Talent Vs Hard Work

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

No, it's nothing like that, and I can't see how you could have gotten that from what I've said.

There are, of course, unmeasurable things, and one of them is what do people like to hear. If Mozart had been born into the 12 tone era of classical music, do you think he'd have not been a genius? He certainly wouldn't have written any of the stuff he did. Would we all be listening to his work?

If a tree falls in the woods.....etc....

I certainly think that anyone who takes the position that the talents possessed by some of the folks we have mentioned "isn't unique" is coming from ...well, a unique place indeed!

One thing you brought up though is a really fascinating subject to me, and that is, why this insane burst of "genius" seems to be short lived in many cases, or even most cases.

Why doesn't Paul write the equivalent of "Yesterday" more often (or at all)? What happened to Jim Webb? To Paul Simon? etc...

It is as if artists are given a small window to burst upon the scene with gifts that keep on giving forever, but those same people ebb back into the normal (or sub normal) level afterwards never to recover the brilliance of their earlier output. It's not like they are old and tired...many are all still at it with a vengeance.

So what happens? Does the ever changing environment as they grow change the input they receive to the point where it affects what comes out? Why isn't a new "Satisfaction" on the new Stones album? Is such creativity only a product of youth?

Thoughts?

TH

[Jack Duelisis]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

You guys are pretty much completely misreading what I'm saying, as usual.

Well, Dean: glad I'm joining a club without noticing. Since it's the first time we disagree, I'll exclude myself from the "as usual" until next meeting.

I disagreed with this :

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

No, I just, as a general rule, reject the notion that certain people are *inherently* vastly beyond anyone else on the planet. I don't believe that's true.

What on earth did I not undersand in your statement. I disagreed, yes, and I justified why. But did I misread you ????

[Dz7]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

If a tree falls in the woods.....etc....

I certainly think that anyone who takes the position that the talents possessed by some of the folks we have mentioned "isn't unique" is coming from ...well, a unique place indeed!

One thing you brought up though is a really fascinating subject to me, and that is, why this insane burst of "genius" seems to be short lived in many cases, or even most cases.

Why doesn't Paul write the equivalent of "Yesterday" more often (or at all)? What happened to Jim Webb? To Paul Simon? etc...

It is as if artists are given a small window to burst upon the scene with gifts that keep on giving forever, but those same people ebb back into the normal (or sub normal) level afterwards never to recover the brilliance of their earlier output. It's not like they are old and tired...many are all still at it with a vengeance.

So what happens? Does the ever changing environment as they grow change the input they receive to the point where it affects what comes out? Why isn't a new "Satisfaction" on the new Stones album? Is such creativity only a product of youth?

Thoughts?

TH

You should really look into reading some neuroscience / cognitive development studies /books and look at the importance and process of children developing an identity of the self (and in particular, what that particular framework consists of). The ramifications of a public consciousness that understood how scientists view education not just in the institutional sense, but the biological sense, would dramatically change the culture we live in. Our brains and bodies are physically identical to what they were 15,000 years ago; nurture (not nature) is truly an incredible thing.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by Jack Duelisis

Ever heard of "Art Brut" ? You might google that as well as Jean Dubuffet.

He was a painter that made researches in psychiatric asylums among other places and discovered amazing artists, some of them being severe autistic cases and performing incredible piece of arts.

Feedback was certainly not part of the process.

Art is language, yes, but communication is certainly not mandatory.

Fringe stuff. I know about the outsider art movement and Dubuffet, and I have used the concept in class discussions. Personally, I think there's some interesting stuff there, but a lot of crap not worth a second glance sneaks in too. Kind of like primitive movement.

No matter. Communication has occurred, or you and I would never have heard of Dubuffet, rendering art brut valueless to anyone but the autistic artist who splashed it down. Dubuffet and others like Breton thought that they had discovered a movement that needed to be communicated to society, in order to validate it. Art Brut happening in the isolation of the autistic artist's mind had zero value to the art world at large. Dubuffet and his supporters recognized that, and set out to pump some air into the vacuum. The total validity of art brut is highly debated.

Anyway, at day's end, communication is not really at issue with Art Brut. Outside influence on the work is the main issue. And both logic psychology would strongly suggest that the artists are attempting some form of communication by creating the works. Why else?

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

If a tree falls in the woods.....etc....

I certainly think that anyone who takes the position that the talents possessed by some of the folks we have mentioned "isn't unique" is coming from ...well, a unique place indeed! TH

But it's not really that at all. The fact is you think he's a genius because you like the music he made. But he only made the music he made because of the time at which he was born. If he'd had been born in a period/place where the music being made wasn't to your taste, you'd almost certainly not be calling him a genius.

Ergo, genius is not a separate condition, but an opinion. And how many people are you not calling a genius, perhaps a greater one than Mozart, because that correct confluence of circumstances didn't occur?

[Dean Roddey]

I think that Yes made probably the greatest popular music ever made, in the form of "And You and I", "I've Seen All Good People", "Closer to the Edge", "Yours is No Disgrace", "Starship Trooper", "Long Distance Runaround", and "Heart of the Sunrise". To me, this is completely obvious for numerous reasons. And, though I don't use the word genius really, I think that my version of that is saying that they made the best in their particular category of music. If I were the genius assigning type of person, I'd call them geniuses of popular music. They are the Mozarts of popular music to me.

I'm sure that many folks here disagree with that, and therefore clearly genius is an opinion, not an attribute. I could argue till I'm blue in the face why I think they are 'geniuses', and it wouldn't be accepted by most people. And of course, as evidenced by what they did later (IMO), if they'd have been born into a different time/place, I'd quite possibley not remotely consider them to be geniuses at all. They made that music because of where and when they were born, and a huge number of chance accidents that brought them together.

[Jack Duelisis]

Originally Posted by kennybro

No matter. Communication has occurred, or you and I would never have heard of Dubuffet,

You partially have a point and partially not: you have to prove that the said artists expected feedback.

I took the example of "art brut" to prove that not every artist expects feedback.

It is my personal experience that not every artist expects feedback. And I'm not talking about autistic ones now.

[TGV]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

You guys are pretty much completely misreading what I'm saying, as usual.

If it's recurrent, perhaps you should learn to write more clearly.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by TGV

If it's recurrent, perhaps you should learn to write more clearly.

Or, it just could be that people only read enough to convince themselves that they don't agree and/or have a tendency to reinterpret an opinion counter to their own in the least best light. It's pretty common on these types of fora. I think I have at least average written communication skills.

[Murray]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Why doesn't Paul write the equivalent of "Yesterday" more often (or at all)? What happened to Jim Webb? To Paul Simon? etc...

I do think you have to take into account our (the audience's) perspective.

I do think there are plenty of recent songs by McCartney that are as good as songs he wrote when he was young, and had he written them then, as a Beatle especially, they would be considered great Beatle classics.

[Jack Duelisis]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Or, it just could be that people only read enough to convince themselves that they don't agree and/or have a tendency to reinterpret an opinion counter to their own in the least best light. It's pretty common on these types of fora. I think I have at least average written communication skills.

Illiterate ungrateful biased bastard that we are ...

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by Jack Duelisis

It is my personal experience that not every artist expects feedback. And I'm not talking about autistic ones now.

True. Not every artist expects feedback. And that's something that escapes me, like a person talking at people, yet expecting nobody to ever answer or respond. That's called one-way communication, and it at least touches on narcissism.

An artist who truly toils in obscurity creating expressions of emotion, iconography and formalism, and never expecting any other human to ever see the work, respond to it, or ever be exposed to it in any way is...
...I can't think of an appropriate word. That would be some kind of strange behavior, like a person yelling at demons in an empty room, but even that person at least has imaginary demons to receive the expression.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I do that sometimes.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Jack Duelisis

Illiterate ungrateful biased bastard that we are ...

You just, funnily, illustrated that the point I was making is true. You reinterpreted the post you responded to, rewriting my point in the worst possible light.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

If a tree falls in the woods.....etc....

I certainly think that anyone who takes the position that the talents possessed by some of the folks we have mentioned "isn't unique" is coming from ...well, a unique place indeed!

One thing you brought up though is a really fascinating subject to me, and that is, why this insane burst of "genius" seems to be short lived in many cases, or even most cases.

Why doesn't Paul write the equivalent of "Yesterday" more often (or at all)? What happened to Jim Webb? To Paul Simon? etc...

It is as if artists are given a small window to burst upon the scene with gifts that keep on giving forever, but those same people ebb back into the normal (or sub normal) level afterwards never to recover the brilliance of their earlier output. It's not like they are old and tired...many are all still at it with a vengeance.

So what happens? Does the ever changing environment as they grow change the input they receive to the point where it affects what comes out? Why isn't a new "Satisfaction" on the new Stones album? Is such creativity only a product of youth?

Thoughts?

TH

I agree. It's a unique genius artist who continues generating genius work into his/her old age. Every artist has a peak period, then the output diminishes in aesthetic, compositional, communicative, etc... strength. I get the learning curve toward the peak. But then what? A period where they all forget what they've learned? Doubtful.

This is not my opinion. It's a generally accepted concept throughout the art world, across all eras, genres and media. As with everything, there are exceptions, but not many. It's a mystery, and sometimes one just has to bow to mystery and not try to explain it.

It's very unlikely that it has anything to do with nurture, because it's very unlikely that all artists experience the same nurture (or denurture?) curve. Yet, there it is.

[Jack Duelisis]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

You just, funnily, illustrated that the point I was making is true. You reinterpreted the post you responded to, rewriting my point in the worst possible light.

You said it: "funnily". And you are right. That means with humour. Humour coming from exaggeration of the point you made along with a dose of self-derision.

Re-read the phrase I quoted and tell me if you could swear, in all consciousness, that you didn't write it with the least condescending spirit toward your contradictors.

regards

[Sqye]

.

The fact is - if works generally considered to be genius (or exceptional) were so easy to create (not to mention distribute), then they would be the norm, not the exception. It's really not rocket surgery.

Again, I submit to you Dean is living in an idealistic fantasy world, where anyone - given the proper ingredients - can be or do anything. This is simply NOT reality - and thus, not true. And even it it WERE true, it has NOT yet been properly tested!

(Guys like Salman Khan are making some progress in this direction, but their success is still very limited, given the scope of potential for the entire human race. I have my own issues with Khan's limitations - like, ok, so you can get education to the poor, to slow learners, etc. - but how will you EVER get the slow learners to seriously compete with the super quick learners!? Some people just naturally - or from a REALLY early age - have a much greater development capacity or talent, etc. Again, though, in order to prove this incorrect, you'd have to completely rebuild our entire planet's socio-economic foundation! )

But we've gone way OT here.

Back on topic - again, talent (and or genius) is no measure of success. And almost never has been.

And neither is hard work.

MOST OF SOCIETY is filled with people who are broke after a lifetime of hard work - talented, or not!

There are way too many components of the basic business success model missing in the OP's thesis.

Again, a successful career generally doesn't happen without some semblance of a professional team or network.

Success requires funding, business acumen, social skills, networking, luck, timing (including being in the right era of some lucrative trend), connections, staying power (which includes mental and logistical strength), and KILLER PR!!

.

[Joe Haze]

Again, a successful career generally doesn't happen without some semblance of a professional team or network.

Success requires funding, business acumen, social skills, networking, luck, timing (including being in the right era of some lucrative trend), connections, staying power (which includes mental and logistical strength), and KILLER PR!!

That explains it all... (Sad but very true).

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Sqye

.

The fact is - if works generally considered to be genius (or exceptional) were so easy to create (not to mention distribute), then they would be the norm, not the exception. It's really not rocket surgery. .

Again, you demonstrate my argument above. I've responded multiple times that I don't think it's easy to be exceptional. By definition it wouldn't be exceptional if it was easy. That's got absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said here, and I can't understand how anyone could boil it down to the above.

The difference is that lots of people have done the hard work, but don't get there. It's not the being really hard part that's the only thing involved. As I've said now many times:

1. You need the talent (I just don't think it's genetically abnormal talent)
2. You need to work very hard to develop the talent
3. You need various types of luck for that talent to reach full potential and become manifest to the world (and for the world to care, which is a whole other thing.)

An awful lot of people have the first 2, but don't get #3. A lot more people never even get to figure out that they could have done great things and started down the road on 1&2 in order to be ready if #3 should work out. And of course to understand what your actual talent is. Lots of people may have a talent in one area but never really discover it because they've always wanted to be something else, or even know they have it but they still want to be something else.

The vast majority of the talent of the human species, particularly before the last couple centuries but still even today it's the vast majority, is never realized because #3 just is working against it. Poverty, war, disease, bad government, accident, parents, etc... have meant that many Mozarts and Einsteins could be (and I would arge are) in the ground right now and we never even heard of them. The numbers would argue for it, because many orders of magnitude fewer people were in the position to develop such a talent than were not thoughout history. You'd have to hold some sort of eugenic views to argue that the Mozarts and Einsteins could have only been born into those families, times, countries, etc... that could have allowed for their development.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Jack Duelisis

Re-read the phrase I quoted and tell me if you could swear, in all consciousness, that you didn't write it with the least condescending spirit toward your contradictors.

regards

I wrote it because I saw it happening. I mean, somehow all I wrote turns into 'monkeys in a room' or some of the above, as though I was saying that there's no such thing as exceptional achievement or that being a Mozart is easy and so forth.

It's utterly common in these types of threads for people to do both the things I said, I see it all the time, sometimes I do it as well of course. It's clearly happening in this thread. People cherry pick statements out of context, they scan a post and respond without considering the finer points, and they minimize the legitimacy of their opponent's position by reforming it in an ad absurdium way. It's utterly common, and pointing it out is hardly an attack.

[Jack Duelisis]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

It's utterly common in these types of threads for people to do both the things I said, I see it all the time, sometimes I do it as well of course. It's clearly happening in this thread. People cherry pick statements out of context, they scan a post and respond without considering the finer points, and they minimize the legitimacy of their opponent's position by reforming it in an ad absurdium way. It's utterly common, and pointing it out is hardly an attack.

It's utterly common in these type of discussion to find participants trying to make a point with more or less "good faith". It is not directed at you only, rest assured.

I do believe I stated clearly why I disagreed with you by contradicting the very first statement you made that seemed based on your personal belief more than objective facts: You believe than nobody comes with "vastly superior capabilities"

You base your quite eloquent analysis on something I do not agree with.

I do believe I managed to express my point clearly in a language that is not my first language (sorry for that).

I do understand, and I agree that many potential geniuses do not become what they should become because of social factors and acces to proper education.

That doesn't mean that there are so many potential Einstein, Mozart and Bach undetected.

[Murray]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

1. You need the talent (I just don't think it's genetically abnormal talent)

Lots of people may have a talent in one area but never really discover it

What is it that gives a person a talent in an area?

[Dz7]

The more this belief that ability is somehow innate is preached, the more reason there is for books like this to be published:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Abili...yth+of+ability


Also, let me quote:

Cultural interpretations of giftedness: The case of East Asia.
Stevenson, Harold W.
Friedman, Reva C. (Ed); Rogers, Karen B. (Ed), (1998). Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness., (pp. 61-77). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xxiv, 218 pp. doi: 10.1037/10297-004

Abstract

The author analyzes two key Pacific Rim cultures (China and Japan) relative to how they view and develop giftedness and talent. Stevenson suggests that the US may be on the wrong track as a society in its approaches to defining and nurturing giftedness and talent. Through these case presentations, Stevenson investigates the impact of society and culture on the emergence and shaping of talent. He raises questions about defining giftedness and educating gifted children, and relates the answers to the setting of societal goals.
In trying to ensure that their most able students will further the culture's progress, each of the 3 cultures has taken a very different path, from ignoring the term giftedness altogether but educating all students with the hope that some will emerge (Japan); to heeding the term and educating this group differentially but enforcing their common socialization (China); to halfway acknowledging the term, halfway attempting differentiated education, and halfway encouraging common socialization in the US. An interesting area for future research is which approach best matches the values of a particular society and culture. Has each country selected its "best" or its "only" method because of the maximum benefits of interaction for able learners with that culture's parameters? As Stevenson points out, we have much to learn from what we can see occurring in other cultures, about best practices as well as unproductive strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

***

A conception of talent and talent development.
Feldhusen, John F.
Friedman, Reva C. (Ed); Rogers, Karen B. (Ed), (1998). Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness., (pp. 193-209). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xxiv, 218 pp. doi: 10.1037/10297-010

Giftedness is a concept ingrained in our educational vocabulary. We often think of a small, elite group of academically and intellectually bright children, sitting in classrooms, hungry for bookish knowledge. In fact, "giftedness" is a narrow conception of a multifactor phenomenon better described as "talent." This chapter promotes the concept of talent and talent development, first providing some historical background information about the concept of giftedness in American education, including the nature–nurture debate. Next, some of the myths surrounding gifted education are debunked by identifying the failures of the system to recognize and foster talents. Finally, models are presented that explore the development of academic, artistic, vocational, and personal—social talents in schools and that delineate a developmental sequence of talent development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

***

And lastly, because you all love Mozart so much:

Was Mozart at risk? A developmentalist looks at extreme talent.
Feldman, David Henry
Friedman, Reva C. (Ed); Shore, Bruce M. (Ed), (2000). Talents unfolding: Cognition and development., (pp. 251-263). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xix, 279 pp. doi:

The author pursues the goal of gauging the likelihood that the wonders that Mozart produced might have been lost to us. At risk then means the likelihood that Mozart's compositional life may have been curtailed or even prevented from occurring. The author asks what are the critical issues in bringing out extremely high potential.
Based on research with several prodigies (Feldman, 1986/1991), there seem to be several prerequisites that are central to the process of the development of full potential. These include intellectual and personal qualities of the child; qualities of the parents; the availability of resources specific to the target field; and the state of the target domain itself. The author proposes that when the case is examined in detail, it is perhaps a fluke that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart succeeded. Few of the usually expected favorable circumstances were present, with the exception of Mozart's father's devotion to the realization of his son's potential. The author concludes that early exposure to the domain is critical, as well as timing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

[Murray]

Originally Posted by Dz7

The more this belief that ability is somehow innate is preached, the more reason there is for books like this to be published

Seems overall there is no definitive proof of anything, and people have all sorts of opinions, and at this point my feeling is still wondering what difference it really makes (unless you are a scientist studying this crap).

And lastly, because you all love Mozart so much:

Who is "you all"?

To me, that sort of thing is more annoying than someone casually throwing out the term "genius".

[kennybro]

It's highly possible that the emergence and recognition of any genius is a highly unlikely fluke of coincidental events, requiring many elements to line up simultaneously. Knock any one element out of line, and the genius goes unrecognized by the world.

It's also highly possible that one of those elements is an almost freakish ability to excel (i.e. innate genius potential?) in the given discipline that will come to be recognized.

[Dz7]

Originally Posted by Murray

Seems overall there is no definitive proof of anything, and people have all sorts of opinions, and at this point my feeling is still wondering what difference it really makes (unless you are a scientist studying this crap).



Who is "you all"?

To me, that sort of thing is more annoying than someone casually throwing out the term "genius".

I'm not, personally, but it's a large interest of mine growing up in a household of educators. A few of my colleagues are studying it though, most with a more particular focus (business, economics, psychology of children, etc)

The overarching theme in the academic community is that economics/demographics are the largest indicator of someone's success. Whether it is direct financial support from parents, relatives, or access to important and powerful individuals, there are always some kind of gatekeeping that decides who and what comes into the public eye. I was going to define that as success for all intensive purposes, but I think it's important to iterate that success isn't just cultural.

success |s?k?ses|
noun
the accomplishment of an aim or purpose

With that being said, the ability to complete a task whether it is writing a song or a triple bypass surgery is a learned trait and not innate. If it were otherwise, you would have a child coming out of the womb who is multilingual and solving complex mathematical equations. Obviously, that isn't realistic. So a lot of the academic focus is on why some people seem to excel over others given the same demographic setting, which is the most important part since it creates a sanitary setting for any scientific trial. I recommended the book "Talent is Overrated" as it quotes a British study (which I can't remember off the top of my head): the gist is that a bunch of children from a music conservatory were tracked over time (instrumentalists), and the only difference between those who entered professional, international level orchestras and those who didn't was the time they devoted to practice. It's important to define practice though as time that is dedicated towards strengthening their playing, not just "going through the motions" (in other words, they're not great at runs so they practice that rather than just playing the same song over and over again). The access to information/experience to be able to FIND the weak links is also very important. How do you know you don't know something, if you don't know it? This is where teachers/mentors come in, or simply indulging in the study for long enough that you start to recognize areas / concepts that you are not familiar with (And the cycle subsequently repeats.)

To summarize, the ability to complete a task is not synonymous with public recognition of that ability due to the economics of gatekeeping, but it is obviously necessary. Thus, we don't know how many Mozarts or Bachs are out there right now until everyone is on an equal playing field.

[Tinderwet]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Why doesn't Paul write the equivalent of "Yesterday" more often (or at all)?

Oh he does. Only the new "Yesterdays" weren't born under the lucky circumstances the first one was. So they just don't get as much love. I think that's what Dean Roddey is saying so articulately, but some of you guys are just not getting him for some reason.

[Ambience]

Originally Posted by ROBOCOPROBOT

Sir Happy Trees has the best answer.

+1

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Murray

What is it that gives a person a talent in an area?

I'm using talent in the dictionary sense which is that of having a capacity for achievement, not the one that is more eugenic in nature of it being some innate thing. Clearly, as we've discussed before, there are some genetic components to some types of endeavors. If you want to be a marathon runner, but your genetic makeup means you don't process oxygen well, you might never really reach the top of the game. But we are talking music here, which doesn't require such genetic advantage. Some particular physical attribute might mean you can do some particular things that someone else can't do, like really large hands or something. But having smaller hands clearly isn't a limitation, as there are plenty of great musicians who don't have large hands.

I think it's primarily a self-image thing. They see themselves as being that person, and for some reason many of us see that image very powerfully and will sacrifice lots of other things to try to make it a reality. I don't think that self-image comes from the self, but from the outside world. But, once lodged in the brain, can change that person's life completely. I guess I'm now quoting from the movie Inception, but it's true.

Why does a kid like EVH work his butt off, at the cost of a lot of party times and become a guitar wiz? Somehow, he got bitten by the image of himself as that guitar wiz, probably from having seen another one who came before him, like Jimi Hendrix. For EVH, that self-image came to dominate his life, and he therefore gave up everything to make it so.

He didn't have any genetic disabilities that prevented him from doing it, and he had developed that drive to do it, so he did it. I can't think anything about EVH genetically that would have given him an advantage as a guitarist. But it's well known that he just did it obsessively.

And of course there's a Darwinian component to it. LOT's of people see themselves as the next Jimi Hendrix, and they try it as well, but they just don't have the same capacity to sacrifice for it, or luck is just against them and they get side tracked. They fall by the wayside, and you only hear of the ones who were able to hold one. But I don't think that there's anything common to them, other than that willingness to sacrifice for it, and the good luck not to have too much bad luck to succeed. And that the luckiest ones were able to both discover that interest early and have the sort of environment that let it develop, or even better actively developed it. But nothing genetic linking them, IMO.

[TGV]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

But we are talking music here, which doesn't require such genetic advantage.

There *is* a genetic influence on cognitive performance. The most obvious case is Down's syndrome, but there are other examples too. There are also examples that manifest themselves later in life. There are also known genetic influences on the visual cortex. So there is no reason at all to assume that there can be a genetic advantage or impairment of any other cognitive skill.

I grant you that these influences are mild in most cases, but since we're talking talent and genius here, it cannot be ruled out that an exceptional genetic make-up is required for greatness in music. Perhaps it's a small thing in the auditory cortex, combined with a little change in a certain part of the frontal inferior lobes, and a certain connectivity in the basal ganglia, which would explain why it is rare, but nobody knows.

However, just ruling it out is plain false.

And of course there's a Darwinian component to it.

And you shouldn't mix metaphors. Darwinian "components" are cumulative over a long term, and are usually associated with genetic effects, not with training.

[Dean Roddey]

There are obviously genetic defects that can prevent someone from doing anything. But we are talking about the other extreme here. It's of course potentially possible that there's a 'gene for anything', but I just don't think it's very likely. The folks out there who have made major contributions in pretty much every field of creativity and intellect are so widely varied. It seems really unlikely to me that they all happen to share some undiscovered genetic attribute.

On the Darwinian thing, I wasn't talking about training, and I was being a little facetious. I was talking about the similar sort of luck of the draw aspects of natural selection. Work as hard as you like and have all the potential in the world (aka, have a really useful mutation) but if the tiger (cancer, drunk driver, jealous husband, civil war, world war, etc... etc...) happens to catch you, you don't get a chance to join the genius gene pool (so to speak), and that line dies out.

And, while we are rambling randomly, it's interesting to consider the issue of how many great whatevers are children of great whatevers. When any one potential great gets whacked by circumstance, you are also potentially whacking a line of them.

And, before someone brings up the fact that this proves it's genetic, I don't think so. There aren't THAT many children of great whatevers that become great whatevers. But I think that you have a much more likely chance of A) that child is presented with that hero image early in life and decides that he wants to be B) he/she potentially has a master of it to guide him and C) he/she has a much greater chance of being recognized for work done and for getting work that provides experience and self-confidence. So it just increases the odds that any potential is realized.