help from school obviously. Even between my brother and I there were marked differences, he was the "bright" one breezing through GCSEs and A levels without doing hardly any revision whereas I had to work on it. He fell foul of this attitude when he got to Uni as the emphasis was much more on the students to go and do their own research rather than being taught and didn't complete his degree. But then he now has a highly paid job in IT so it can't have gone too far wrong for him even. I can't help but think that we both had some natural ability before entering the institution as were were generally more successful than our peers despite having pretty much the same resources available.
I can only really speak from my own experiences but my Dad was a pretty bright bloke, unfortunately not really channeled when he was a kid at school in the 1940/50s but he did well for himself, got a City and Guilds in petrochemistry after finishing National Service and a well paid job in the oil industry. Both my brother and I went on to do science and engineering, whilst we had help from our parents with study most of it was learnt by ourselves with help from school obviously. Even between my brother and I there were marked differences, he was the "bright" one breezing through GCSEs and A levels without doing hardly any revision whereas I had to work on it. He fell foul of this attitude when he got to Uni as the emphasis was much more on the students to go and do their own research rather than being taught and didn't complete his degree. But then he now has a highly paid job in IT so it can't have gone too far wrong for him even. I can't help but think that we both had some natural ability before entering the institution as were were generally more successful than our peers despite having pretty much the same resources available.
There's an interesting piece on one of the Freakanomics books on this, looking at factors like how many books in the house and the parents educational background to see what impact it has on the kid.
Can't remember all if it but one interesting one was a study looking at parents who's tried to get their kids in to better schools than the one they'd normally be assigned to. Interestingly those kids generally did slightly better than the other kids in the school, both the ones who managed to transfer and the ones who didn't. Suggesting that having parents who want the kids to do better is more important that the quality of the school.
Can't remember all if it but one interesting one was a study looking at parents who's tried to get their kids in to better schools than the one they'd normally be assigned to. Interestingly those kids generally did slightly better than the other kids in the school, both the ones who managed to transfer and the ones who didn't. Suggesting that having parents who want the kids to do better is more important that the quality of the school.
this is all a little thin on science though isn't it. Anecdotal is nice and all, but not really useful.
There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect. I don't think it does. I have yet to see any definitive evidence of it, yet is it quite easy to argue that a brain is a blank slate ready for connections to be made.
Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist
) are present at birth?
There seems to be an assumption that genetics does have an effect. I don't think it does. I have yet to see any definitive evidence of it, yet is it quite easy to argue that a brain is a blank slate ready for connections to be made.
Are you suggesting the connections that promote engineering (which afaik doesn't exist
) are present at birth?Certainly a genetic component to certain learnt abilities, like reading - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/512
Piaget's theories are very interesting, but he consistently failed to take into consideration social and environmental factors. From what I remember reading at university of his work, the focus was far more on the development of the child rather than the nature side of it.
As for the twins test, for me it is poor science. Children that are identical are treated differently to those that are not. I think a person's looks do influence how they are treated greatly. But not only that. Identical twins are usually brought up in a very different manner to nonidentical, to regular siblings.
To prove genetics could affect a persons intelligence/talent/natural ability I think you would need to see a potential differentiation in the brains chemistry or makeup from birth that could have an impact on the talents of a person.
As for the twins test, for me it is poor science. Children that are identical are treated differently to those that are not. I think a person's looks do influence how they are treated greatly. But not only that. Identical twins are usually brought up in a very different manner to nonidentical, to regular siblings.
To prove genetics could affect a persons intelligence/talent/natural ability I think you would need to see a potential differentiation in the brains chemistry or makeup from birth that could have an impact on the talents of a person.
I went out with a girl who was having expensive piano lessons. She had a twin brother. They both went to a music college.
She would practice for hours and then her brother would take over the piano and within a couple of minutes play what she had been attempting without apparent problems, and without music. She used to get really upset. I had a word with her brother and he played the piano when she was out.
He went on to the National Youth Orchestra. She didn't.
She would practice for hours and then her brother would take over the piano and within a couple of minutes play what she had been attempting without apparent problems, and without music. She used to get really upset. I had a word with her brother and he played the piano when she was out.
He went on to the National Youth Orchestra. She didn't.
Turn this around though, and its a lot more obvious to see that genetics do have an effect on ability.
As a teacher, you must have seen those students who have all the support at home, try their absolute hardest, produce beautiful revision notes, but are never truly going to do well academically.
As a teacher, you must have seen those students who have all the support at home, try their absolute hardest, produce beautiful revision notes, but are never truly going to do well academically.
jimmy156 said:
Turn this around though, and its a lot more obvious to see that genetics do have an effect on ability.
As a teacher, you must have seen those students who have all the support at home, try their absolute hardest, produce beautiful revision notes, but are never truly going to do well academically.
Completely yes.As a teacher, you must have seen those students who have all the support at home, try their absolute hardest, produce beautiful revision notes, but are never truly going to do well academically.
I taught in both state schools and private, though mostly the latter.
Quantity vs quality is the reason some tutoring and schooling just doesn't work.
You can force a child to read for hours upon end, but the hallelujah moment will come in the 30 seconds they really want to read a sentence and see the logic (or illogic) of English and how vowels and consonants go together.
I have never met a child (excepting special needs) that could not progress at the same rate as the rest of the class. I have taight children that ad already been taght very good techniques for learning and approaches to subjects. This was not a talent however, it is still something they had to work for.
Efbe said:
You can force a child to read for hours upon end, but the hallelujah moment will come in the 30 seconds they really want to read a sentence and see the logic (or illogic) of English and how vowels and consonants go together.
That's why school is a little unfair in many ways. Kids are expected to 'get it' in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time. Sometimes if something isn't taught in a particular way - some kids might never get it. Some may take much longer for things to click and by the time it does, the kid may have already been written off.I did ok with maths at school (GCSE C grade) but tried it at A-level and dropped out as I just couldn't get my head around it.
I went to Uni on clearing to do a degree in Chemistry on the advice of my Chemistry teacher. Maths finally clicked one day during my degree as I was being forced to use a lot. I had a eureka moment one day and after that it came much easier. I ultimately walked out with a 2:1 in Chemistry and went on to do post graduate research in molecular modelling and quantum mechanics (very maths heavy).
Moonhawk said:
That's why school is a little unfair in many ways. Kids are expected to 'get it' in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time. Sometimes if something isn't taught in a particular way - some kids might never get it. Some may take much longer for things to click and by the time it does, the kid may have already been written off.
I did ok with maths at school (GCSE C grade) but tried it at A-level and dropped out as I just couldn't get my head around it.
I went to Uni on clearing to do a degree in Chemistry on the advice of my Chemistry teacher. Maths finally clicked one day during my degree as I was being forced to use a lot. I had a eureka moment one day and after that it came much easier. I ultimately walked out with a 2:1 in Chemistry and went on to do post graduate research in molecular modelling and quantum mechanics (very maths heavy).
Moonhawk.I did ok with maths at school (GCSE C grade) but tried it at A-level and dropped out as I just couldn't get my head around it.
I went to Uni on clearing to do a degree in Chemistry on the advice of my Chemistry teacher. Maths finally clicked one day during my degree as I was being forced to use a lot. I had a eureka moment one day and after that it came much easier. I ultimately walked out with a 2:1 in Chemistry and went on to do post graduate research in molecular modelling and quantum mechanics (very maths heavy).
Interesting scenario.
I am sure that if you were taught the maths techniques in the same way at GCSE/A-level as you were taught at degree level, then it would have clicked so much earlier for you. It usually is something just as simple as the way an equation is demonstrated. A couple of words here or there, and the teacher listening and watching what the student is doing to see if they follow, or if they need it wording in a different way.
But, had the nature debate been correct, you would have been identified as someone that just could not get maths, however shown in a different way at a young age, then you would have been described as a talented mathematician.
which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
Efbe said:
...
which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
In a trivial way, that is clearly overstating the case. The difference between an earthworm and a human is genetic; nature. Clearly humans have a talent for communication that worms don't possess, etc.which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
It would be greatly surprising if "nature" played absolutely no part at all in the difference in the intellectual ability of two adult humans. The question is really, does it make a measurable difference? Clearly it's going to be a difficult thing to measure because your parents are responsible for both your genetics and your environment, and your mental capacity is not immediately measurable at birth. What do we even mean by "intelligence" in a measurable sense?
Even if we could answer the question, would it mean anything for education? Regardless of whether or not there is a genetic component, it's pretty bloody obvious that you don't learn unless you study. So whatever "innate" intellectual power you might or might not possess, your parents and society should try to give you the best education possible and see how you respond to it.
The danger is that people use parental thickness as an excuse for not bothering to try to educate a child. That isn't good enough, even if you think there is a genetic component to intelligence.
tankplanker said:
A friend of my daughter is naturally gifted at music, she can pick up just about any instrument and play it well. She is just about the laziest person I have ever met and her parents are far from pushy when it comes to getting her to work so no way is this down to hard work. Speaking to one of my daughter's music teachers my daughter's friend just has an unnaturally good ear for music. I know plenty of kids who work far harder than she does and frankly suck at music in comparison.
I also know of other children in my children's year at school who work damn hard, have plenty of support from their parents, some even have a succession of private tutors, and yet they never get better than Bs for any subject. I know of other kids who do F all work and walk As. This is hardly unique to my children's school and as a teacher you must have seen this time and again?
+1 I also know of other children in my children's year at school who work damn hard, have plenty of support from their parents, some even have a succession of private tutors, and yet they never get better than Bs for any subject. I know of other kids who do F all work and walk As. This is hardly unique to my children's school and as a teacher you must have seen this time and again?
Efbe said:
Moonhawk.
Interesting scenario.
I am sure that if you were taught the maths techniques in the same way at GCSE/A-level as you were taught at degree level, then it would have clicked so much earlier for you. It usually is something just as simple as the way an equation is demonstrated. A couple of words here or there, and the teacher listening and watching what the student is doing to see if they follow, or if they need it wording in a different way.
But, had the nature debate been correct, you would have been identified as someone that just could not get maths, however shown in a different way at a young age, then you would have been described as a talented mathematician.
which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
World Class Schooling and the very best resources were thrown at Prince Harry from birth. He managed a B in art, and a D in Geography...Interesting scenario.
I am sure that if you were taught the maths techniques in the same way at GCSE/A-level as you were taught at degree level, then it would have clicked so much earlier for you. It usually is something just as simple as the way an equation is demonstrated. A couple of words here or there, and the teacher listening and watching what the student is doing to see if they follow, or if they need it wording in a different way.
But, had the nature debate been correct, you would have been identified as someone that just could not get maths, however shown in a different way at a young age, then you would have been described as a talented mathematician.
which is why I cannot see any way in which nature can lead to talents.
Please be assured that he was shown mathematics in every way possible.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff