# Are people born with talent? This child is a ridiculously talented pianist!



## kgdrum (Monday at 3:23 PM)

A stranger gave a boy with autism a $15,000 piano after hearing him play


Jude Kofie had never received a piano lesson, but had a gift for playing.




www.cbsnews.com


----------



## José Herring (Monday at 3:30 PM)

Absolutely people are born with talent. Unfortunate that I wasn't one of them. I have to work my ass off for what little I have. But, who said life was fair. Wishing this kid much success.


----------



## Technostica (Monday at 3:32 PM)

Of course people are born with talent.
This is clear even if you not aware of the Spiritual side of reality.
But when you factor in the nature of Soul, it makes more sense.


----------



## Honigdachs (Monday at 3:32 PM)

The whole thing about "savant talent" is a myth. And why would it not be - it's a completely illogical idea. As it turns out, any "savant" actually put tons of practice into whatever they were good at doing.


----------



## José Herring (Monday at 3:42 PM)

Honigdachs said:


> The whole thing about "savant talent" is a myth. And why would it not be - it's a completely illogical idea. As it turns out, any "savant" actually put tons of practice into whatever they were good at doing.


Sure, the kid probably put in hours a day. Maybe "Savant" just means not interested in anything else so instead of watching TV and playing video games 10 hours a day the kid just sat and figured out the piano. But that he could figure it out. That's born talent. 

Of course now that he's taking lessons, I'm sure his teacher will stamp out all his personality in favor of some dated piano methodology. All for the kid's "own good". Not that I'm bitter about the current state of music pedagogy.


----------



## NekujaK (Monday at 3:54 PM)

All I know is that I practiced/played guitar for years but was never able to play like EVH, even though that's what I strived for. He practiced too, but his innate guitar playing gifts (or talent) meant that he advanced much farther than me with every hour of practice he put in.

Baseball players are another good example. A batting lineup consists of 9 players, but only 1, 2, or 3 of them can hit home runs consistently. They all take the same batting practice, they all learn the same batting mechanics, they all have the same batting coaches, yet only a select few are able to put the fear of God into pitcher's hearts when they step up to the plate. That's talent shining through.


----------



## Honigdachs (Monday at 4:08 PM)

José Herring said:


> Sure, the kid probably put in hours a day. Maybe "Savant" just means not interested in anything else so instead of watching TV and playing video games 10 hours a day the kid just sat and figured out the piano. But that he could figure it out. That's born talent.


The thing I don't really like about how people imagine "savant" talent - or talent in general, for that matter - is that it's often presented as this miraculous innate thing where a person inexplicably has a unique ability to perfectly breeze through some Rachmaninoff without ever having put their hands on a keyboard. That's an absolutely silly idea that completely disregards how genetics work.

What's actually happening is that because of the unique way some autists' brains are wired, they have an astounding memory capacity and a strong inclination for hyper-systemisation, and that combined with the extreme propensity for singular, obsessive focus results in developing highly impressive abilities.

So even though savants do have unsual ability, it's not because God had a spare JavaScript book he decided to toss from the heavens on some kids' skullcaps so they became prodigy programmers without ever touching a computer. There is practice involved, it's just that the practice in these cases is exceptionally effective.

Steve Vai, who surely is considered a prodigy by some, said that the level of achievement we can have at anything is a reflection of how well we were able to focus on it. And there's so much that goes into that beyond mere natural endowment. It also explains why some people practice a thing for endless days, but don't excel at it the same way some others do. It's not just about putting in the time and constant repetition, but about quality time and highly sensitive repetition.


----------



## Trash Panda (Monday at 5:10 PM)

Talent just effects how quickly you learn a particular skill and how quickly your proficiency improves with practice and use.


----------



## Gingerbread (Monday at 5:27 PM)

I don't buy into the concept of talent. There are certainly some people who grasp certain concepts or techniques fairly easily and quickly, but they're not born with that knowledge or skill. "Talent", in my opinion, is simply the result of having an interest, grasping the concept, encouragement, and practice. Some people have better focus than others, and that definitely plays a huge role.

The biggest difference, I believe, is encouragement. An average child whose initial attempts are positively encouraged will keep going. If they're told their first attempts are good, the more interested they'll become, the more dedicated they practice, and the better they get. Suddenly they have "talent"!

Conversely, if their initial attempts are met with negativity or derision, they'll give up early, and never develop that "talent". Give your kids positive encouragement, folks!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Monday at 5:52 PM)

Of course people are born with talent. It's one of several forms of intelligence.

That doesn't mean everyone with talent develops it, or that people with less talent can't, or even that we don't also need people without any particular talents.

Or that talent is either yes or no - obviously there are degrees of it.

But yes, some race horses really are faster than others.


----------



## NekujaK (Monday at 6:01 PM)

I'm going to dig deeper into my professional sports example in furthering a case for talent. Sports is perfect for this because it's competitive and performance can be measured. But more importantly, when considering professional athletes, we're talking about the cream of the crop. These are not kids who need encouragement or require more focused practice. These guys/gals have already put in the necessary dedicated work and proven their worthiness to ascend to the coveted role of professional athlete. And as pros, they continue to get guidance from the best coaches in the business. Every one of these athletes is more capable at what they do than 99.9999% of the general population.

And yet, among this elite group we have individuals like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods (in his heyday), Joe Montana, Wayne Gretzky, Barry Bonds, Serena Williams, and so on... who tower over their peers. Yes, they work hard and are fiercely dedicated, but so are nearly all athletes who compete at this level. The key factor that separates the greats from all the others is sheer talent and ability.


----------



## Gingerbread (Monday at 6:02 PM)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But yes, some race horses really are faster than others.


Is that talent, or just training harder?


----------



## VSTHero (Monday at 6:20 PM)

I think often people forget the flip side; I work with individuals with learning disabilities of various kinds and I’ve seen great effort required to acquire abilities and consolidate skills in the reverse way - we do have different rates of skill acquisition, different levels of effort before mental exhaustion occurs etc. But I think anyone can make great art/ accomplish a lot in any field through smart and long term practice. But there’s no question we don’t all learn at same rate and with same levels of effort required.

To add though: I think the point is it’s easy to underestimate how much you can do with the right environment and approach and focus - and that’s true for everyone


----------



## Trash Panda (Monday at 6:24 PM)

Gingerbread said:


> Is that talent, or just training harder?


Look, just because no one can catch the gingerbread man doesn’t mean they aren’t training hard enough.


----------



## José Herring (Monday at 6:35 PM)

Even in the upper strata there's degree of "talent". I went school with 2 prominent violin prodigies. Robert Chen and Gil Shaham.

Robert is now concert master for Chicago and Gil is a touring soloist. Both started violin at about the same age-7. Both are accomplished professionally. Robert was a hard worker. Not as naturally gifted as Gil. Pounded out his skill through long hours of careful dedicated practice. Gil, things just came to him more naturally. Still practiced but grasped things easier. Just a happy go lucky kind of not very focused carefree dude. Gil could look at a new piece of complicated music and then memorize it and start playing it. Totally beyond Robert at the time and Robert looked at Gil and didn't even know how that kind of ability could be possible.

We all work hard to be the best we can be but some people just have innate more ability than others. We just gotta deal with that harsh reality.


----------



## Chris Schmidt (Monday at 7:50 PM)

Yes, absolutely. What you can or can't achieve is limited by circumstances of your birth.

You can train hard af in the gym, but you will never get Arnie size naturally for like 99% of people.

If you suck ass at math, there is little you can do at this point to change it.

You may not have the sort of spatial IQ and motor control required for making Bernini-tier sculptures.

But for the better part of 100 years, the schools and movies have put into people's heads the idea that everyone is just a blank-slate "individual" and "you can do anything if you put your mind to it."

LOL no


----------



## FinGael (Tuesday at 12:09 AM)

kgdrum said:


> A stranger gave a boy with autism a $15,000 piano after hearing him play
> 
> 
> Jude Kofie had never received a piano lesson, but had a gift for playing.
> ...



Many skills and talents can come from past lives. When you practice and develop a skill that is useful and beneficial from a broader perspective of life, it grows into the part of your soul that doesn't get destroyed when you (physically) die. I have rediscovered some in my life and also managed to recall quite a lot of detailed memories connected to them.

Most of the people have a mindset where they are not able to tap into these things anymore or have been conditioned to think this is bogus. This is connected to something else; It is also common that most of us do not understand how we are creating our reality with our conscious and unconscious thoughts, feelings and intentions - which is another story...


----------



## d4vec4rter (Tuesday at 1:04 AM)

FinGael said:


> Many skills and talents can come from past lives. When you practice and develop a skill that is useful and beneficial from a broader perspective of life, it grows into the part of your soul that doesn't get destroyed when you (physically) die. I have rediscovered some in my life and also managed to recall quite a lot of detailed memories connected to them.
> 
> Most of the people have a mindset where they are not able to tap into these things anymore or have been conditioned to think this is bogus. This is connected to something else; It is also common that most of us do not understand how we are creating our reality with our conscious and unconscious thoughts, feelings and intentions - which is another story...


It's crazy, I know, but I've often thought about this. If there's one talent I'd dearly love to have it's to be able to sing with a wonderful voice that some people are gifted with. A voice that I know I will never have in this life because it is, of course, down to genetics.

I've said to myself many times if, somehow, our souls carry on in another physical body (I'm very broad-minded and open to any ideas about what happens when we die.) I just hope I can be gifted with a good voice and somehow continue my passion for music.


----------



## handz (Tuesday at 1:15 AM)

Of course they do, that is why someone is great mathematician and most people sucks at math, same for musical instruments. To Learn to play an instrument to some degree is of course way easier than understanding of quantum physics but still, you need some talent or it will be an insane chore to learn to play anything (and it is for most people forced to do so)


----------



## Mitsu99 (Tuesday at 1:49 AM)

We all have talents, but only a few of us can find what they are good at. That's what I want to believe to convince myself I still have hope for myself


----------



## GtrString (Tuesday at 2:00 AM)

I have met a number of people who were able to think faster, act faster, learn faster, get things right faster ect. And some just have insane coordination skills, no fear ect. I don’t really care if we call this talent or not, we may not know why, is it natural or learnt, but these skills are real afaic.

I don’t have these skills, maybe apart from being able to translate knowledge really fast. But I still keep working, it takes a lot longer for most of us, and we may not reach that level of skill, but the outcome of what we do can still have equal value, imo.


----------



## b_elliott (Tuesday at 4:20 AM)

kgdrum said:


> A stranger gave a boy with autism a $15,000 piano after hearing him play
> 
> 
> Jude Kofie had never received a piano lesson, but had a gift for playing.
> ...


I think this kid nailed it, identifying his gift as a miracle. 
If only there were a spray-can version for my composing efforts....


----------



## BGvanRens (Tuesday at 4:54 AM)

Honigdachs said:


> The whole thing about "savant talent" is a myth. And why would it not be - it's a completely illogical idea. As it turns out, any "savant" actually put tons of practice into whatever they were good at doing.


Right, so I am on the spectrum myself and I get a bit tired of this whole 'autistic = talent' clickbait. Yes, some of us may excel in math, music or drawing. But it's not like we all play like Glenn Gould out of the womb. Savant or not, it takes practice.


----------



## Vik (Tuesday at 5:11 AM)

Thanks for sharing that clip!
_The following is not a comment to that story._

Einstein said that 'genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work', but when it comes to music making, both 'genius' and 'hard work' may be overrated. Of course we need to spend the time it takes to learn and do what we really want to do, but not only is music abstract art, it's about expressing something which cannot be expressed with words.
Coal miners are doing hard work. Sadly, some of the most talented musicians out there are more focused on impressing others than expressing themselves. They look at music like it was a hybrid between music and sports (which certainly is true also, but not always). One of my piano teachers said that what Oscar Peterson could do was very impressive (he played solos with chords only and lots of performed lots of other hand acrobatics), and I agree – but I also agree with the other thing he said: after listening to him for 15 minutes, it starts to get boring.

Personally, I strongly prefer expressive over impressive.

Expressive:


This is Eva Cassidy's performance without LSO added: also very expressive


Same song again, 'impressive' version:


Maybe the key to good music is a combination of 'expressive' + some hard _satisfying,_ in-depth work?


----------



## cedricm (Tuesday at 5:14 AM)

Children are the proof that talent can't be only work, since they're too young to have trained for thousands of hours.


----------



## Vik (Tuesday at 5:44 AM)

mybadmemory said:


> One thing I find interesting is how the notion that children learn faster is apparently debunked by science. Adults learn new things much faster than children but have a tendency to give up much quicker


But there's also the fact that if you grow up in, say, Sweden, you'll have a perfect local accent after a few years even without trying, but if you move to that country as a 40 tear old, it is (for most people) very unlikely that you'll sound like a native.



cedricm said:


> Children are the proof that talent can't be only work, since they're too young to have trained for thousands of hours.


It isn't only work, of course. But for the kind of music most people like to listen to, they key isn't playing skills or being an orchestral wizard – it's something else. And that 'else' can be either talent, work, passion/degree of interest, and also depend on if one which genre someone decides to work within, how/if one collaborate with others and many other parameters. So 'talen't is IMO overrated (in many cases), and it's certainly not the most hard working who gain the highest degree of success: many of the hundreds of thousands out there (millions, probably) who have studied music/an instrument with good results are taxi drivers, waiters etc. 

To have – or develop – a flair for good melodies and chord progressions is way more important.


----------



## ThomasNL (Tuesday at 6:13 AM)

Vik said:


> Thanks for sharing that clip!
> _The following is not a comment to that story._
> 
> Einstein said that 'genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work', but when it comes to music making, both 'genius' and 'hard work' may be overrated. Of course we need to spend the time it takes to learn and do what we really want to do, but not only is music abstract art, it's about expressing something which cannot be expressed with words.
> ...



I enjoy both expressive and impressive music. As a musician I can really enjoy amazing musicianship, for example the Vulfpeck/Fearless flyers. I get joy out of hearing how skilled musicians can make music.

That first track you shared is magical by the way, i'm blown away...


----------



## Rudianos (Tuesday at 6:14 AM)

How come all of these Savants are piano players? Maybe a violin or a bass or ugh guitar thrown in there.

Where are all the savant oboe players?

What is it - the weird sound? The reeds?

There is something with the instruments that are more visually (and for the blind, tactually) laid out in front of you that I think lends itself better for these savants. So what is this? Perhaps honing in on genetic memory and instinctual patterns (unrelated directly to instruments, maybe something as mundane as a cat scratching or a dog shaking the water out after a drench) ... with low latency ... into some sort of gravitation/willingness for an instrument (one with a compatible system) ... mixed with perhaps a strong ear and memory (brain stem bringing it all in efficiently) is the recipe for this level of playing.

So I do think there is data stored in the DNA - unrelatedly - that may add to a number of other factors.

Some people that maybe only have 1 or 2 pieces of the puzzle ... or lack of opportunity - may go in a different path ... or work for the others more.


----------



## Polkasound (Tuesday at 9:24 AM)

Everyone is born wired to be proficient at something. Music is one example. Here are some others:

Mental:​Some people can assemble words in eloquent ways​Some people are great with numbers and are quick to pick up math​Some people excel at playing memory games like Concentration​Some people possess exceptional situational awareness​Some people can pick up a pencil and draw anything with uncanny semblance​Some people are unusually focused under stressful situations​​Physical:​Some people naturally possess the ability to sing in tune with beautiful vibrato and breath control​Some people have incredible hand-eye coordination​Some people write with consistently beautiful penmanship​Some people have very precise muscle memory​Some people are built for extended physical endurance​
These talents can be practiced and developed by anyone, but the people who are are predisposed to those talents will maintain a distinct advantage over everyone else if they train to refine those talents. It's fun to think the world's GOATs were once just everyday people like you and me, but they weren't. They were fortunate to discover their talents and blessed with the desire to work hard and achieve their greatest potential.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Tuesday at 11:57 AM)

Gingerbread said:


> Is that talent, or just training harder?



We debated nature/nurture when I was in high school. Nowadays I'm more worried about AI "art" making the question moot by destroying the soul of humanity.


----------



## tc9000 (Tuesday at 12:30 PM)

It's a bit sad to think about all the unexpressed talent / ability we all might possess, but especially that of children that is stifled. The undiscovered Einsteins, the Hendrixes that never found their left handed strat...


----------



## Thundercat (Tuesday at 1:46 PM)

Honigdachs said:


> The thing I don't really like about how people imagine "savant" talent - or talent in general, for that matter - is that it's often presented as this miraculous innate thing where a person inexplicably has a unique ability to perfectly breeze through some Rachmaninoff without ever having put their hands on a keyboard. That's an absolutely silly idea that completely disregards how genetics work.
> 
> What's actually happening is that because of the unique way some autists' brains are wired, they have an astounding memory capacity and a strong inclination for hyper-systemisation, and that combined with the extreme propensity for singular, obsessive focus results in developing highly impressive abilities.
> 
> ...


Actually, some savants sit down at the piano and play, never having played before.

It very much is a mystery, and it’s not down just having a better memory or more focus.


----------



## VSTHero (Tuesday at 2:10 PM)

I also think inexhaustible focus and curiosity is unique - I've always had barriers in terms of mental fatigue that prevents things like working on something for 16 hours - there's a bell curve for learning and then needing rest which for me has always been in the 2-3 hour range; but I've know people including a family member who can do the same processes but just keep going without hitting that physiological wall - there's an endurance that's less common. Also in terms of behavior contingencies (I'm a behavior analyst), if when you put in effort, you are reinforced more frequently by improvement and you experience less of the aversive aspects of learning fatigue, you're more likely to spend more time on a task. So I think sometimes the duration of engagement found with individuals who are remarkable at something may be as much an indicator of pre-existing aptitude as proof that it's all hardworking. I think 'talent' can be the capacity for immersion, insatiable curiosity, and ability to remain focused without fatigue for lengths far longer than average - obviously we can focus longer at things we've developed fluency at but it's not typical for kids to be able to focus on an intensive learning task for 12 - 14 hours and be surprised time has past; that's something else. 

Anyway, just my viewpoint on it - I don't think we fully know; and this hasn't stopped me from doing music haha! There's also so many different ways of doing things - Leonard Cohen was brilliant in a very different way from say Bela Fleck. Alright, last post on this, cheers all!


----------



## Mike Fox (Tuesday at 3:13 PM)

Some people are genetically wired to be better at certain things than others.

My brother was blessed with a natural beautiful singing voice, while I was cursed with a voice that sounds like a chupacabra being tortured to death.


----------



## The Retroblueman (Tuesday at 3:20 PM)

tc9000 said:


> It's a bit sad to think about all the unexpressed talent / ability we all might possess, but especially that of children that is stifled. The undiscovered Einsteins, the Hendrixes that never found their left handed strat...


If it helps, Jimi might have just celebrated his 80th birthday, utterly and unconditionally happy, and surrounded by his adoring and enormous family if he hadn't picked up that Strat...


----------



## patrick76 (Tuesday at 3:20 PM)

tc9000 said:


> It's a bit sad to think about all the unexpressed talent / ability we all might possess, but especially that of children that is stifled. The undiscovered Einsteins, the Hendrixes that never found their left handed strat...


Yes indeed. Just thinking about how many Einsteins we’ve missed due to circumstances like war, poverty, etc. is depressing.


----------



## Jish (Tuesday at 4:50 PM)

Vik said:


> It isn't only work, of course. But for the kind of music most people like to listen to, they key isn't playing skills or being an orchestral wizard – it's something else.
> 
> To have – or develop – a flair for good melodies and chord progressions is way more important.


Reminds me somewhat of a recent Pat Metheny interview, paraphrased:

_"There alot more players now that are fluent, but it turns out that there are still not
very many that have much to say- to really make a story come to life, musically"_

Others that have specifically brought up guitar as an instrument, and the talent/work
ratio- Frank Gambale observed after some years teaching at GIT that you could never
gauge what a student would say asking them 'x' amount of years that they have been
practicing and playing- it was ultimately some combination of not only the individuals
proclivity towards the instrument (an innate 'potential' and fuck knows what else)
but the quality within the hours of practice that was done. He was initially a bit stunned to
hear younger guys who only had 2-3 years under their cap kind of humiliating ones claiming 
as much as 5-10, and in some cases even more.

If even seemingly small percents/edges can generate huge profits for casino's over years and
decades on a game like baccarat, maybe 'talent' when applied in the right place and context 
isn't all that different.


----------



## KEM (Friday at 8:46 PM)

I’ve always hated the word “talent”, I’ve always seen it used as an excuse that people give themselves so they don’t have to push themselves to be better or work as hard at what they want to accomplish. Obviously genetics defer vastly between everyone so some peoples intelligence make them better at picking things up quicker than others, or their physical makeup gives them a better inclination for certain skills, but I don’t think anyone is just innately good at anything when they’re born, some level of effort is still required

This is why Tom Brady is my hero in life, sports have already been brought up in this thread and I think they’re a great way to measure “talent” and all of those things so I’ll use Tom Brady as an example: by all measurements he’s not very talented, he doesn’t have the strongest arm, he’s not the fastest, he’s not the smartest, he probably isn’t the best at any singular skill except for one… work ethic, and this is why he’s the greatest of all time even though he’s not even remotely the most skilled or talented, he has managed to outwork every single person and as a result win more than anyone else. We’ve all heard the saying “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard” and even though it’s a cliche at this point it’s just so true, this is why whenever someone calls me talented I immediately shut that down and say no, I’m not talented at all, I wasn’t born good at this, and I’m still not very good at this, I’ve gotten to where I am through working hard, and I have to work a lot harder to get better than I am now

Talent is not something to be praised, but hard work is…


----------



## Jackdnp121 (Friday at 9:11 PM)

KEM said:


> I’ve always hated the word “talent”, I’ve always seen it used as an excuse that people give themselves so they don’t have to push themselves to be better or work as hard at what they want to accomplish. Obviously genetics defer vastly between everyone so some peoples intelligence make them better at picking things up quicker than others, or their physical makeup gives them a better inclination for certain skills, but I don’t think anyone is just innately good at anything when they’re born, some level of effort is still required
> 
> This is why Tom Brady is my hero in life, sports have already been brought up in this thread and I think they’re a great way to measure “talent” and all of those things so I’ll use Tom Brady as an example: by all measurements he’s not very talented, he doesn’t have the strongest arm, he’s not the fastest, he’s not the smartest, he probably isn’t the best at any singular skill except for one… work ethic, and this is why he’s the greatest of all time even though he’s not even remotely the most skilled or talented, he has managed to outwork every single person and as a result win more than anyone else. We’ve all heard the saying “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard” and even though it’s a cliche at this point it’s just so true, this is why whenever someone calls me talented I immediately shut that down and say no, I’m not talented at all, I wasn’t born good at this, and I’m still not very good at this, I’ve gotten to where I am through working hard, and I have to work a lot harder to get better than I am now
> 
> Talent is not something to be praised, but hard work is…


Hard work is definitely required …. However when you can play giant step / improvised like Joey alexander at the age of 8 .. that’s definitely nature born talent … 😅


----------



## Gothi (Friday at 10:53 PM)

You ain’t born with a particular talent. There is no such thing as a piano or football genom. At best, a talent is an inherited ability to be able to learn things much faster than others on some modalities: Things related to sound or vision or thinking abtract or senso-motorical abilities. However, that does not mean any other person cannot learn to the same level, only that they will do it much slower and maybe never make it for that reason alone.


----------



## Loerpert (Friday at 11:02 PM)

Gothi said:


> You ain’t born with a particular talent. There is no such thing as a piano or football genom. At best, a talent is an inherited ability to be able to learn things much faster than others on some modalities: Things related to sound or vision or thinking abtract or senso-motorical abilities. However, that does not mean any other person cannot learn to the same level, only that they will do it much slower and maybe never make it for that reason alone.


I think this is closest to the truth


----------



## KEM (Friday at 11:04 PM)

Gothi said:


> You ain’t born with a particular talent. There is no such thing as a piano or football genom. At best, a talent is an inherited ability to be able to learn things much faster than others on some modalities: Things related to sound or vision or thinking abtract or senso-motorical abilities. However, that does not mean any other person cannot learn to the same level, only that they will do it much slower and maybe never make it for that reason alone.



110%, this is exactly what I was trying to get at, you articulated it much better than me but the point remains


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Yesterday at 1:12 PM)

Jish said:


> Reminds me somewhat of a recent Pat Metheny interview, paraphrased:
> 
> _"There alot more players now that are fluent, but it turns out that there are still not
> very many that have much to say- _


That's the entire point, i'nit.

And it's why I'm so utterly disgusted by the concept of AI "art" (music included, of course). A machine has NOTHING to say.


----------



## rgames (Yesterday at 1:33 PM)

Probably mentioned somewhere else in the thread, but anyone who has dealt with significant numbers of children cannot deny that talent exists. Some kids "get it". Whatever "it" may be: music, math, athletics, etc. Hard work certainly determines how much of their potential they realize, but some kids just aren't competitive in some things.

I have always found it interesting that prodigies exist only in the most fundamentally human endeavors, like music, math and athletics.

I've never seen a law prodigy or real estate prodigy. Those propensities develop after the person becomes aware of... how can I say it... the lesser human impulses. Thank goodness for that.


----------



## The Retroblueman (Yesterday at 2:08 PM)

rgames said:


> I have always found it interesting that prodigies exist only in the most fundamentally human endeavors, like music, math and athletics.
> 
> I've never seen a law prodigy...


So you are saying arguing isn't a fundamentally human endeavour but maths is? You clearly haven't spent time with the kids (and people) that I have!😉


----------



## youngpokie (Yesterday at 3:30 PM)

Gothi said:


> that does not mean any other person cannot learn to the same level, only that they will do it much slower and maybe never make it for that reason alone.


But in practical terms, this is a distinction without any difference - the end result is the same.

However, even this interpretation doesn't account for people who are born with perfect pitch, especially if their immediate family doesn't have it. I was fortunate to have very long living great-grandparents and neither them nor anyone else in my extended family has ever had perfect pitch - but my sister does. And she was never even interested in anything to do with music.

Your hypothesis also doesn't explain why this supposedly "hereditary" ability to learn faster than others so often seems to appear out of nowhere.


----------



## Ben E (Yesterday at 5:21 PM)

I just got back from a three-week trip to the year 2210. Can you believe that there’s still a Wikipedia? Weird, right? But the entry for “talent” reads:

“Talent referred to an intangible, weightless, odorless, colorless miasma-like substance/property that was believed to have explanatory power to account for disparity in artistic, athletic and scholastic performance. It was believed that, all else being equal, the better piano player “possessed _talent_” or was talent_-ed_. Whether talent was a _substance_ or _property_ was hotly debated. It was also debated whether animals were born already possessed of the _talent,_ or if it descended upon animals after birth. Essentially, “talent” served as an explanans in much the same way that “luck” serves in some worldviews — ie. the possession of luck can _explain_ why Joe wins more money at slot machines than Bob.

Despite no coherent theory of talent ever emerging from scientific research, the notion of talent proved extraordinarily difficult to dislodge from the popular imagination where it remains to this day in some world-systems (see Scientology.)

There was a brief resurgence in the popularity of talent-based explanations when, in 2105, researcher Stanley Virschow measured the weight (in grams) of hospital patients just before dying and then again after death was pronounced. He noticed that when a person "possessed of the talent" died, their body weighed slightly less. Virschow estimated the weight of the talent to be between .25 and .28 grams.

The concept of _talent_ finally started to wane in pop culture once research in neuro-divergence began to replace “talent” with the various natural mechanisms known today.”

See also:

phlogiston
caloric
telegony
phrenology
luck
petitio principii
soporific qualities of opium


----------



## Gothi (Yesterday at 10:47 PM)

youngpokie said:


> However, even this interpretation doesn't account for people who are born with perfect pitch, especially if their immediate family doesn't have it


Yes it does. I wrote things related to sound, vision, abstract thinking or senso-motorical skills. Perfect pitch relates to sound, mate.



> Your hypothesis also doesn't explain why this supposedly "hereditary" ability to learn faster than others so often seems to appear out of nowhere.


I did not say it came from nowhere. They come from mutation. Case is that the above mentioned modalities are crucial for physical survival. What is programmed in your genes happened during phylogenesis, millions of years of natural selection, not ontogenesis, the lifetime of a single organism. The rest can be explained by environmental variations. Thus, the ability to distinguish sounds according to pitch would have been selected in an environment where there is less light, which otherwise is crucial to mammals. Therefore the organism who by mutation is better to acquire ability to distinguish night-animals more precisely by sound, e.g. "Am I food for it or is it food for me?", will have a greater chance to survive. Perfect pitch does not arise because your granduncle was a musician, but because it helped your kin survive the evolution. This is basic evolutionary biology and genetics, really. Nothing new under the sun to Darwinists.


----------



## Gothi (Today at 12:19 AM)

In addition: Ontogenesis is also a matter of natural selection with regard to which abilities will be shapened by the environment. An infant´s brain contains more than hundred billion neurons at birth. Before birth it produces trillions more than is necessary. During the first years of life, the brain keeps those synaptic connections reinforced by the environment and skips the rest, which is most of them. This and other evidence suggest that the basic strength of human beings is its ability to learn from the environment. Humans can even manipulate the environment so it fits the human tribe in contrast to organisms who can only survive in one kind of environment and have no power over it as such. Thus, there is nothing that suggests that humans have environmental-specific genes the same way that other species can have, and certainly no football or piano genom, since these skills are not crucial for survival and did not exist millions of years ago. It all points to an amazing ability to learn instead, but on a biological foundation, which can vary. Some are more genetically proned towards learning by vision, others by sound, yet others by movement, and others by language-based perception of the environment.


----------

