Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What is talent? Ultimate Philosophy thread?

In a thread about what is talent, I find it interesting how easily it turns into a discussion of what are the talents leading to personal success.

What about the talents which lead to success of a society. If the talents driving people to focus their attention on parenting did not exist in the population, would any of us even be here to develop talents for our own personal success.

How about what is talent from a more objective point of view, without even considering aspects related to success. I think it is important to look at it from this point of view as we then can see the entire gray scale of talent and better understand what the underlying mechanisms driving all levels of talent.

Once we have this better understanding of what is talent, we are then better equiped to understand all those various questions related to talent in relation to success.

I assumed if you were talking about Einstein you were trying to define the specific talent that lands you in a history book even a few hundred years later.

Haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so my wording sounds a little like sarcasm. Was suppose to be more like even if you are only interested in the tip of the iceberg, you still have to consider what lies beneath the surface.

Referring to the Jewish comment. I think adversity had a lot to do with it. Though the children of war-time or immigrant Jews really pushed their kids, this generation -- not so much. In the 60s and 70s, Styvescant was considered the "Jewish high school" now it is mostly Asian. You have Asian parents dealing with adversity, being immigrant, struggling with nothing. And they push their kids to succeed.

Or someone can just do the "research" and say they have a higher average IQ than those Jews....

Dealing with adversity usually means striving for a goal beyond adversity. Without any adversity, you just go chugging along, no matter how smart your brain started out to be.


Ren

I am probably not intellectual enough to contribute too meaningfully to this thread, but I have really enjoyed reading it.

I do have a simple thought on the topic though:

I always wondered how much easier it must have been back in the day, to seem really smart because there was so much left to "discover". Now it seems in almost any discipline, it's all been done or thoroughly thought through by "more qualified people", so you are expected to read/review everything others have said before you can add/build meaningfully on the existing knowledge base. What a tedious drag/beat-down. What a deterrent to the generation of independent out of the box ideas.

I think to some extent, those people who have the natural IQ/talent/curiosity to make great discoveries/advances to begin with, may be beat down by all of the "already been done" thinking that's out there. They do not get to experience and build off of that thrill of discovering things for them-self because they are spoon-fed the "facts" from an early age. At school, or by well-meaning parents, either way the thrill of discovery/working things out for oneself, is taken away and I suspect this squashes the drive and/or self confidence that one might have otherwise developed had they been allowed to try and fail until they successfully "discover" things for themselves.

By the time they are through with college, most individuals have been spoon-fed "knowledge" for so long, the ability/confidence necessary to think great new thoughts is thoroughly beat down.

Just a thought.

I made a similar point earlier in this thread
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....at_is_talent_Ultimate_Phi.html#Post99088 , but I do think people should study what others have discovered, so that they may "stand on the shoulders of giants".

sorry Boston, somehow I missed that. I think what I am trying to say though is that in addition to the lack of "virgin territory", or maybe because of it, fewer people have opportunities to discover anything exciting for themselves since everything is all explained to them from an early age.

I believe this is the critical point, I suspect this early spoon-feeding kills the momentum, self confidence, drive, and lust for for exploring that would otherwise develop through the thrill of "discovering" things for oneself as a child.

I also believe there may be a lot of presumed "settled territory" today that may be settled somewhat erroneously but tends not to be looked at through fresh eyes because it is somehow perceived to be settled and taught as if it were so.

I agree on the "shoulders of giants" statement, however, I think there is plenty of time for studying what others have discovered after one has had the chance to make a few successful "discoveries" for themselves as a child. And even then, I believe it should be emphasized that what we think we know is always open for review/question.

Great comment. I was once on the side of teach as much as possible in the early years people. However, I have converted to believing a child will benefit from self learning and discovery as you mentioned.

Then again, I guess it depends on what you want for your child. Money and career success is not something I value. I think the early education may provide a competitive advantage at possibly an ideal time to provide a good head start for these types of goals. But I think if anything, it will either have no effect or even possibly a negative effect if the goal was to have the next Einstein.

Einstein was barely able to walk and talk before he was 3 years of age from what I understand.

I absolutely agree with this - and I wonder if the emphasis on money/status = success is another reason why we don't see an Einstein. If a desire for money or status is your motivator, then the quiet hardwork Nik describes isn't going to be terribly appealing. And, as I have only really recently accepted, being smart is meaningless without some input to connect your smarts too. For my entire life I figured smart meant being able to come up with a completely original idea off your own bat, with no input (not so smart huh!) I've only recently come to see just how important knowledge is to actually give it a form and to give you a base for ideas to spring from. This is probably self evident to anyone who received any encouragement to learn - but it took me a while to start to get my education

But I also wonder if we put too much emphasis on an Einstein type discovery (and I mean in general, not just in this thread). I don't feel certain that people aren't making these kinds of discoveries and that maybe we're just a bit desensitised because discoveries are constant. And possibly because, as others have said, there is seemingly less to discover, I wonder if because there is so much information to draw from that we down play a new discovery as 'just fitting the pieces of the puzzle together'. Maybe this means we're genuinely unlikely to have another Einstein in the scientific world because there is so much more information to draw from so any discovery is less unique? I don't know - I'm just thowing some random thoughts out there

So if not science, what about technology? What about Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or even someone like Julian Assange? They haven't just created products, they have been world changers. Or because so much technology is obsolete so quickly (genius in itself perhaps!) are we not able to (or do not) attribute Einstein qualities to such things because it doesn't last and we'd have to be anointing a new Einstein each week (and don't seem so exceptional in that context).More random thoughts...

I guess I'm wondering if we're (as in the world, not just this thread) overlooking extraordinary thinking in other areas. I've only added technology to the debate, but I'm sure there are equivalents in economics, politics etc. They might just be less tangible. Are these less valid or just lesser known or have less impact? (I am genuinely asking)

Hope I haven't strayed too far off topic...

Revisit the topic "the world's changing, 'our' needs are changing". Thanks to Mr. Vice President Al Gore inventing the Internet, and Amelia Earnheart perfecting Da Vinci's airplane we probably won't see an Einstein as much as we'll see a Einstein Company, perfecting the development of an intellectual property** a manager overheard at a party in his college days.
Over-teaching the young'uns, theory by "Me.". I'm pushing the basics- reading, writing, 'rithamTic, it ain't so they can get rich. *. It is so they won't be hindered in their quest for their thing. May as well get it while the gettin's good. I see value in studying the "giants" because then you are able to discuss with other kids the awesome stuff of life, even if it just makes for social conversation and does not lead directly to your patented idea.

* I like the comment I read elsewhere the other day that helicopter parenting related to academic career (ie college and choice of profession) is bound to go the way of arranged marriages eventually. Not the deepest truth I've ever read, but on it's own level it's quite true.

**metaphorically, an idea. Not related to the child development market.