Ability

Debates
1

In the last few years I have been a mentor on the boards of a major web development forum. I am a graphic guru there, give advice frequently when design questions are asked and help out to make people aware what good design is in general and specifically as it relates to the visual aspects of web design. I try to teach how to acquire the knowledge, tell the students how to go about learning the skills that one needs in designing, both mentally (ideas) and physically (tools). I would like to see more web sites that are tastefully done so that when I browse the web it will be a visual pleasure for me, that is why I have volunteered my time and knowledge.

In the area of web design that has to do with coding, all agree that one must learn, must learn hard and be consistent in the effort in order to understand and progress. People experience how long it takes to get good at this task. Of course the same effort must be applied in learning the visual aspects, the branding, the imagery, colors.

As a student of Objectivism I know that all humans are born without any knowledge , tabula rasa, that all things we know we have chosen to learn. That is the case also with artistic knowledge of course.

And here is where I get into the debates with people. I would say that 95% of the people I try to teach will in the end claim that they will never get good at this because they were not born with an innate ability. The claim is that I must have been born with artistic ability, only for me to discover and train a little bit to enhance later on. They have erected a wall around the process of learning because of this belief in inborn talent. I would also say that a large part of these people took this idea because it is so commonly accepted as truth and such a convenient excuse not to go through the long years of learning. Talent is their favorite term for this perceived inborn ability. I detest this term because it has become to mean (to me) inborn. Is that an irrational reaction on my part?

I have almost given up trying to convince them that they can achieve a solid level of ability in this field of visual design if they only put the same effort into the learning as they have done with all other things they know well. I have no way of braking down the wall because of the belief they have. I was able to convince some and the result is visible in their work now, but that does not convince the believers in the innate, they assume instantly that the ones that have improved their skills now were also born with this ability, but that it had been dormant.

“You are so gifted” is a widely used phrase, often meant as a compliment, but underlying this is total ignorance how one becomes this “gifted” person. This mouthing (not thinking) is most often applied to abilities of the artistic kind: writing, painting, sculpture, dance, music, etc. I have not seen this in other areas of knowledge as much. It would be interesting for me to find out from the members on this forum if this assumption of innate ability is made to this extent in other fields of expertise as well.

I thought this could turn into an interesting discussion.

2

I agree with you but I think that it could apply to anything. I’ve heard people spout the same ideas about mathematics, physics, biology, carpentry, construction, soldiering… the list goes on and on.

I must admit, I know I myself did this before I discovered O’ism. Now I’ve replaced “Talent”, or “Gifted” with the words “will” or “desire”

I’m not crappy at higher math because I have no talent for it but because I haven’t the will to learn it, nor do I have the desire. Not too shocking that those two things go hand in hand is it… :slight_smile:

3

What many people fail to understand is that skill only appears to be talent because the viewer doesn’t see the effort taken to reach that point. They don’t see the early sketches of the artist that were truly terrible. They don’t hear the early compositions of the musician that are awful. They only see the “finished” product and argue it is because of talent.

I love to use the example of Michael Jordan, who many feel is one of the greatest basketball players ever. He was cut from his high school basketball team as a freshman. He failed in a way many of us have. However, he worked his butt off and became one of the all-time greats in the game.

Greatness doesn’t just “happen”.

4

There are some physical traits that can give you a leg up, but you won’t even discover that you have them unless you make an effort to go into the field!

5

We are not born with any innate knowledge (ideas) but we not all born physiologically equal which affects both our physical and mental predispositions. People weigh too much into this and often do use it as an excuse for inaction, however, it can be observed that what comes easily to some can take hours of dedicated work for others and in the end they may not be as good. (Which does not mean that success is mostly talent - it also often requires dedication and work). However, there is a point beyond which it would not be economical for someone to go into a certain profession due to the amount of time it would take them to complete a task. In some areas efficiency matters and not just the final product (obviously this can vary depending on context).

I think Objectivist take this tabula rasa thing as something it is not. Egalitarianism does not exist in nature.

6

There are some physical traits that can give you a leg up, but you won’t even discover that you have them unless you make an effort to go into the field!

Yes, I can understand that in the area where you need to use your body, as in sports, in dance, even dexterity of the hands to play a musical instrument, a voice to be a great singer.

Eye hand coordination is often important for certain occupations, but the mind is not prewired as far as I know (and I do not know much about it).

7

Eye hand coordination is often important for certain occupations, but the mind is not prewired as far as I know (and I do not know much about it).

There are studies which show statistically significant differences between genders for example. So some pre-wirering exists. Furthermore gene expression studies show great variations between individuals (same genes but not made into protein at the same rates).

8

We are not born with any innate knowledge (ideas) but we not all born physiologically equal which affects both our physical and mental predispositions. People weigh too much into this and often do use it as an excuse for inaction, however, it can be observed that what comes easily to some can take hours of dedicated work for others and in the end they may not be as good. (Which does not mean that success is mostly talent - it also often requires dedication and work).

I do also think that we all have different capacities for learning. In many cases children discover early in life what gives them pleasure and so they develop skills that are picked up almost effortlessly to have this sensation of pleasure. The skills develop over a long time and seem to have come naturally. And that is what people then consider as an innate ability because the process was almost invisible.

It always requires dedication and effort to become good at what you do :slight_smile:

However, there is a point beyond which it would not be economical for someone to go into a certain profession due to the amount of time it would take them to complete a task. In some areas efficiency matters and not just the final product (obviously this can vary depending on context).

I agree with you that it is not economical to try to work in a field where the effort takes too much time, and most people would not attempt to do so.

I think Objectivist take this tabula rasa thing as something it is not. Egalitarianism does not exist in nature.

I do not quite get this point. To my knowledge Objectivism does not claim to be egalitarian, only at the point of birth when the slate is empty.

9

I do not quite get this point. To my knowledge Objectivism does not claim to be egalitarian, only at the point of birth when the slate is empty.

It does not claim that just some people take tabula rasa (no innate knowledge) for something it does not mean.

10

There are studies which show statistically significant differences between genders for example. So some pre-wirering exists. Furthermore gene expression studies show great variations between individuals (same genes but not made into protein at the same rates).

I can understand that there might be a difference in the brains of male and female. I can not comment on the research you are referring to. I am always a bit skeptical about nameless studies and research, since so many researchers have agendas they like to support. I am not saying that this is the case here and I could also not dispute it if I were to read the papers. I have too little knowledge in that field. I let it stand at that.

Now let us say that it is true that pre-wiring exists, would you not call that instinct then?

11

I can understand that there might be a difference in the brains of male and female. I can not comment on the research you are referring to. I am always a bit skeptical about nameless studies and research, since so many researchers have agendas they like to support. I am not saying that this is the case here and I could also not dispute it if I were to read the papers. I have too little knowledge in that field. I let it stand at that.

If you are interested in getting deeper into this topic I can look them up. Let me know by PM.

Now let us say that it is true that pre-wiring exists, would you not call that instinct then?

No. Physiological predispositions (examples: hearing or not hearing well, unusually fast metabolism, intelligence) are not behavior.

12

If you are interested in getting deeper into this topic I can look them up. Let me know by PM.

I will :slight_smile:

No. Physiological predispositions (examples: hearing or not hearing well, unusually fast metabolism, intelligence) are not behavior.

But I was not talking about metabolism, hearing, etc., but hard-wiring of the brain. In my understanding animals are hard-wired and that is what is known as instinct, that is why they only need a little reminder by the parents to know how to do things and react, knowing is innate.

13

But I was not talking about metabolism, hearing, etc., but hard-wiring of the brain. In my understanding animals are hard-wired and that is what is known as instinct, that is why they only need a little reminder by the parents to know how to do things and react, knowing is innate.

I am not sure what you mean by hard-wirering. If you mean information about how to do something (and to do it when stimulated by x)- that is not inborn in humans. However, your specific physiology (some of which maybe inherited - some resulting from enivronmental factors starting from in utero) can make it easier and faster for you to learn something or to recognize a pattern or see a spacial relationship between objects, for example. You don’t have that information in your brain already but rather something is going very right so the whole process of learning/recognizing works efficiently (better than in an average person). Some of those mental predispositions have been linked to differences in size of certain brain regions responsible for that function. But there is probably more to it than that - we just don’t know enough about it today to pin point it better.

14

I am not sure what you mean by hard-wirering. If you mean information about how to do something (and to do it when stimulated by x)- that is not inborn in humans.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Hard-wiring meaning innate or automatic, instincts in animals.

Humans do not have instincts. No knowledge is inborn. Therefore we are not hard-wired, nothing we know is automatic.

This is what I was relating my answer to:

There are studies which show statistically significant differences between genders for example. So some pre-wirering exists. Furthermore gene expression studies show great variations between individuals (same genes but not made into protein at the same rates).

15

A couple thoughts:

I think you may be confusing the concept of instinct with the concept of knowledge. Humans have many instincts. There is the fight or flight response, the sucking reflex of infants, the capacity for language. These things are all “hard-wired” into the average human brain. However, they are not knowledge. Even the capacity for language, which involves the brain, is not knowledge.

In any case, the fact that humans are not born with knowledge does not mean that they do not have differences which influence their abilities. Intelligence, while not knowledge itself, can influence a person’s skill. People learn in different ways, some visually, some audibly; this influences how easy or difficult it is for a person to learn a concept. Some people almost immediately understand music, while others do not. No, it does not mean that they cannot learn to play an instrument or sing in tune, but it does mean it’s harder for them to do so than the person who has perfect pitch.

Talented and gifted relate to a person who has characteristics enabling them to learn a particular concept or skill more quickly than the average person. These characteristics are physiological and not related to knowledge or values. So, I’m not saying that Rand was wrong - on the contrary - but that does not mean that certain people are not “talented” in a given area. Knowledge is not innate or genetic. Ability is.

I do agree with one thing. And that is that many people do use the words talented and gifted to make excuses for themselves. If they want to learn, they can, it just might take longer. That’s the advantage of a diversified society; we all have our talents and our abilities, we all provide different services to society, helping to contribute to a free economy.

16

A couple thoughts:

I think you may be confusing the concept of instinct with the concept of knowledge. Humans have many instincts. There is the fight or flight response, the sucking reflex of infants, the capacity for language. These things are all “hard-wired” into the average human brain. However, they are not knowledge. Even the capacity for language, which involves the brain, is not knowledge.

Aren’t flight/fight and suckling reflexes? In the same way as your automatic reflexive reaction to withdraw your hand from a fire is?

As for the capacity for language could you explain why feral children are not able to develop language after years of living with animals? Seems to me that if it were hard wired and instinctual that instinct would be present at any point in a persons development.

17

I think you may be confusing the concept of instinct with the concept of knowledge. Humans have many instincts. There is the fight or flight response, the sucking reflex of infants, the capacity for language. These things are all “hard-wired” into the average human brain. However, they are not knowledge. Even the capacity for language, which involves the brain, is not knowledge

I do not think that I am confusing the two. As far as I know sucking by an infant is a reflex. Flight and fight is an awareness we have that danger is upon us, but we have learned this awareness. An infant does not react like this. The young human has no way of identifying that something is threatening. You must first understand the concept of danger before you can react. This understanding then will lead to the reaction of fight and flight. Escape is a learned reaction.

Capacity for language is not an instinct either, if it was, we would all have the same ability at an equal level, for that is what instinct would be. It is the choice you make to learn a language that gives you the ability to speak. For language is the means to communicate to others (and yourself) what you think, what you have identified, it makes a thing concrete. You can speak in signing with your hands, with only symbols. Languages themselves are different, different words are used for concepts, they mean the same, the concept is the same. Concepts are not built in, not hard-wired, we learn them.

In any case, the fact that humans are not born with knowledge does not mean that they do not have differences which influence their abilities. Intelligence, while not knowledge itself, can influence a person’s skill. People learn in different ways, some visually, some audibly; this influences how easy or difficult it is for a person to learn a concept. Some people almost immediately understand music, while others do not. No, it does not mean that they cannot learn to play an instrument or sing in tune, but it does mean it’s harder for them to do so than the person who has perfect pitch

Sure there are differences of influence. If an infant grows up surrounded by mystic savages he most likely becomes one as well. If you would take a child out of this environment before it starts to develop any concepts, it would develop into a human of a different kind, mirroring much of what the new surrounding is, because we are all born without innate concepts, knowledge, beliefs and learn a lot of what we think by being in a certain environment. Once we start gathering more complex concepts and growing them into ever more abstract ones, we will be able to form our own thoughts based on those concepts, which will lead us to develop our values and the emotions based on them.

What kind of music are we talking about? A simple little song is easy to understand by a mind that has not developed very far. A complex piece of music will only be understood by a person who has the same values (and therefore the same emotions) as the composer. If your philosophy is different from the one the composer has, you will not understand his music ever, or you will violently disagree, not like it in other words. Some children start thinking earlier than others, therefore the choices of music they like depends on how far along they are in establishing their values. Pitch has nothing to do with understanding music B)

Talented and gifted relate to a person who has characteristics enabling them to learn a particular concept or skill more quickly than the average person. These characteristics are physiological and not related to knowledge or values. So, I’m not saying that Rand was wrong - on the contrary - but that does not mean that certain people are not “talented” in a given area. Knowledge is not innate or genetic. Ability is

I like to see some evidence of this statement that we are predisposed/talented to learn better in certain areas than in others. To me it sounds like an assumption. I agree that physical traits are different of course, voice, strength, height, body type, flexibility, etc., those need only be trained to enhance them. Ability comes through knowledge. Without knowledge you can not do a thing. You learn to be able.

I do agree with one thing. And that is that many people do use the words talented and gifted to make excuses for themselves. If they want to learn, they can, it just might take longer. That’s the advantage of a diversified society; we all have our talents and our abilities, we all provide different services to society, helping to contribute to a free economy

Haha – I do not provide services to society at all, I work for my own pleasure and to support with this pleasure my livelihood.

Aren’t flight/fight and suckling reflexes? In the same way as your automatic reflexive reaction to withdraw your hand from a fire is?

As for the capacity for language could you explain why feral children are not able to develop language after years of living with animals? Seems to me that if it were hard wired and instinctual that instinct would be present at any point in a persons development.

Yes, I agree with your assessment. We do not have instincts.

18

Human behavior is partially influenced by our genetic makeup, modern genetic studies and evolutionary psychology show this undeniably. But the idea that human behavior is either ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ is fallacious, not only is it an either or fallacy, but it leaves out entirely volitional choice, the way modern science frames this debate - “either your behavior is completely determined by your genes or completely predetermined by your environment and upbringing!” is terrible. Correlations between genetic makeup and behavior are never absolute. The truth of the matter is that your behavior is a complex interaction of all of the above, which Aristotle presciently opined more than 2,000 years ago “Human behavior comes from four things, chance, nature, habit, and choice” The ‘blank slate’ of objectivism is a figurative blank slate, not a literal one. As Rand writes, the only real choice you have is to choose to think or not think, everything follows from that. Choosing not to think means you do not critically examine yourself, including your emotional reactions, your values, things which society has imprinted on you, or whatever whim, urge, or impulse you have. It means your behavior is governed by the combination of your genetic influences and your environmental influences. While an average person might find someone very attractive because of their scent (see the T Shirt Studies below) a thoughtful introspective person would consider what values they share with that person and if integrated well their emotional reaction will follow suit. Ultimately, choice can override all other influences on behavior, but only when you choose to think about your reactions, values, and influences.

Even so, human genetic variation is pretty limited, a typical tribe of chimpanzees has more genetic variation than the entire human race. There are only some 12 genes or so that influence the brain, which doesn’t leave a lot of room for a gene for musical genius or mathematical genius. The lives of the greatest geniuses historically show a very clear pattern of life long deliberate study, usually starting from a very early age. Michelangelo spent his boyhood in the streets of Florence sketching the musculature of working men. Spotted by the Medici’s, he was adopted and raised with all the best instruction in the arts, cultivating his skill and driven by his own passion he became one of the best artists to have ever lived. Isaac Newton famously eschewed human relationships, spending most of his life alone with his books and studies. Tiger Woods was playing golf before he learned to walk. on and on. While you may get a head start with favorable genetics, talent and ability come primarily from deliberate study and most people can become good or experts at virtually anything with the right kind of training. While you may not become the best in the world, where someone else with both the lifelong training AND genetic advantage might be better.

The T-shirt Test

Claud Wedekind, a biologist at the University of Lausanne, gave new T-shirts to 44 men and instructed them to wear the clothing for two nights. Scent-free soap and aftershave ensured the T-shirts remained free from individual odour. After being worn for two nights, the T-shirts were sniffed by 49 women and rated for levels of attractiveness. A higher number than would be expected by chance preferred the odour of T-shirts worn by men immunologically different to them. Why was this? MHC Influences Who You Date The difference was in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC), a sequence of approximately 100 immune system genes coded for proteins that assist the immune system in recognising pathogens. The scent of the preferred shirts also reminded the women of past or present partners, an indication that MHC has an influence in the world of dating. Partners whose immune systems are different produce children that are more resistant to disease, the variety of genes present helping to protect against a number of pathogens and toxins

19

No, it does not mean that they cannot learn to play an instrument or sing in tune, but it does mean it’s harder for them to do so than the person who has perfect pitch.

It’s debatable whether ‘perfect pitch’ is a real thing, and whether it is a skill which can be learned. Many people suggest that it can in fact be taught, but perfect pitch is not required to be a musical talent nor a musical genius. Here is software you can download to try to develop ‘perfect pitch’ http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/Free_Perfect_Pi…ch_144_2007.php

Talented and gifted relate to a person who has characteristics enabling them to learn a particular concept or skill more quickly than the average person.

It’s highly debatable how much of that difference actually comes from some ‘innate’ difference (genetic) or if it comes from a behavioral attribute adopted early on in life. Since it is difficult to test learning ability until later in life, when numerous other behavioral characteristics have taken shape, influenced by genes, environment, and choices, isolating the natural genetic component out is extremely difficult. A child may adopt play habits which make it easier later on to acquire some new skill, people no recognizing the relationship between that habit and the new skill will conclude the child has some innate ‘gift’. Further, research shows that most people’s ability to retain memories varies minimally across human variants, following a specific ‘forgetting curve’

These characteristics are physiological and not related to knowledge or values. So, I’m not saying that Rand was wrong - on the contrary - but that does not mean that certain people are not “talented” in a given area. Knowledge is not innate or genetic. Ability is.

It seems you mean here by ability something like ‘are more likely to be able to learn a particular skill quicker’ but again, there is very little evidence suggesting that clearly, and that the vast majority of peoples abilities to learn new skills require roughly the same amount of effort, but it must be a particular kind of effort which optimizes refreshing memories and continually pushes one’s self beyond their current limit. People who spend years studying something but getting no better at it are not less capable of learning, they are not instead just not learning properly.

If you have journey into artificial intelligence and technophiles circles, you will quickly come across estimates of the computing power required to emulate a human brain. Disregarding the debate about the feasibility of that, estimates are usually around 100 petaflops, or about 100 times more powerful the the most powerful current supercomputer. Given the fact that everyone of us has a supercomputer sitting atop our necks and costing us a mere few thousand calories per day to operate, I find associating talent and or genius with genetic variation, and not habitual and volitional variation, extremely disingenuous.

If we used that supercomputer at nearly every waking moment to acquire, develop, and refine a skill, we will become an expert at it, possibly a genius. This is indeed what the lives of the most accomplished geniuses show. Sure, there may be a guy out there whose 1% faster, but since almost nobody utilizes their supercomputer for anything but memorizing survivor episodes, nowhere near it’s capacity, variations are far more likely to come from lack of effort and not some kind of ‘talent gene’

20

But the idea that human behavior is either ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ is fallacious,

True.

Even so, human genetic variation is pretty limited, a typical tribe of chimpanzees has more genetic variation than the entire human race. There are only some 12 genes or so that influence the brain, which doesn’t leave a lot of room for a gene for musical genius or mathematical genius.

While observed sequence divergence is relatively low (when we start sequencing individual genomes we will get more insight into the level of differences) it is estimated that ~83% of genes are differentially expressed among individuals and ~17% of genes are differentially expressed among populations. This creates wide physiological differences.

I have not suggested that there is a gene for musical or mathematical genus. However variations in expression of even a small number of genes can create big functional differences.