Maybe Someday...

[Hink]

What about the Bach family? Most were musicians and yet only Bach was really brilliant? What about dog breeds? You would need a long time of breeding and "training" to get the herding skills of a border collie. A German Shepherd could probably do it but a husky probably can't, not in their dog lifetime. So if you are a husky and your dream is to be a border collie, aren't you wasting your time? Apply that to humans.

Your example of the three chess players might just be that, a freaky genetic "triplets" similarity? Maybe that whole family was born to play great chess. But in Bach's family, with close relatives (cousins, etc) and siblings, it didn't seem to turn out that way?

This forum is for discussing Off Topic subjects that are too hot to handle in the relatively civilised world of Off Topic, i.e. they will cause controversy and result in heated arguments/flames, namely Politics, Religion, Race, our ancestors history, etc.

We would rather you didn't discuss such issues here as there are plenty of other places on the Net that provide outlets for such discussions, but, nice people that we are, we give you this little corner of KVR to talk bollocks in.

As I see it this might be hugging the edge but as long as it stays as it is I for one am okay, however other mods may not feel the same. As my duties are quite new I do have a lot to learn and my own style as it were to develop, if any other mods moves this to HPC I will take it as a lesson respecting their superior experience.

[Numanoid]

As my duties are quite new I do have a lot to learn and my own style as it were to develop

My brain scan says, if a decision is made, need to stick with it

That is why I never make decisions

[Hink]

my brain scan says "please check all connections and try again"

[mcnoone]

There are too many factors that go into what makes a person good at this or that, and bad at that and this.
Yet some factors influences are greater, and some lesser.
Our brains have a lot to do with the information in our dna, which in turn comes from our parents.
The biological influences in us are about as powerful as any cultural (nurturing) influences.
Though we should take note that there were no great piano players before the invention of the piano, yet their potential for being great piano players was there before pianos were invented.

Agility and good mind to hand/fingers coordination can be a factor, and that is completely biological, though there are also environmental factors that could effect that negatively or positively.
Very complex to try and work out all the factors that go into some said musical master or whatever.

I would like to note that there is no idea/subject that science has studied that is equal to just guessing.
Just the act of scientifically studying something is a gaining of information that was not there prior to doing so.
Some peoples ideas about science are not skepticism, but denialism, and oppositional defiant disorder.
The catch phrases used are similar to "it's just a theory" and a long list of others that are frequently mentioned, as well as other oppositions based on false reasoning.

While not everyone is a scientist. No one needs a science degree to be scientifically literate.
Dismissing certain points of knowledge that have already been established within some scientific field is not a good thing to do. Yet it is done too often in topic debates.

[Hink]

still we are a far way from being able to pinpoint what defines us individually. My own personal story I believe is a good example. Adopted at birth, have no clue about who my birth parents are but I do not care or give them any consideration save for the fact that doctors of that era severely missed the trauma of being biologically connected to the birth mother, coming into the world like all babies, expecting comfort and nurturing from the host I was connected to only to be snatched away by the doctors and isolated. Add that to the fact I was born extremely ill and was lucky to survive it was not a good way to start life. From this point on parents me the ones who raised me, not the host or sperm donor.

So my parents, both good people, both only children also adopted a girl before me. My dad couldn't carry a tune if it had a handle and a strap, my mom sang and had a pretty voice but did her best to discourage my musical pursuits, likely due to my childhood illness that I actually completely outgrew. I wasn't raised in a musical household but my absolute earliest memories are about music. I was born in 59, when The Sound of Music came out we saw it a bunch of times and I think it touched me more than the rest of my family. My dad did like music as did my mom but rarely was music on in the house except at xmas, my dad was supportive of my music but wanted me to follow him as an engineer (hence my becoming a machinist). My dad came down from Maine and went to school in Boston, stayed at the YMCA and I have a book of ticket stubs from all the times he would go to the BSO.

My other dream was that of most of my peers, to be a pro baseball player...I joined little league...dream ended.

Tried Trumpet in the 5th grade, stayed with it through 8th grade,but I wasn't very good (actually I was terrible and it ended when I smashed my trumpet in a fit of rage not being to good enough) but I did get formal music lessons. Discovered guitar around 8 and played silly songs and knew a few chords but I dont consider that when I started playing guitar. When I turned 12 I got a guitar for my b-day and the passion hit, I found my thing.

I had more forces working against me than for me, very little encouragement playing rock and roll in the early 70's which was not "real" music when it came to my parents generation. Most of my friends were jocks. Again my mother would do anything to stop me from playing but my passion grew. To this day the best she will say about my music is that I enjoy my music and she doesn't understand my music.

There are many possibilities here, I could have been born with the music gene as harryupbabble suggests, though in my years do you know how many times I have heard I am not living up to my potential (funny thing is I was the one here to take care of both my parents...how's that for living up to my responsibility anyhow).

It could have been just plain defiance which was very common in those days.

I could have just really liked The Sound of Music, got into the bands of the era (which I did of course, by 3rd grade I had a huge stack of 45's) and enjoyed music.

It could be that music was the first thing the actually gave me an identity as growing up with friends that looked their dad's or mom's while I looked like Opie with Andy confused me a lot (really a very good analogy as the show was B&W at the time and my hair was blond and looked the same on TV as Opie's and my dad looked like Andy Griffith).

I could have been the love child of a musician come to town to play a show.

Maybe I liked the way girls looked at me when I was carrying/playing a guitar (though that would not explain my early drive for music)

Who knows?

These are questions that have been asked by me, questions discussed with therapists, doctors (my mom would do anything, I'm telling you) but I'm sorry there is no definitive answer. Furthermore it wasn't a passing thing, I got that first guitar 45 years ago and I use an expression a lot. Music takes me there. Nothing else does, there are some things that come close but playing guitar is number one, not being in a band, not looking for fame, not money, I prefer to write music so I can play and go "there" (and mcnoone I have done a lot of acid in my youth, it didn't take me there either )

I'm not sure there will be anything but guesses, at this point if asked why I chose to pursue music so aggressively the answer would be "it's anyone's guess". That's not a knock on science, but you know what I also really do not see any benefit in understanding why at this point. Once again faced with a difficult obstacle in my life it's my music that is going to pull me through...maybe it was just a random choice that I have cultivated over decades and that's fine.

The army gave me three days of testing before boot camp, I aced the tests and they wanted to send me to West Point after a year of OCS (officer's candidate school). I did very well in college but not so much in high school...my high school was my own undoing, I didn't do homework (rather play my guitar). But college was a breeze for me because I grew up. Maybe music was not the best choice and maybe I was not living up to my potential, maybe I should have pursued more with my music. But I cant say I would change anything, I am glad I became a machinist even tough I didn't go into the trade, it comes in quite handy. I'm glad I joined the army but I still dont think I was cut out for West Point nor 20 years of Army life.

What if I did go to West Point? What if I gave up the guitar? Would there be a void? What if I worked as a mchinist? Could I have lost fingers? If the last two weeks has reminded me of anything it's that I can only look forward, not back. There are some questions for which there are no answers and accepting that can be hard but it's quite liberating.

[incubus]

Or, long ridiculous response because of stature DO APPLY!

Truth be damned, it is what it is!

[mcnoone]

There are some questions for which there are no answers and accepting that can be hard but it's quite liberating.

That is true, and those are scientifically untestable questions, which are hypothetical, and based on what if's that are not possible in reality, due to some impossible feature within them.
Though brain scanning technologies are not what if's, and they have shown to be useful in gaining an understanding of how the mind works.
Which is why I mentioned that "whatever science has studied" it has learned more than mere guessing.
If the hypothetical question is not-testable, then it must mean that the question is not worth asking.

[fmr]

Agility and good mind to hand/fingers coordination can be a factor, and that is completely biological, though there are also environmental factors that could effect that negatively or positively.
Very complex to try and work out all the factors that go into some said musical master or whatever.

That's the point. We all born with agility and good mind to hand/fingers coordination (unless we born with some physical handicap). But if we don't go through intensive training since a very young age, we will not achieve the high degree of coordination/independence needed to be a pianist of high level.

The same goes for athletics. Or for chess. Or for engineering or mathematics. I had a teacher once that said there is a time to learn how to "see" in 3D space. If we pass that age, we would no longer be able to do that, even if we understand the concept. Our brain is like our muscles. If it starts to be trained at a young age in certain fields it will achieve a high level of proficiency in those fields. There are some natural advantages that vary from person to person, naturally, but those are not really important in the long term, nor do they allow for any high level of proficiency at anything. Intensive training is what allow us to achieve that.

So, in the end, the DNA advantages are almost negligible. Thet can give an individual a small advantage, but that small advantage will be useless in the long term, if not worked. OTOH, hard training is irreplaceable, and if not done in proper time, there is nothing that can be done to replace it, no matter how much advantage we have in our DNA. Or do you think that a brain scan at the age of 30 that say you could become a pianist would mean you could still achieve a high degree of proficiency at that?

[mcnoone]

Or do you think that a brain scan at the age of 30 that say you could become a pianist would mean you could still achieve a high degree of proficiency at that?

Yes, while extensive training is key to mastering some objective. There are also other cultural outside influences that can effect our ability to do that as well. Many such influences, that aren't all about training. Though training can definitely be a major factor.

If one is born into extreme poverty for instance, the chance of being able to become a trained pianist becomes much less possible. There are other influences such as the influence of family.
Yet some brain scanning and some day the ability to read something from our dna, might be helpful in determining where our best possible assets are at. Not as some determined must do type of thing, but as a helpful guide, for those interested in knowing such a thing.

As far as finding out ones brain is adapt at musical expression at age 30. That would also be enough time to master the piano, so long as the person lives long enough. As training itself demands something that comes from our dna/brain makeup as well.

Some might train poorly, and others be better at training, and it could be directly influenced by some lazy genetic makeup, or some genetic influence that leads them to be able to work smarter.

Either way, it is of greater importance to understand that genetic influences and cultural influences are more of a natural feedback loop, where both can be, and are being, influenced by each other.

Most Asian people eat rice, and avoid dairy products. There is far more cases of being lactose intolerant from this. That is a cultural element effecting a biological one. I've heard it said that biology isn't some kind of separate thing from environment, as our biology is an environment as well.

Besides brain scanning technologies are a good thing for many other advances as well.
They help in medical treatments, mind to machine control, and might even in the future be a part of mind to mind control, and many other helpful things.

I don't worry about dna editing in the future, as the consequences (that we can't discuss outside of hpc) aren't realistic or detrimental to the benefits. The benefits will outweigh the negatives, because the negative side effects can be controlled with policy, where as the positives may be even necessary for humankind to continue to survive. ie; make us adaptable to changing environment. Maybe even make us able to survive in other environments that we once before could not survive.

[fmr]

Or do you think that a brain scan at the age of 30 that say you could become a pianist would mean you could still achieve a high degree of proficiency at that?

If one is born into extreme poverty for instance, the chance of being able to become a trained pianist becomes much less possible. There are other influences such as the influence of family.

That influence is just in the aspect of providing the means and oportunity. As Judit's father proved, by starting training her daughters since birth to become chess champions, he achieved just that. That was his influence - his WILL.

As far as finding out ones brain is adapt at musical expression at age 30. That would also be enough time to master the piano, so long as the person lives long enough. As training itself demands something that comes from our dna/brain makeup as well.

If that individual started a train at the age of 30, he could still achieve something, yet the physical skills necessary to achieve a level of excellence were no longer possible to develop. It's not DNA, it's human physiology. The same could be said about gymnastics, or soccer. That's what no brain scan can replace. If he has the DNA, but do not work, he would achieve NOTHING, independently of how gifted he might be. OTOH, if he started training at the age of 3, and persevered, with proper guidance, he would achieve a high level of excelence, DNA or no DNA.

Some might train poorly, and others be better at training, and it could be directly influenced by some lazy genetic makeup, or some genetic influence that leads them to be able to work smarter.

So, there's a gene for lazyness If there is, I would say that all human beings have it, and all of us have to fight that. It's inherently human. So, no influence from that either. Evryone can train well, if they are well directed, and "persuaded" to.

Either way, it is of greater importance to understand that genetic influences and cultural influences are more of a natural feedback loop, where both can be, and are being, influenced by each other.

Where does training fit in this picture?

Most Asian people eat rice, and avoid dairy products. There is far more cases of being lactose intolerant from this. That is a cultural element effecting a biological one. I've heard it said that biology isn't some kind of separate thing from environment, as our biology is an environment as well.

Oh, you heard that? So, if an asian couple migrates to an western country will their children inherit those handicaps? Or is it a matte of "adaptation" (you know, that force that leads us to survive at all cost?)

Besides brain scanning technologies are a good thing for many other advances as well.
They help in medical treatments, mind to machine control, and might even in the future be a part of mind to mind control, and many other helpful things.

And machine to mind control, genetic manipulation, creation of super privileged elites, while the masses exist just to serve, etc. Yes, I saw that movie too.

I don't worry about dna editing in the future, as the consequences (that we can't discuss outside of hpc) aren't realistic or detrimental to the benefits. The benefits will outweigh the negatives, because the negative side effects can be controlled with policy, where as the positives may be even necessary for humankind to continue to survive. ie; make us adaptable to changing environment. Maybe even make us able to survive in other environments that we once before could not survive.

Well, you choose not to worry. I choose to worry, maybe because History tells us that every time man messes with Nature and play God, something really bad happens. I better see men efforts directed into preserve our natural habitat, and Nature as it is. Our brains are evolving at their own speed, as they should.

[mcnoone]

Oh, you heard that? So, if an asian couple migrates to an western country will their children inherit those handicaps? Or is it a matte of "adaptation" (you know, that force that leads us to survive at all cost?)

You mixed something up there.
It is a fact that Asian people have much more cases of being lactose intolerant.
That however has nothing to do with my statement "I've heard it said".
It is due to having an extremely low dairy intake. But it is definitely an example of how environment can effect our biology.

Our diets do effect our biological makeup. Not only that, but the environments specific peoples lived in throughout many thousands of years of evolution have also effected our biological makeup. Which is why we all look different. Our different appearances are directly effected by our earliest environments where the areas were unique at various places. More body hair or less?

The "I've heard it said" statement was about how our biology is actually part of the environment.
If you are trying to separate the two, and somehow press on about how nurture is more influential than nature. You are going about it the wrong way, and in fact are very incorrect. Nature and nurture are connected feedback loops just like many others found in nature.

The training you refer to is done every day in schools all across the world. There are differences in how some learn, what some learn, and how well or poorly some learn. Yet you seem to want to find some need to dismiss the biological influences to that, and instead praise the cultural influences. When they are both connected into a web, that allows no such comparison, as you would have no training at all without the biological influences that allow people to train at all.

An example of a natural feedback loop is gravity. It is an effect of mass/energy, where it becomes strongest from the greater condensed parts of matter/energy. This also loops back again to where the effect of gravity is the cause of what forms are formed on any given mass/energy object. ie; planet.
If the earth had more mass/energy. ie; bigger, or more condensed, it would not have any mountains, and at a certain size would simple never form land at all, but be mostly made of gases. ie; Jupiter like. This is an example of a feedback loop in nature, that you are simply dismissing, at the nature or nurture level. They are both dependent on each other in a way that makes them equal in balance and importance.

edit: Btw...lactose intolerance is a genetically inherited biological state. So thier kids would inherit it as well. It developed from specific regions that did not have a dairy diet.

[mcnoone]

And machine to mind control, genetic manipulation, creation of super privileged elites, while the masses exist just to serve, etc. Yes, I saw that movie too.

There are ways around all the negative imagined fears.
While worry is good, we should seek the advancement while avoiding the negative consequences.
Problem solving to avoid the pitfalls as it were.

[harryupbabble]

Here, read this, and do some research:
"Judit Polgár was born on 23 July 1976 in Budapest, to a Hungarian Jewish family. Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klára educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject." Wikipedia: Judit Polgár (the youngest chess international grandmaster EVER, ex-number eight worldwide in ELO classification)
Now, are you telling me that he was so fortunate that he got three geniuses in a row, three out of three, or that he and his wife had some kind of "fortunate" DNA combination? Have you ever heard that "children of fish are born swimming" (or something like that - don't know if there is some english counterpart to this)

It seems to me that in order for László's experiment to be more credible, he should not have only done his experiment on his daughters because DNA could be an influence. He should have done the test too on RANDOM people, preferably very young people who are known to suck at chess.

Same with Mozart's father. I doubt he could have turned random "unmusical" people to Wolfgang Amadeus.

[fmr]

And machine to mind control, genetic manipulation, creation of super privileged elites, while the masses exist just to serve, etc. Yes, I saw that movie too.

There are ways around all the negative imagined fears.
While worry is good, we should seek the advancement while avoiding the negative consequences.
Problem solving to avoid the pitfalls as it were.

And who would you trust to "avoid the negative consequences"? Because I would trust NOBODY. So, better leave that as it is. For the time being, genetic manipulation is forbidden in human beings, AFAIK.

[fmr]

It seems to me that in order for László's experiment to be more credible, he should not have only done his experiment on his daughters because DNA could be an influence. He should have done the test too on RANDOM people, preferably very young people who are known to suck at chess.

Same with Mozart's father. I doubt he could have turned random "unmusical" people to Wolfgang Amadeus.

I believe he would, if fathers had trusted him their kids. And since neither him or his wife were chess masters, I believe he sort of proved his point.

And isn't it what Bela Karolyi and his wife, Martha Karolyi are doing in the USA with gymnastics, too? Basically, they pick kids who they see potential, and start training them at a very young age. And suddenly, the USA, which never had top gymnasts until quite recently, started to have world champions. Or did something change in young americans DNA?

Regarding Leopold Mozart... DITTO. Again, kids could not have achieved the exact same level, but I'm sure they would have reached a HIGH level.