Work memory and innate or acquired talent? Psychology

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Work memory and innate or acquired talent? Psychology




by Christophe » 23/11/11, 20:19

The subject (thorny?) "Acquired or innate" has already evoked several times on this forum (Here https://www.econologie.com/forums/phenomenes ... 3-210.html or there https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-dogme-d ... 93-10.html for example), I take the following article to launch a real debate on the question:

Is talent more determinant than work?

How do people become good at science, music or sports? Is it innate or acquired?


These questions have long been the subject of intense debate in psychology. And unlike some scholars who insist on the pivotal role of practice and work, David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz, two psychology professors, argue in a New York Times article that talent and intelligence have a much more impact on our actions.

The two researchers point out that less than 20 years ago, a pioneering study led by psychologist K. Anders Ericsson of the University of Florida showed that playing music was mostly about hours of practice. So he noticed with his colleagues that at the age of 20 years, the best students of the music department of the University of Florida had accumulated not less than 10.000 hours of rehearsal, against 8.000 for students deemed good but not excellent and 5.000 hours for the underperforming.

As David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz point out, these founding results have been followed by many "enthusiastic" studies in the same direction: what separates the best from the good is hard work and determination. . Malcolm Gladwell draws the same conclusion when he summarizes the importance of Ericsson's research in his book Outliers:

"Practice is not what you do once you are good, but what you do to become good."

In the same way, Geoff Colvin in his book The talent is overvalued, distinguishes precisely to measure the relevance of the IQ, the performance in a repeated and habitual frame and the realized performance only once:

"IQ is a good indicator of performance for an unfamiliar task, but once a person has been doing the same job for a few years, IQ does not predict much or nothing about performance. "

But according to the two authors of the New York Times article, these claims do not exactly correspond to "what science says." More recent research shows that intellectual abilities have a decisive role to succeed in many areas.

David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow of Vanderbilt University in Tennessee have followed the academic paths of more than 2.000 people who have achieved the best scores at SAT at 13 years (the 1% the best). And they note that in comparison to the best 9%, the first 1% are three to five times more likely to have a doctorate, to write a book or to publish an article in a scientific journal.

The two authors also discuss their own findings, which are based on the analysis of what they call the "working memory" capability. According to them, this intellectual quality is innate. But it is she who makes the difference between, for example, two pianists with the same experience but not the same intelligence.

This article in the New York Times has been sharply criticized by Gizmodo, a site specializing in the news of technological innovations. The site deplores the fact that the two psychologists seek to discourage all those who try to undertake "working really hard", and stresses that the notion of "talent" is not limited to genetics, and therefore to the innate.


Source: http://www.slate.fr/lien/46641/talent-d ... e-reussite
0 x
Fakir
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 192
Registration: 07/05/07, 12:34
x 5




by Fakir » 23/11/11, 22:03

Mozart's case illustrates this very well.

From Wikipedia
Wikipedia wrote:Born in Salzburg, then the capital of an ecclesiastical principality of the Holy Roman Empire (Bavarian Cercle), Mozart is the son of the composer and great pedagogue, Leopold Mozart who then held the position of Vice-Master of Chapel in the court of the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, and Anna Maria Pertl, his wife.


Leopold, Wolfgang on the harpsichord and Marianne Mozart on 1764
Wolfgang is the seventh child of the couple. Three children died in infancy before the birth of her sister Maria Anna (nicknamed "Nannerl", born in 1751), and two more died between the birth of this older sister and hers.
He is christened Joannes Chrysost [omus] Wolfgangus Theophilus. Theophilus, meaning "loved by God", has German (Gottlieb), Italian (Amedeo) and Latin (Amadeus) equivalents.
From the age of three, Mozart reveals prodigious gifts for music: he has the absolute ear and certainly an eidetic memory. His faculties disconcert his entourage, and encourage his father to teach him the harpsichord in his fifth year. The young Mozart learns violin, organ and composition. He knows how to decipher a score and play before knowing how to read, write or count. At the age of six (1762), he is already composing his first works (KV.2, 4 and 5, allegro KV.3 minuets). At fourteen, he would have perfectly transcribed Gregorio Allegri's Miserere, a complex work that lasts about fifteen minutes, having listened only once.


Intelligence and innate are not genetic origins. We must look elsewhere.
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 23/11/11, 22:12

the result is the gift multiplied by the work

it is not surprising that one who is good at something works more, encouraged by results

who will work hard for something or he is not good at

of course being forced to work a lot we ended up being normal profesionel average but not great

it is more damage in the other direction ... the one who has certain gift in certain millieux or first of the class is an insult to interest to hide and becomes lazy
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 23/11/11, 22:38

Fakir wrote:Intelligence and innate are not genetic origins. We must look elsewhere.


??? This is irony compared to the example of Mozart ???

And to say that the innate is not of genetic origin is a counter sense ...

Having the absolute ear is genetic so it's innate ...
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 24/11/11, 01:52

It is even more remarkable, the gift, genetically innate, that we all had, little baby, instinctively, to learn to speak and understand between 6 months and less than 3 years !!
Adults we are infinitely less talented for a new language !!!
We are genetically programmed to learn to communicate, understand and speak easily.
From the first few months, babies show an instinct of communication and emotional and verbal relations with their entourage, who can learn phenomenally well before walking and that is why we have to talk to them a lot, even if we do not is not sure that they understand everything, so that they learn, sounds, etc .. !!

Even monkeys have real gifts for sign language !!

In our past evolution, this instinct of the language of speaking, communicating, genetically instinctive, with our vocal cords genetically adapted to speak (not the case of monkeys) is certainly very old with an evolution over well over a million years, as our use of stone tools, 2 millions of years old.
There must have been a huge natural selection favoring the most talented to communicate, to survive !!

We do not have this genetic instinct to read and write, too recent (thousands of years and much less selection)!

The donations of some genetically spontaneous autistics seem as surprising as those of geniuses, who sometimes were more or less autistic !!

Our brain is oversized, and therefore underutilized !!
On the last 50000 years, it has decreased in size a bit by becoming more efficient !! It is smaller than Neanderthal !!

Some corvid birds and parrots have surprising abilities (spatial flying and manipulating tool objects) with small brains, proof that our big brain is oversized inefficient and underutilized !!
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 24/11/11, 21:49

dedeleco wrote:Some corvid birds and parrots have surprising abilities (spatial flying and manipulating tool objects) with small brains, proof that our big brain is oversized inefficient and underutilized !!


To say that our brain is underused is a gratuitous and recurring expression used in many documents. We know far too little about the functioning of the brain, the role of this mountain of neurons, their interconnection, their architecture or how the "programs" that "use" them work, the size / "efficiency" relationship in doing things. different (if it can make sense), etc ... it's a huge black box, but we say it's "underused". : Mrgreen:

It's like we said a little while ago, the non-coding parts of our DNA "which are useless" instead of saying "whose main functions are unknown.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 24/11/11, 22:23

I can not help it, we can replace under used with inefficient for its size, but it's a fact, like surprising scanners of near-normal people with a big hole in the brain and also the plasticity of the brain that allows it to work not bad in offsetting with big gaps sometimes!
Just compare with other small brain animals with nice abilities, too.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Work memory and innate or acquired talent? Psychology




by Christophe » 13/05/18, 23:31

https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/notre-e ... bliee.html

Separate twins at birth: here is the story of the never-published study

Children separated at birth: this is the story of the never-published study David Kellman, Eddy Galland and Bobby Shafran in "Three Identical Unknowns" by Tim Wardle, selected at the Sundance Festival (Courtesy of Sundance Institute)

Five twins and triplets, separated at birth, unknowingly participated in a scientific study of the innate and the acquired. It has still not been made public.


By Emilie Brouze

Posted on 02 March 2018 at 16h09




When in 1980 "Bobby" Shafran, 19, looking like a Greek god, entered Sullivan County University in New York State, everyone seemed to know him already. Imagine the scene: we pat him on the back in a friendly way, we give him high fives, and we start calling him Eddy, after a student who left college the year before. It's confusing.

"I think you have a twin," a stunned student finally whispered to him, detecting two more coincidences - they were born on the same day and were adopted. The second Bobby Shafran and Edward Galland meet, there's no doubt they are twin brothers. Same build, same curly hair, same smile, same thick hands. Same birthmark.

The "New York Post" publishes an article illustrated with a photo to relate the improbable reunion. They then receive the call from David Kellman, a freshman at Queens College, who can be recognized in the picture. “You won't believe it…” David is their carbon copy: the missing brother. They are tripled.

The three men were born 27 minutes apart, on July 12, 1961. Separated at birth, each was adopted by a family in the New York suburbs, ignoring the existence of the other two for nineteen years. "Our first meeting was completely surreal," Bobby Shafran, 56, told AFP.

"Everything that was happening was so unreal it almost seemed like we were dreaming."
Their incredible story, worthy of a fictional script, is the subject of a documentary, "Three Identical Strangers" (by Tim Wardle), which recently presented at the Sundance Film Festival.

And a secret

After their first meeting, the triplets know their quarter of an hour of glory in the 1980s: their life is printed in the newspapers, the TV invites them to talk about it, they even make an appearance alongside Madonna in the film "Research Susan Desperately "(1985).

(...)


0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 148 guests