Lance Armstong actually has rare physical mutation that resulted in an inordinately large heart (on the order of x2 normal for his size if I remember correctly) from what I understand, allowing him more oxegenation into his bloodstream. I think I saw this on PBS or something…

There are significant studies on both sides of the fence really. As far as innate talent v. exposure.

As someone mentioned above these outcomes are not acceptable to modern liberal society. However geneticists and companies tend to continue thier work despite societies dated value structures. The outcomes are many times not pleasant to certain sectors of society.

Example: Currently there is a company that produces a gene chip, they have about 90% of the patents on gene chip technology. Every 6 months or so they exponentially increase the amount of genetic tests they can run off of 1 tumbnail sized chip. In every test they run they produce about 1 terabyte of genetic data. At this time they are concentrating on identifying diseases, and “Predispositions” toward diseases. Many of thier investors are insurance companies, most of you can figure out why….

So now we see that genetic “predispositions” can be used both ways. However the work of geneticists does not stop here, they are moving forward not only in the area of identifying disease processes, but identifying genetic markers for “propensity’s” for certain talents. These talents being mentioned above:

Mathmatics
Music (really mathmatical constructs)
Visual Arts
etc.

This is a bad thing if you believe in certain outcomes like this however identifying propensities toward certain talents will be required for future generations going forward participating in a global economy in specific job
categories as Reich points out in “The Work of Nations” specifically his treatment of “Symbolic Analysts”
which in fact is a classicafation that includes everyone from stock brokers, to programmers, to artists.

However, these are only “propensities” a term that encompasses not only what someones tendancies toward exceling in a certain area are but what is fundamentally what Raph posted above (and what I’ve attempted to do with my daughter as well) which is encouraging exposure to different modalities of learning. In this way a child can find thier potentiality, and yes, develop the feedback loop and deepen thier neural pathways. But this should not be at the expense of identifying other areas of thought/excellence, because people are dynamic and full of potential and are usually good in many areas. Menaing people do not have one neural pathway but many (a neural network!)

What does this mean? Broad liberal educations that allow for a person to naturally select thier preffered area of specialty are still superior to rigid systems of learn by rote.

So the question going forward: Do we use our knowledge of bio-chemistry and genetics to reinforce rigid societal views of how and who should be rewarded? Or do we use this knowledge to maxamize our future potentialities as a species?

The answer lies in what/who holds and uses this information and your access to it….

I recently read this about external incentives overriding and replacing internal incentives. I’m not sure it’s related, but I couldn’t stop thinking about it while reading the comments.

Was I good at because I liked the game, or did I like the game because I was good at it?

To put it more classically, which came first, the chicken or the egg? =)

Neither am I qualified to judge (at all), but to me there’s undoubtedly some heretical nature to talent; certainly I’ve seen it in the families of friends and those I’ve known a long time. Music happens to “run” in my family, for instance — to varying degrees in individuals, of course, but there is definitely an aptitude for music from my dad’s side.

Maybe the “genetic tie” (if it _is_ that) is something even more basic — a simpler ingredient perhaps. Might explain why there seems to be a tendency for mathematically talented people (not me) to also be good at music and/or foreign languages, and vice versa versa

There is plenty of data on this sort of stuff, but it tends to lead to conclusions that many people don’t like. At least, that many people in modern liberal societies don’t like. And when I say “modern liberal” it’s not a sneer — just a description. Read “Western” if you’re hung up on either “modern” or “liberal” in that sentence, although that’s less accurate.

I’ll give two examples.

Sport: to excel in sport reqiures a genetic predisposition to the physical activity that typifies that sport. You can make a case that tall and whippy should be as good as short and explosive for badminton, but the Chinese beat the Norwegians every time…

Maths: to excel in maths seems to require what we can only candidly describe as borderline mental illness, if not actual mental illness. So, again, a genetic lottery.

We would like to believe that all people need to achieve “expertise” is passion and hard work. But it’s becoming clearer that this simply isn’t the case — at least for high values of the word “expertise.”

For an interesting anecdotal example of parents raising children “for effect” in a particular area of expertise is outlined in Chaim Potok’s brilliant book The Chosen, where a Hasidic rebbe raises his son to be a Torah scholar by only allowing his son to communicate with him through Torah study.

Of course, boys want to communicate with their fathers, so this strategy is breathtakingly effective, if emotionally brutal.

We see many examples of a similar kind of thing every night on the news. In the musical world, Michael Jackson was raised by his father to be very expert. Well, it worked. But he is clearly that to the exclusion of all else.

But certainly for low values of “expertise” you can get by with excitement…

Very interesting article but I too question some of the conclusions. I wish it had more data and less anecdotes. A lot of this depends on how one defines “talent”. Cats, for example, learn in very different ways than dogs. They can’t be taught through peer pressure or rewards really. They have to be taught through molding and other techniques. Many people think that cats aren’t as intelligent as dogs, because of this. However cats can learn some pretty amazing things like how to open complex doors, to go to the bathroom in the toilet, etc. I suppose it makes sense to think of dogs as just having a “precocity” for certain types of learning like learning to fetch slippers but I also think it makes sense to say that dogs have different talents than cats.

My adopted sister received no mathematical training before age 12. As such, she really cannot learn complex mathematics. She doesn’t have cranial infrastructure for that and having watched my parents support her and try to teach her for years it’s pretty clear that she isn’t going to learn that ever. Even if she spent 10 years (she’s spent at least 6 with essentially no headway). Ok, had she spent the time earlier in life, then she would have been able to do math. Absolutely. But this points out that not all time-investments are equal. And a lot of the most important time include time in the womb, time as an infant, etc. Furthermore, there are lots of biological things that can create just the same effect.

Basically it comes down the notion that there are no absolutes in genetics or in behavior. Only tendencies. We can’t say that your genetics will MAKE you tall, smart, strong bipolor, etc., but we can say that they may give you a tendency towards some of those things. And all of those things will end up having great effects on how easy it is to climb certain hills like learning to be a strong chess player or learning to be a good musician. Starting soccer late in the cycle is just another thing that can lead to a tendency towards something. If enough things line up then we’ll end up saying that you have a talent for something or other.

I’d like to see more results on strictly physical skills. The soccer thing is very interesting but it really doesn’t do anything to convince us that talent exists. It only says that there are other factors as well.

I agree with some of the premises, and I certainly feel that schools could do much more to focus children on learning, I don’t think the information warrents a total dismissal of innate talent.

The information about the professional soccer players, for instance, is far from convincing. The number of professional soccer players is relatively tiny; there’s no reason to expect that all innately talented players will go pro. The timing may give an advantage relative to other innately talented players.

The story of the sociologist who raised chess masters is interesting, but still far from convincing (to me). He didn’t set out to create chess prodigies per se, just some kind of prodigy. The girls selected chess as toddlers by showing interest. I have no doubt the intensive training played a role in their skill, but it’s an open question whether they would have become just as skillful had they been trained in, say, music.

Ability and interest form a feedback cycle. People, especially children, are more likely to be interested in something if they understand it as beginners, which may suggest native talent. I have unusual (but not extraordinary, by any means) mathematical ability. I credit some of it to a regular babysitter I had in elementary school, who would have me and my friends play math games. I displayed greater interest in those games than friends who, now, are not as mathematically gifted as I. I also consistantly beat those friends. Was I good at because I liked the game, or did I like the game because I was good at it?