Hey Crow good argument and I understand what you are saying and not sure I can defend my position...BUT...and it's a big but there are seemingly way to many coincidences that would seem to point to there is "something" there.
I really can't talk about the blues much since I'm not a big fan. Maybe it's the fact that when a black man sings the blues it seems more authentic or genuine than when a white person does it.
As for genetics although I'm not in the business I did take advanced genetic courses in college so I'm not totally illiterate but I don't keep up. But just beacuse geneticists haven't found the link doesn't make it does not exist the same as me saying it does, doesn't make it so. The only genetic facts are the ones they know and they probably know less than .0000000001% about genes and how they interact etc.
So how do geneticists classify prodigies. 3 year olds that can play Chopin or Bach.You say no one was born knowing how to speak French so how do these kids know how to play music? It can't be environmental or cultural they haven't even been on earth long enough.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
...just beacuse geneticists haven't found the link doesn't make it does not exist the same as me saying it does, doesn't make it so. The only genetic facts are the ones they know and they probably know less than .0000000001% about genes and how they interact etc.
Right. We've mapped the whole human genome, but we don't know that much about how those genes interact.
So how do geneticists classify prodigies. 3 year olds that can play Chopin or Bach.You say no one was born knowing how to speak French so how do these kids know how to play music? It can't be environmental or cultural they haven't even been on earth long enough.
One can suck up a LOT of knowledge by the age of 3 years, but... I don't know. White musical prodigies (Mozart for instance) tend to be born into musical families. It could easily be a different genetic track from anything connected to race. And it's a powerful argument for genetic influence on talent... lacking any scientific evidence, that is.
And that's my main point. If you don't have evidence supporting your belief, then it's JUST A BELIEF. Not that there's anything wrong with belief, but it doesn't carry that much weight.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Your exactly right without evidence it's nothing more than a belief but and I say but there is also nothing that has disproven it so although you can't take my belief as truth you can't discount it for the same reason and the circumstantial evidence would suggest there is something. I could see it not being race related but I personally believe it's genetically related and that's why it runs in families. The first progeny that exhibited this "special" behavior could have just been a random mutation to a gene that then gets passed down to each generation.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
you learn faster the younger you are. i learned how to read music when i was 4, and learning new songs at the time just was a case of playing through them a couple times. these days, i tend to forget a song as soon as i learn it unless i play it into the ground. bach and mozart aren't necessarily more technically difficult than other pianists, just better.
the same goes for language. the younger you are, the faster you will pick it up, and the more fluent you will become. my mother was an english translator for years before i was born, but when we came to the united states, within a year my brother and i were native speakers, while my mom still has an accent 27 years later. younger brains are just much more plastic. and that is the problem with schools that don't start teaching language until middle school or later. by that point, it's too late for 99% of people to achieve fluency. teach your kids as much as you can as soon as you can.
Jason yes I understand that young brains assimilate information quicker etc., but what's your point?
I was talking about a prodigy and what makes them that way. If you are inferring that the reason is just because they are young but no offense I don't buy that.
I guess I'm of the "belief" that it is genetics that plays the major role in that. To me the fact that prodigies are typically found in homes where the involvement in said activity crosses multiple generations which to me circumstantially supports the premise that these families posess a gene that allows them to have superior musical skills or whatever.
Genes control every chemical reaction in your body and all those reactions control "everything " you do. It's just hard for me to beleive they don't play the major role in defining the talent level/potential of a person.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
Genes control every chemical reaction in your body and all those reactions control "everything " you do.
Not so. Genes are only part of the equation. Everything, always, is a combination of genes and environment -- nature and nurture.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Genes control every chemical reaction in your body and all those reactions control "everything " you do.
Not so. Genes are only part of the equation. Everything, always, is a combination of genes and environment -- nature and nurture.
Thats very true... take a kid that has a slight genic knack for music.. Put him a household that has music around... parents, and famley play, lots of musical life around... hes going to pick up fast. REAL fast. Put the same kid in a household that has no intrest in music. Parents not supportive, no music played... well there is going to less of a chance that he/she will get invalved... or if so, it would be a bit later in life.
Paul B
In terms of body processes what environmental ones control those?
Not sure exactly what you mean all of the base processes in the human body are controlled by genes tell me one that isn't.
Now your environemnt may color the way you think or act but the actual process is chemically triggered by genes.
And in the case of prodigies there is way to little environemntal influence that would account for this. Millions of people can live in the same environment and all are totally unique in what they are/become. Some may be musical prodigies some might not be able to write their names. If the environment was the leading contributor we'd all be much more similar but we are not.
It's genes and the unlimted combinations that they can occur in that control these things..in my opinion. The chance that scientists are going to find these things out anytime soon is doubtful they barely know anything about the oceans yet they are not that hard to find.
Or else it's just aliens that control all of this.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
Not sure what you man by "base processes." My point is, genetics ain't destiny. That's not a belief, it's a fact. Presence or absence of the BRCA1 gene does not by itself guarantee whether you'll get breast cancer or not. That's just one example.
Environment is infinitely variable, and even if we find a "talent gene" it's going to be just one piece of the puzzle.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Your looking at this as if one and only one gene controls things and that's not how it works. I agree they aren't going to find a "musical prodigy gene" but certain genes in certain combinations in certain people produce the effect. In order for a kid 2-3 yo to play advanced musical pieces requires skills that no child could have picked up from their environment. And if you discount the prodigy part why then do only a small percentage have this ability if all young minds are so spongelike or whatever. In my opinion it's because those few have the unique gentic makeup to allow it to happen.
A musical prodigy may have mutations to the genes that control hearing, muscle function, brain function in an unlimited number of combinations which operate in a chemical sea that is different from one person to the next and it allows them to perform at a much elevated level than those that do not posses that combination.
When you talk disease you are starting to stray. Yes diseases can be brought on from environmental or gene influence.
I would bet my life that you can take 10 people from acoss the globe keep them in the exact same environment for x amount of time, give them the exact same training (lets say musical), feed them the same give them the exact same stimuli daily and at the end of said experiment they will all be at varying degrees of skill....and what would be the difference. All have a completely different gene makeup. Some may have a gene combination that does not allow them to comprehend pitch or whatever.
And I agree there is an environmental piece to this but as I mentioned that is like icing on the cake and the cake is the foundation which in this case would be our genes.
In Pauls example sure if you are in a musical family you may be more apt to play an instrument (Thats environmental influence)but the limits of your capabilities are goverend by your genes.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
Your looking at this as if one and only one gene controls things and that's not how it works.
No, I'm not. (What have I written that could make you think that?) You're looking at this as if some gene or combination of genes controls things, and that's not how it works.
A musical prodigy may have mutations to the genes that control hearing, muscle function, brain function in an unlimited number of combinations which operate in a chemical sea that is different from one person to the next and it allows them to perform at a much elevated level than those that do not posses that combination.
That same kid could as easily become a video-game addict. Genes do not dictate behavior. WE KNOW THIS. It's not that simple.
I would bet my life that you can take 10 people from acoss the globe keep them in the exact same environment for x amount of time, give them the exact same training (lets say musical), feed them the same give them the exact same stimuli daily and at the end of said experiment they will all be at varying degrees of skill....and what would be the difference. All have a completely different gene makeup. Some may have a gene combination that does not allow them to comprehend pitch or whatever.
Right. You set that test up & see it through, & then we'll talk.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Not saying they dictate behavior I'm saying they are like the govenor in an internal combustion engine. They control the max level of your skill at any one task.
What im saying is no matter what I do be it environmental, practice whatever at the end of the day I can only get to a certain level of proficiency and any additional environmental influence or whatever else you think controls this doesn't matter you ain't gonna get there.
Geneticists know so little about what genes control and how multiple combinatioons interact to write this off as an impossibility seems a little short sighted and before you say it I know my theory is only my own but you really can't give any better argument to the contrary. And don't be suprised that someday geneticists find that what they thought was one thing now is actually something else.
No, I'm not. (What have I written that could make you think that?) You're looking at this as if some gene or combination of genes controls things, and that's not how it works.
When you talked about the BRAC1 gene and breast cancer. That is not the only gene that controls breast cancer. That's where I got that from.
Crow maybe to understand your position better do you think that everyone has the same potential? So if we control a persons environment we can produce whatever we want?
I amnot thinking that genes are doing something at the time you are playing I'm saying your gentic footprint that you inherited from your parents is what defines the limits of your capabilities in all aspects both physical and mental. If you were born with short legs you probably never will be a World Class sprinter and the only thing that controlled that was your genes.
They are the building blocks and laid the foundation of what you are, not necessarily what you will be. You might have the genetic ability to be a prodigy yet never fulfill that if you never come in contact with music.
Put another why you can underachieve what capabilities your genes instill in you but you can never go past the limits of what they gave you in the first place.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
You're suggesting that some day science will prove that genes control all this. Fine. Some day science will prove that Mitt Romney is a unicorn.
What im saying is no matter what I do be it environmental, practice whatever at the end of the day I can only get to a certain level of proficiency and any additional environmental influence or whatever else you think controls this doesn't matter you ain't gonna get there.
So this is based on your own situation. You're not governed by your genes, Chris.
Nothing is an impossibility, but to think that some combination of chemicals will, by itself, make you a prodigy seems far-fetched. If genes give you an edge, you still have to do something with that edge -- and with that we're talking about environment. That seems to me to be a much better argument for the fulfillment of talent. As always however, YMMV.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Every thought process, every movement, every body function happens because of chemical reactions controlled by our genes but somehow you can't imagine that this would have any influence?
Anyway kind of a fun debate. I don't think we changed either's mind but....
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
Every thought process, every movement, every body function happens because of chemical reactions controlled by our genes but somehow you can't imagine that this would have any influence?
Where exactly did I say that? Please be specific.
We can control our chemical reactions consciously, more than you might think. Most body functions (breathing, heartbeat, bowels etc.) happen because the "lizard brain" tells the body to do so. We can communicate with our central nervous system, via breath control, and slow our heart rates, lower anxiety, change (literally) the biochemical workings of the brain. Genes may give us a predisposition to hypertension & high blood pressure, for example; but breath control STILL WORKS, in spite of genes. It may not be as effective as it might be in a person without those predispositions, but it works nonetheless.
Genes DON'T CONTROL THINGS. I don't know how else to put it.
Stepping away from generalities:
Crow maybe to understand your position better do you think that everyone has the same potential?
Talent exists, no question about it. Some have it, some don't.
So if we control a persons environment we can produce whatever we want?
Like... a Master Race? No.
I amnot thinking that genes are doing something at the time you are playing I'm saying your gentic footprint that you inherited from your parents is what defines the limits of your capabilities in all aspects both physical and mental. If you were born with short legs you probably never will be a World Class sprinter and the only thing that controlled that was your genes.
I don't see any evidence that genes act as a governor of ability. Since we have no evidence either way, I'm sticking with my argument that Mitt Romney is a unicorn.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
