Where do smart people go?

33 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

I'm not talking about cows and horses. I'm talking about the difference between great at sucky developers.

*snip*

Is too learnable... http://philomel.com/pdf/AJMG_2007.pdf

Also http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

Also I'm not sure why you're suddenly talking about perfect pitch. You can't learn to be tall - but that doesn't mean you can't learn to be a great programmer. We were talking about the difference between good and sucky developers.

*snip*

If you don't work hard, you'll never know whether the reason you suck is because you didn't put in the effort. I don't know anyone who genuinely put in the effort but didn't succeed.

As someone with a Bachelor's degree in music, I can tell you that while relative pitch can be learned (and appear to be perfect pitch to the outsider), perfect pitch cannot.

Circumstantial evidence is all they allude to, and they do not show the genetic lines where perfect pitch is inherited at all even for comparison. 

They aren't asserting that it isn't genetic. They are refuting your assertion that it is. Not knowing is the default state of things in science. This article is pulling you back from the definite statement "Perfect pitch is genetic" without asserting that it isn't.

The paper I just showed you refutes the main study that tries to make the assertion that perfect pitch is genetic, hence my objection to you simply stating that it is.

Talent is genetic, in all forms. Work is not. I don't confuse the two.

I find your assertion that I am good at what I do is down to being blessed with magic coding-genes rather than tens of thousands of hours I've put in quite insulting. I am good at what I do because of the work I put in. I am perhaps blessed that my genes didn't get in the way, but they are in no way the cause of my success, any more than your genes cause you to commit murder.

Genes are not an excuse for how you live your life. Saying to Jane you can't be X because your genes is defeatist, insulting and patronising, and saying to Joe's that his genes made him do Y so it's not really his fault is patronising and is an attempt to divorce him from the consequences of his own actions.

You alone get to choose almost all aspects of what goes on in your head. If you want to fill it with astronaut training or how to write secure code or a hundred different spoken languages - that's entirely up to you.

The only way to guarantee failure is to not try.

8 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

As someone with a Bachelor's degree in music, I can tell you that while relative pitch can be learned (and appear to be perfect pitch to the outsider), perfect pitch cannot.

Clarification: I should have said "is not currently known to have a major genetic factor" than "is too learnable".

@evildictaitor: I have no intention to say hard work is not good or that genetic talent can cruise without hard work and still get the job done. I have not said any of that. Do not assume I have.

What I said is that talent is genetic. I stand by that assertion.

Hard work is not genetic, but the personality trait to work hard is...

I will never take away from hard work, stop assuming I am doing that.

EDIT: I can't imagine a more major genetic factor than inheriting perfect pitch. It skips a generation, you know, like other genes... A grandfather with perfect pitch has a grandson with perfect pitch -- that is a major hard-coded line right there. That paper is wrong.

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

We are talking about passion, a personality trait which I assert is genetic, not learned.

'Talent' is also genetic, imho; not learned.

You're basically taking the point of view that you can't develop have a passion for something later in  your life, that you didn't have as a child, or had the opposite reaction to as a child. Which is proven wrong all the time.

As for talent, I'd say talent is simply a knack for something. Pushing yourself through work and practice doesn't guarantee you'll gain a knack for something, because no matter how hard you push yourself, you still have to "get it", and genetics may influence how easy you pick something up, but a knack in itself is not genetic. People can pick up a knack for something late in life just like they can pick up a passion late in life.

But yea, I'd agree its not simply hard work, either.

3 minutes ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

You're basically taking the point of view that you can't develop have a passion for something later in  your life, that you didn't have as a child, or had the opposite reaction to as a child. Which is proven wrong all the time.

As for talent, I'd say talent is simply a knack for something. Pushing yourself through work and practice doesn't guarantee you'll gain a knack for something, because no matter how hard you push yourself, you still have to "get it", and genetics may influence how easy you pick something up, but a knack in itself is not genetic. People can pick up a knack for something late in life just like they can pick up a passion late in life.

Talent => knack, +1

Passion is a choice. Some are lucky to have passion oozing out of their pores. Others must work to squeeze it out. Those lucky ones with a passionate personality disposition may lack the innate discipline of the others... there seems to always be a balance at work, imho.

Passion is always a choice, all emotions are choices.

I don't have a view that passion is ever out of reach.

EDIT: No one can pick up a knack for perfect pitch later in life, it is genetic and not at all environmental. Relative pitch is not the same as you pointed out, though with hard work relative pitch can function the same as perfect pitch - but it isn't the same at all.

What I object to is the unrealistic assertion that all people have the same potential, and that with hard work you are limitless. 

We do not all have the same potential, not at all. Not physically, not mentally, not at all. 

Students need to be tracked, for example, so the smart ones aren't sitting on their hands while the dumb ones struggle to keep up. This 'environment > nature' perspective (a.k.a. 'no child left behind') is responsible for destroying the public school system in the USA. Destroyed to the point of worthless for the smart students. And I am exactly right about this. Put smart kids together and put dumb kids together. Allow for changes. Problem solved.

52 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Talent => knack, +1

Sure, I'd buy that. I think its true to say that people are born into unique lives in which they all have a unique perspective, and one person's perspective on life can't be replicated. You can't reduce it. In other words, Nikola Tesla was special because he was Nikola Tesla. But, I just wouldn't argue it has anything to do with biology, which is what I think what people mean by genetics. Its still based on what they pick up in their lives.

Did somebody say "knack"?

@JohnAskew:

Chinese way is saying you are born with certain personality and life pursuit, but it is based on time, not genetic. This is why a lot of kids failed at what their parents are good at, because they are born with different personalities.

family, community, friend often contribute a person's choice in life and career.

Hard work is important as you said.

But all in all, hard work along is not enough, I think that's what you are trying to say. we should know our own strength and weakness, and be truthful to ourselves, and seek a path that is more suitable for us, whether it is generic or not. 

@tobleroneisbest:  If you are in central Europe, consider Microsoft STC-E (Search technology center).  They have an office in Munich and London.

Did you guys start a "Nature versus Nurture" thread while I was out of the room?

In human beings, environmental factors generally outweigh genetic ones; talent can be equalled or  surpassed by practice in almost all cases.

It doesn't matter if you were born with perfect pitch, or spent a lot of time practising to get good relative pitch, the end result is the same; you can identify a note by listening to it.

Herbie

@Dr Herbie:

sheer effort can only get you to above average. There are people both with talent and effort. When you pit against natural talented people with same amount of effort, you won't win. If you don't accept that truth, you will be bitter at how they managed to be number one and you are number three.

I agree with John at certain level. We are still constrained by our own genetic markup. If you think sheer effort is enough, everyone can be an Olympic athlete. Everyone can speed read. Everyone can have photo graphic memory. Everyone can be a great musician. Everyone can be a great writer. Everyone can be a great leader. The reality is not.

It is like fighting a battle. Sometimes it is wiser to retreat instead of trying to break through with sheer effort. You fall back and go around it and achieve the your goal with intelligence, not blindly believing sheer effort can brute your way out of every challenge.

There is often this propaganda that, you can be successful through sheer effort. I find it too Disney. Trying to get to your goal head on blindly without assessing your own strength and limit will get your head bleeding.

@magicalclick: You're halfway right.

Ability that relies on physical ability (athletics, memory retention) will be limited at the top end by genetics.  They are still a mix of genetics and practice, though.  You don't get 'natural' marathon runners, you get people to practice a lot and eventually find that their upper limit is higher than other people's.

Abilities that rely on other aspects are not limited by genetics:  anyone can learn to be a great writer, anyone can learn to be a great musician, anyone can learn to be a great leader.  These things are NOT governed by genetics, but are learned behaviours that improve with practice.  

Mozart may have written concertos at six years old, but most other great musicians learned the same way as the rest of us learned to read and write. Even Mozart had to learn the basics of music -- he wasn't born with the ability to play or read music.

Ask any successful (even 'great') writer and they will tell you that the first things they wrote were absolute rubbish and that it took time and practice go become good; it is not limited genetically.

Falling back on "I'm not genetically good at that" as an excuse to stop trying is lazy defeatism and is not acceptable. It's exactly like fat people blaming 'the fat gene' for their condition and deciding that there's nothing to be done, when it's simply caused by not looking after themselves.

Herbie

Falling back on "I'm not genetically good at that" as an excuse to stop trying is lazy defeatism and is not acceptable. It's exactly like fat people blaming 'the fat gene' for their condition and deciding that there's nothing to be done, when it's simply caused by not looking after themselves.

It is sometimes necessary for me to explain to people that I have the "G" Gene .  (I find that most people are then quite accepting of my condition).

Outliers by Malcom Gladwell is a book I read that would be very topical for this thread in its current meandering.  

http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html

@Ian2: "G" Gene?  

Herbie

@Dr Herbie: Then, I dare you to have a baby,.

You can do it! All it takes is hard work! And don't come crying to me about genetics.

It's nonsense, we are not created equally. We are all very different and it's down to genetics and for a very tiny minute part; experience.

I really get this weird everybody must be created equal and must have the same means vibe from this thread.

I agree with John at certain level. We are still constrained by our own genetic markup. If you think sheer effort is enough, everyone can be an Olympic athlete. Everyone can speed read. Everyone can have photo graphic memory. Everyone can be a great musician. Everyone can be a great writer. Everyone can be a great leader. The reality is not.

From the "Myth of Talent", written by Matthew Syed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Syed) who was British number 1 table tennis champion:

The talent myth is not only widespread, but it is also powerfully destructive, robbing individuals and institutions of the motivation for change. [The fact is] that I was, in effect, the best of a very small bunch. Or, to put it another way, I was the best of a very big bunch, only a tiny fraction of whom had my opportunities.

The simple answer is that you probably can't become an Olympic athlete anymore because you are too old, and will be far too old by the time you've put in the time to get good. But your next baby could be. If you give her a tennis racquet at the age of two, home-train her to play against her sister. If you make sure she gets world-class coaching, and puts in the time and effort, then maybe nineteen years later, you'll have not one, but TWO world-class tennis players in your family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williams_(tennis)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williams_(tennis)