Is talent/genius derived from nature or nurture?
Einstein was a genius. He had three children who shared 50% of the same DNA as Einstein himself. Two lived fairly mediocre lives. One became a successful professor. One became mentally ill. His parents were also nothing spectacular. So much for the "nature" theory then...
But as a social experiment, the Polgar sisters were trained from birth to be excellent chess players precisely in order to test the nature vs. nurture theory. It worked, and one of them became the 1st ranked female chess player in the world and 8th overall. Surely that means that the "nurture" theory is correct? But their father was also a highly talented chess player who wrote numerous books on the subject...
Von Neumann was an excellent physicist, mathematician, economist, and computer scientist. At the age of 5, he could divide two 8-digit numbers in his head. At the age of 8, he taught himself differential and integral calculus. If such talents could be simply taught to toddlers using the correct "nurture method" then why isn't this happening today?
What about people like William James Sidis? Tiger Woods? Ramanujan? Usain Bolt? Mozart? (who was recognized as a prodigy at 2 years old and composed his first symphony at 8 years) Where do these people fit in?
Malcolm Gladwell talks about this in his book "Outliers" where he claims that 10,000 hours of practice is enough to make anyone an expert in any field. Presumably this means that I could become the next Einstein by dedicating 8 hours of each day towards learning physics for the next 3.6 years. Or the next Usain Bolt by practicing running for 8 hours per day for the next 3.6 years.
What are your thoughts on this?
Having good genes in terms of intelligence is certainly a good head start. You can't expect someone with below average intelligence to excel in and massively contribute to any scientific field. So being born with good genes is certainly a precursor for success. It is however not a guarantee for success. If you don't work hard or live in poor conditions you will still just be a burger flipper with good genes. So both nature and nurture play a role in this, not the one or the other, but both.
> why this isn't happening today?
This IS happening today, just look at all these people on 4chan, we now have so many gifted senpai s that with some time we may get close to solve the hardest questions
> You can't expect someone with below average intelligence to excel in and massively contribute to any scientific field.
This I agree with. As someone who has met people with moderate special needs before, I can safely say that someone with an IQ of 60 and has Downs syndrome isn't going to win a Nobel prize in the sciences, discover the cure for cancer, or solve a Millennium prize problem no matter how motivated they are.
>If you don't work hard or live in poor conditions you will still just be a burger flipper with good genes.
But what about Ramanujan?
"Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar FRS (22 December 1887 – 26 April 1920) was an Indian mathematician and autodidact who, with almost no formal training in pure mathematics, made extraordinary contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. Ramanujan initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation; it was quickly recognized by Indian mathematicians. When his skills became apparent to the wider mathematical community, centred in Europe at the time, he began a famous partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy. He rediscovered previously known theorems in addition to producing new theorems.
During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3900 results (mostly identities and equations). Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct, although some were already known. He stated results that were both original and highly unconventional, such as the Ramanujan prime and the Ramanujan theta function, and these have inspired a vast amount of further research. The Ramanujan Journal, an international publication, was launched to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by his work."
By definition talent and genius is innate so that would be considered nature. Yes I see your point but with your Einstein example you arent considering the amount of potential variation of offspring (Just because two midgets make a child doesnt mean it wont be normal size}. Von Neumann just simply has a ability of grasping new information. Most sports people are as good as they are because of hours of training and becomes muscle memory at some point. Nurture just increases the odds of success for the offspring.
Let's not forget that Ramanujan lacked formal education, so his giftedness was wasted partly on proving things that were already known in what was then modern mathematics. And of course, geniuses who are born extremely gifted do exist, I won't deny that. But in more general terms, you still need both nature and nurture to be successful. Let's not forget that if he would be born into such poverty that he would not even have been able to read and write, his entire giftedness would have been wasted as he wouldn't have been able to teach himself. Nature supported by nurture right there.
You are incorrectly attributing "nurture" to external forces alone, acting as the "nurturer". An intelligent person can teach themselves through observation, experimentation, and practice. This is the real difference between nature and nurture--some people need more help to learn the same thing, while some people can learn it on their own. Within the population that can self-nurture, some are better at it than others through a combination of, again, both nature and nurture.
that image is quite a load of bullshit
>everyone has a special talent
this one I agree, hard work is more important than any talent.
>height correlates with I.Q.
Being tall doesn't mean being attractive, but better yet, since when does correlation mean causation? (also, nice source)
>95% of people want someone hot
100% of people will disagree in what's the perfect person, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, you are talking as if people ugly as sin never get married
>100% want anyone with higher social status
people of lowest social status would never get married
The artwork is familiar, is it the same guy who made the series of comics demonizing the whole collective of women based on the few stupid/evil ones?
>But what about Ramanujan?
it seems more like an extraordinary case that, in my humble opinion, shouldn't be extrapolated to consider that talent/genius is uniquely genetic/natural.
Actually, even if that was the case he still worked really hard on his own, so hard work being a necessity still stands
He is one example who was lucky that India was in the British Empire at the time. If there is some maths genius in Cambodia right now There is no structure whatsoever to get him into Cambridge because the respective countries have nothing to do with each other
>you are talking as if people ugly as sin never get married
Women do because men are thirsty. Men do because they get rich/powerful
>people of lowest social status would never get married
It's called settling.
I know the red pill is hard to swallow.
You seem quite uncomfortable about that image. Gee, I wonder why its called the uncomfortable truthosaurus.
>If such talents could be simply taught to toddlers using the correct "nurture method" then why isn't this happening today?
Because most people are average, most average people have children, and average people are shit at parenting and aren't educated enough about parenting their child to be highly intelligent.
Obviously its all true, why else would it be called truthosaurus.
Mathematics is a bit of a special case where a sufficiently brilliant person holds the capability of plumbing its depths without special tools or education. The fact still remains, though that Ramanujan studied math from textbooks and that his family was wealthy enough to give him some schooling and books. Furthermore, he was extremely fortunate to college students staying at his home who he could mine for information. Forced to work in fields in a more rural and remote area, Ramanujan may have never been able to make the contributions he made.
your potential is nature
how much of your potential you use is nurture
for example intelligence has been empirically shown to be slightly more than 50% genetics but adopted twin studies have shown no statistically significant difference in intelligence in spite of different households, neighborhoods and parenting
those missing % are currently not known by what they are determined but just because they haven't been proven to be genetic does not mean they are nurture
sports is an other great example. by far the most important factor is genes. everyone can train but when it comes to being among the best of the world you need to win the genetic lottery
your chess example in particular annoys me. the most important factor in chess is memory / experience. thus, the more you practice it, the better you will be at it. so of course if you already start at a very young age, you will do better at it. but that does not mean chess is entirely nurture. women's chess has almost no competition. someone with better genetic potential will do better at chess when that person practices the same amount.
try to repeat this experiment with 10 randomly picked individuals and train them in something with sufficient competition, such as football, weightlifting, sprinting or swimming. I assure you that while they of course will be better at it than someone who does not practice at all, the odds of any of them winning a gold medal is extremely low.
this 10000 hour rule is nonsense as well and indicates that you have no interest in a logical and empirical approach on the matter.