Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001207
Putting practice into perspective: Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent
by Joanne Ruthsatz, Kyle Ruthsatz, and Kimberly Ruthsatz Stephens
Intelligence
Available online 17 September 2013
Highlights
•A nurture-driven account of talent fail to rule out the importance of innate characteristics.
•Child prodigies provide a fascinating view on the nature versus nurture debate.
•Research on exceptionally young performers supports nature as the driver of extreme talent.
Abstract
The debate over whether exceptional abilities are primarily the product of nature or nurture began centuries ago — and continues to this day. Recently, much of this debate took place within the context of considering the abilities of exceptional musicians. Several of such studies suggested that general intelligence and domain specific skills, both of which fall on the nature side of the spectrum, play a significant role in the development of musical abilities. In this paper, the author demonstrates that those studies which attempted to argue for a purely nurture-driven account of such musical talent, moreover, merely showed that practice has some role to play in the development of talent; they failed to rule out the possibility that factors such as general intelligence and domain specific skills also contribute to the development of exceptional performance abilities. If the evidence generated by studies of exceptional musicians provides a strong basis for believing that nature is the primary driver of exceptional talent, that evidence receives a powerful boost from recent studies of child prodigies. Child prodigies provide a particularly fascinating view on the nature versus nurture debate because of the extremely young age at which the prodigies demonstrate their remarkable abilities, thus, limiting the extent to which their abilities can be solely the result of extreme dedication to practice. Despite this fact, some have still argued that child prodigies' abilities are nurture-driven. Recent research, however, demonstrates that child prodigies' skills are highly dependent on a few features of their cognitive profiles, including elevated general IQs, exceptional working memories, and elevated attention to detail. Other innate characteristics of the child prodigies predict the domain in which the prodigies will excel. Music prodigies, for example, tend to score better with respect to their general IQs, visual spatial abilities, and working memories, than art prodigies. This new research on a group of exceptional – and exceptionally young – performers strongly supports nature as the primary driver of extreme talent.

************************************************

Another thread about the research of Joanne Ruthsatz is

Prodigies have large working memories
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....22/1/Prodigies_have_large_working_m.html

I'm not sure why we are still debating this.

I'm not being sarcastic, since it's been resolved to my satisfaction.

Nature (in the sense of something inherent in the person) is the initial driver of extreme talent.

If the potential isn't there, it can't be actualized (absent the use of technology to augment the actualization).

However, the nature has to be nurtured in a particular manner or it will not be actualized.

I agree with the above and am not debating you, but several of Malcolm Gladwell's books have sold in the millions, and I think the 10,000 hours meme needs continued debunking, as in the thread "Practice Makes Perfect, If Your Genes Play Along" http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....5038/Practice_Makes_Perfect_If_Your.html .

Agreed.

Agreed-- "IF" your genes play along is a really big :if: there.

72 point font. In neon.

And blinking!

Absolutely how I see it too.

Or maybe not - I see it as being similar to certain types of cancer - a given set of genes may have a susceptibility to it but usually an environmental factor is also at play for the expression of that cancer.

On top of a big, fluffy 'fro!

Our son is capable of many, many intellectual feats and -- assuming he learns to properly employ his talents -- should/maybe/oughta make an impact in whatever field he chooses.

But the poor soul will never produce a work of art beyond the basic stick figures he's been drawing since he could hold a pencil.

Sorry, Malcolm, but not even 20,000 hours will make a difference for him.

And, dangitall, I was going to include a link to the "Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator," but I see the website is no longer active.

Oh well, here's a snarky Salon article on it (with some great examples):
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/malcolm_gladwell_book_generator/

After a few more clicks I got to some interesting links on Malcolm Gladwell's background.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...ericas-most-successful-propagandist.html
http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/