Innate talents

[ErylRavenwell]

I don't know if I'd agree with "more often than not". I simply haven't seen the statistics, and the causes of depression are manifold and usually much more complex than a simple failure to apply themselves. You do identify a problem: parents are bombarded with so many warnings these days I sometimes feel like hiding under a duvet till they hit eighteen.

But there is a opposite danger, which is not nurturing a child's obvious talents. That often ends nastily.

Here is an article. Note, I'm not telling you how to raise your children—not a decadent bastard like me.

The relevant part.

Gifted Learning vs. Gifted Doing
The other way to look at precocity is of course to work backward — to look at adult geniuses and see what they were like as kids. A number of studies have taken this approach, Gladwell said, and they find a similar pattern. A study of 200 highly accomplished adults found that just 34 percent had been considered in any way precocious as children. He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci (“that famous code-maker”). “None of [them] would have made it into Hunter College,” Gladwell observed.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2026

 

[Hillgate]

Hi

I was wondering if any members here agree that writing is a innate ability that you are born with, or that it is something you can learn. What do you think?

This sounds like a bit of a navel-gazing exercise that assumes any of us knows if he/she can write or not! I would not presume to debate this: I'd go and prove whether I could do it or not and then worry about where my genius has come from!!!

 

[She_wulf]

...For me, natural inclination IS innate talent. They mean the same to me.

Instead of asking, or trying to figure out if writing is a talent we are born with, I believe we should ask instead, "Were we born with the desire to write?"

Not everyone is.

Sure, some people would like to be a writing billionaire, for the same reason people play the lottery. But when you really look at it, there are people (a few on this board) that HAVE to write. Just like there are people who HAVE to draw, or play music, or create poetry. IMO, that is the "talent" we have from birth. When we work to hone that talent, by attending classes, participating in writing groups, chatting with fellow writers, etc. we are feeding that "natural ability" within us.

So, what happens when you feed a monster too much?

LOL

 

[Priene]

I don't see how there can be an innate "desire to write", if by writing we mean the written word. Writing only came about a few thousand years ago, while our species has been going much longer.

The desire to tell stories is a different matter. I've never heard of a culture which doesn't have either an oral or written story culture. And I've never seen an infant who didn't enjoy telling stories. They'll spin little tales about their dolls and, if there are no toys to hand, they'll use yogurt pots or stones as characters. This seems to me like a fundamental characteristic of early childhood. One which comes about as soon as we have enough spoken vocabulary.

Somewhere along the line - middle childhood, adolescence - many people lose the desire to make up stuff. Some rediscover it later, many don't. But I believe the vast majority of us have at one time been storytellers.

 

[NeuroFizz]

Perhaps one of the least appreciated (and least understood, scientifically) brain functions is that of motivation. By this, I don't mean exclusively external motivation, but the modulatory influences that include motivation, arousal, selective attention and the lot, frequently given the generic name "mood" as in, "I'm not in the mood..." or "I'm in the mood..." These serve to up- or down-regulate other brain activities, and have a tremendous influence on behavioral (and physiological) hierarchies. When a person is highly motivated for a task or intellectual activity, it typically develops quickly and becomes a centerpiece in that person's activities. A motivation for a particular activity can appear any time in a lifespan, and as long as there are not brain-related limitations on performing the tasks of the activity, the person usually will enter the activity with a steep learning curve. Interestingly, these mysterious "mood" influences seem to be organized in specific, identified brain regions (and therefore, have a "nature" basis, as well as the potential to be modified by experience--the nurture side).

In other words, it isn't nature or nuture, but both. The human brain is a remarkable structure with computing powers we still don't fully understand. This means even the dullest of humans posseses the potential for great intellectual activities. Why don't they express that potential? Although there will be "nature" differences in the brains of individuals, experience, motivation, and all of the "nurture" things will bring out that potential, but in very different directions in different individuals. Even a no-count bank robber, who can plan the most exquisite way to get into the bank vault, is expressing some of that brain potential, and the stellar academic who can't seem to button his shirt right, or consistently find his car keys, is showing a lack of expression of his intellect in those aspects of his life.

 

[Prawn]

I think that anyone with discipline can write a book.
It takes someone with talent and discipline to write a great book.

 

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

I think the whole concept of being "born to write" is a disgusting oversimplification of the situation.

You can wind up learning to do anything well, and somebody out there will claim that you're somehow naturally talented in that regard. It just ain't so.

Genetics only do so much for you. And they only hold you back so much too.

Anyone who thinks that they can't do something out of some stupid idea that they're not naturally gifted is a loser who probably applies that same loser-mentality to everything in his or her life.

 

[preyer]

fel, you could be great at both. only you know that. all i mean is that in my experience, those good in english class seemed to do better in social studies and history, math oriented folk did better in chemistry and the like. 'But I do agree somewhat with you that by multi-tasking, somethings may not reach their full potential,' isn't really what i was driving at: sometimes a person is above average at a lot of things, but not really great at any one of them (with the exception of math, i fall into this category. oh, i can't fight for a damn. learned that one, so i avoid fisticuffs, lol).

shane, i tried to avoid using athletes as comparable examples. i forget which thoroughbred it was, maybe seattle slew (sp?), that when cut open they found had a heart much larger than normal. maybe a bad example, but the idea is that athletes are born and honed, not really made. it's about coordination and a whole set of gifts that go into being a better boxer, having the right body for gymnastics, whatever. but, whatever it is, it's more than just desire, it's an entire physical component that works together. i could practice boxing the whole live long day and get my ass thoroughly kicked by a guy doing the same thing but who has an innate ability to fight. in theory, if i train excessively, i *should* be able to whup up on guys who are like me who have less training/desire. were that true, anyone who puts in the exact same effort and time in training should be evenly matched, but that's just not the way it is. i could play video games all day long and still not beat my nephew, he's just naturally good at stuff like that. i mean, it's not like being a roofer.

i don't believe it's all about effort and desire. talented writers have a way of seeing words together just like the star quarterback can sense his surroundings and react just like my nephew has a preternatural ability to predict what's about to happen next onscreen and can process that information in a mili-second and have his fingers react to it.

i tool around on guitar a bit. i'm good enough to impress most people because i know the tricks. if i sat down and gave it the effort, i could play prit near any song you want. doesn't mean i can create songs like jimmy page. i can *play* led zeppelin (because i happen to have enough coordination to pull page off), doesn't mean that that instills me with any talent for making music. page was steeped in theory, true, and that most certainly helped towards defining the musical voice for which he's known, but whatever he learned and what technical skillz from practicing does not solely comprise the manner in which one note came after another. i could replicate the notes and the sound (if i could afford such a thing), but i will never write 'stairway to heaven.' nor would i necessarily want to. i think a musician's style is very equatable to a writer's 'voice.' i don't think i even need to mention 'preyer' for someone to pick out something i wrote, the way i wrote something is (hopefully) indication enough. if it's any good, you can believe that i didn't read about it in any book.

here's another: i can draw a little bit. not great, but i could always draw to a certain extent (so could my dad ~ mom had dabbled in poetry when she was young). now, my circles probably don't look much different than anyone else's. when i start putting circles and lines together, my picture will look a lot different than yours. i've never had a formal art class in my life, but i promise you that a face i draw in ten seconds will look vastly better than a face drawn by 80% of the population. someone with no talent (i dare say i have *some* talent at drawing, at least relatively speaking) but with tons of training is going to draw a better face. give me the same training and there's no doubt in my mind that both pictures side-by-side who's will garner more attention.

to say that with enough training i could be michelangelo is bullshit. sorry, but it just doesn't work like that.

gp, i pretty much think that there are different levels of talent, too.

raven, you called her daughter's ability to draw well a skill. it's not a skill. it's not an amazing thing to be able to do? then why can't *all* kids do it?

folks, we're not all born on a level playing field. true, my math skillz improved when i had a good teacher, but all that got me was the ability to function enough to pass the class. the concepts were otherwise alien and didn't make sense, and my brain didn't process the information at all. on the flip-side, i had a friend who was intellectually gifted ~ he attended one of the same math classes i did merely to have him be in a physical space. he was above the teacher's level, and he was, in that class, teaching himself from some college level textbook.

maybe sci-fi writers have more of a mix of logic and word ability? i'd venture to say these guys have an intellectual capacity beyond our norm here of, what, say 125 to 140 on average? not that a genius i.q. has anything to do with good writing, just wondering if there's some correlation between sci-fi writers with high i.q.'s and their target audience, stereotypically smart guys who dress in stormtrooper outfits and don't have a single number in their black books. (i'd love a stormtrooper outfit, myself.)

oh, and btw, that whole idea of playing classical music to fetuses has been debunked as fantasy, too.

 

[preyer]

imo, just as stupid is thinking that one can do anything they want given enough training. that's delusional.

fizz, i like the way you put that (and probably because it reiterated my earlier idea in a much better sounding way, lol). not a single one among us who says there's such a thing as talent is denying the need for nurturing. fizz, who i trust in these academic matters, says it's a bit of both. really, though, admitting the existence of 'talent,' call it what you will, to any degree is admitting talent exists. (i was hoping you'd chime in on this, fizz, you being a member of the scientific community and all. i'm just glad you're lending credence to the idea that talent exists, lol.)

 

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

That's a copout. That's turning the world into a simple place when it is anything but.

Like I said before, stupidity and laziness can completely override potential, and usually do. But the attitude "I can't," is nonsense, and the extreme degree you're taking this to completely misses the point. You don't have to be Einstein to be a scientist, nor do you have to be Mike Tyson to be a successful and talented boxer. And furthermore, you don't have to be Tolkien to be a successful writer. Look at Terry Goodkind, for godsakes. And if we're talking about good writers, it's ultimately not some innate gift granted to you by the gods. It's hard work and dedication.

I'm not saying that genetics don't play some amount of a role, mind you. But unless you're seriously defective as a human being, you have the ability to be good at pretty much anything you want to be. Saying that you can't just because they weren't born with it is a loser's stance, to try to make himself feel better about quitting.

I've seen guys who're 6'2 and 225 pounds do a backflip. Does it come easier for somebody who's 4'9 and 85 pounds? Probably, because that's physics. But being born short and light doesn't make somebody naturally gifted at gymnastics. Give me a friggin' break.

 

[Jamesaritchie]

Innate

Hi

I was wondering if any members here agree that writing is a innate ability that you are born with, or that it is something you can learn. What do you think?

It's both. The sharper the knife you're born with, the less honing it needs. No one is born knowing how to write, but some are born with the right equipment, and merely have to learn how to use it properly.

 

[RumpleTumbler]

I just want to post under James A. Ritchie so that some of that talent might drip down on me.

 

[NeuroFizz]

The basics of brain structure (and ultimately function) are genetically determined, yet a great deal of human brain development (specifically proper wiring in so many circuits) occurs after birth, and is influenced by experience. So, it has to be a mix of nature/nurture. Good evidence comes from rather drastic experiments on the mammalian visual system, where vision was deprived of some animals from birth on through the period of developmental wiring of the visual system. Even though the approprate parts (eyes and appropriate brain areas) were intact and functional, the wiring was screwed up in the animals with the visual deprivation.

Just as some people have better motor coordination than others, some seem to have better intellectual "coordination" than others. But even that can't be separated into "genetic" and experience-dependent. That, too, is both.

 

[turkelton]

Stephen King believes that the truly great writers ARE born that way--born observant, somehow having this innate sense of how words work. He says he isn't one of those in On Writing.

He's wrong. Someone with his level of talent doesn't just develop it. The ability has to be there to begin with.

 

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

Nonsense, turkelton. What are you basing that assumption on? Simply because you're not at that level yet, he must have some kind of mystical ability with writing that allows him to be more successful than most writers? Please. He works his ass off, and he's got damn near the biggest marketing team on the planet for his books (seconded only to JK Rowling as far as I'm concerned). Plus the fact that tons of his books have been turned into movies, it's just a big engine that got turning. Stephen King is lucky, certainly. But his level of talent is more than attainable by mortal men.

You just have to be willing to work your ass off for it, like he was. If you're not, you'll never get there.

Maybe that's what it is. Some people are simply born tough, and develop a strong sense of personal motivation that lets them accomplish whatever they set out to do. Meanwhile quitters and lazy people make up excuses for why life's not fair.

I understand both mentalities very well, but I sincerely hope I never fall completely into the latter one.

 

[dmytryp]

I am sorry Shane. I beg the differ.
I'll give you two examples:

1. Do you know how many apply to Israeli army fliying course? Hoiw many are left in the end? About ten percent (I am not sure of the exact figure, sorry). Does that mean all those who didn't finish were quitters or couldn't fly? No. Some of them probably could have flown, but would be dead in first combat. Did those who made it, did so simply because they worked harder? No. They have something extra. And that's called natural ability -- i.e. talant

2. Have you seen Star Trek NG? There are some episode where android Data plays the piano. He has perfect technique, but people aren't too excited about his performance. One other character explains the difference between Data and a really great artist by things you can't teach (i.e. talant) -- fire in the performance, the ability to improvise etc.

 

[benbradley]

I think it's like most everything else, it's something you can learn. Learning a specific ability may be harder for some than others, (perhaps and partly) because there may be things that need to be UNlearned (he said, emphatically).

I suspect many people become experts, 'masters' or whatever you call the exceptionally talented because they are interested in these things and start learning about them at an early age. I doubt that genetic or "innate talent" is as responsible for one person being better than another (barring things that might cause mental or learning disabilities, such as lead poisining) as is one being plain more interested in it than another.

But then there's this guy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umeMt8FNXuY

 

[III]

I think the "natural ability" can be more impactful in the type of writing you're attempting. For example, some people simply aren't funny. There are some great, successful writers out there who really want to be funny, but they just aren't. You can teach grammer, story structure, character development, but I don't believe you can teach funny.

 

[RumpleTumbler]

I don't believe you can teach funny.

You drive that point home to us time and time again day after day.

 

[RumpleTumbler]

But then there's this guy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umeMt8FNXuY

That guy is a freak. I'll bet he's had visits from the CIA, NSA, and the FBI just to name a few. He could probably name his salary.

 

[She_wulf]

Anyone who thinks that they can't do something out of some stupid idea that they're not naturally gifted is a loser who probably applies that same loser-mentality to everything in his or her life.

I totally disagree with you. My boss is as un-artistically inclined as you can possibly imagine, but he can detect when a client likes an idea, or probably more importantly, doesn't like an idea. His talent lies in finding what the majority likes. Ergo, he's a great sounding board. It's not that he thinks he's not gifted, he thinks, I can make so and so use their talents to create what his client wants.

Another example is my ex's family. Their goal in life was to work a job, (machinist and janitor respectively) get a pension, and retire. They don't understand why I want to write or draw. They actually consider these to be worthless talents if I don't make money at it. They are not stupid people, they've invested wisely, and can enjoy their "golden" years in front of the big screen TV they prize and watch all the DVD's they can rent for it. That's their idea of success. Not mine, but to each their own.

Then, you have another ex, who is BRILLIANT when it comes to music. He can hear something once, play it left handed and upside-down on a right handed guitar, pick up his and play it left handed right-side up. He writes poetry and creates original compositions. He knows heavy metal, blues, classic rock, even a little classical I turned him onto. He can jam along with just about anyone without knowing what will be played next. He can't read a note of sheet music, nor can he hold a job for more than three months at a time.

Out of all these examples, the last example has the worst work ethic and is quite often depressed. He has no money, no insurance, no pension, drinks too much and has gotten in trouble more often than I can remember.

I'll let you figure out what you will of it.

 

[Azraelsbane]

Then, you have another ex, who is BRILLIANT when it comes to music. He can hear something once, play it left handed and upside-down on a right handed guitar, pick up his and play it left handed right-side up. He writes poetry and creates original compositions. He knows heavy metal, blues, classic rock, even a little classical I turned him onto. He can jam along with just about anyone without knowing what will be played next. He can't read a note of sheet music, nor can he hold a job for more than three months at a time.

This reminded me of my cousin.

He's been obsessed with playing piano all his life, and he's the type of guy that can hear something and play it. Amazing. He even got a scholarship for music, but life called elsewhere. He's a grease monkey now (most of the guys in my family are), and very few people know he can play at all. But every time I see him walk by a piano, he looks away and frowns. He tried saving up for a piano for a long time, but things didn't work out. He got in some trouble and his savings went out the window.

If I ever get a decent sized book deal (hahaha) the first thing I'm doing is buying him a baby grand.

 

[preyer]

no, having the right centre of gravity is what makes you able to easily backflip. i'm just a hair under 6'1", though i've never been able to slam dunk a basketball in my life.

this is why i avoided using athletes as examples in the first place, but since it was brought up, there it is. your entire argument up to that post was basically saying any average person could train hard enough and be jerry rice, mike tyson, or michael jordan. you didn't say it, but that's the impression i got since you didn't qualify the statements that much. my stance is these individuals are anything but average: and if the rest of their peers are in the same league, it's doubtful that i, even being slightest average at most of these games, can, without having any *particularly* noteworthy predilictions towards any of them, can, with enough training, win out over any of these people. are we now to pitch out the window the entire concept of breeding, too? (besides, isn't it hypocritical to single out the examples i gave while bringing up a 'champion' like goodkind? you may not like him, but what proof is that?)

i don't think a single one of 'us' even suggested you can't learn how to write without having any talent and not be readable. when you say it's a cop-out, i have not one clue what you're talking about. as far as simplifying things, uh, i'd say 'if you work hard enough then anything is possible,' your unelaborated upon aversion as far as i recall, is as simple as it gets. at least some people have offered their own theories (even me).

what about terry goodkind? we can point to plenty of authors if we're going to say so-and-so is sub-par and has sold millions. that doesn't prove anything and is a different debate (currently in existance... again) entirely.

in fact, were i to be honest, if anything is a loser stance it's the delusion that talent has nothing to do with the thing one truly wants to be best at. then it's completely convenient to believe there's no such thing as talent. no one said the untalented can't work hard and be serviceable. i don't understand even the mere mention of talented people wasting their gifts, but it seems something that's being harped upon here as if there's something other than an obvious point.

and then 'genetics play some role'? does this mean genetics may play some role in one's ability to write? that utterly crushes your entire argument as far as i can see, for, as you've repeated time and again, genetics mean nothing if you put the effort into it. or are you saying 'genetics' ultimately means nothing and that anyone can infuse their brains with enough, hm, fake genetics and be as great? i can't tell if you're backpedalling or being contradictory as far as i can see.

 

[preyer]

'You drive that point home to us time and time again day after day.' okay, this made me laugh.

 

[turkelton]

There are simply far too many instances of people having talents that have not been learnt, or excelling in a certain area to discount. Almost everyone knows someone who is a natural at something. I know a guy who is very talented at drawing, but never took any art classes and is pretty dense in other areas. He could draw from a very early age, and had no influences that could have created that talent. It was something that came from within.