Just wondered if anyone has been watching that 'Hidden Talent' series on Channel 4...

I've always believed that your brain can be hardwired (either genetically/epigenetically or due to conditions in the womb). Few people I meet agree, probably because it's not fair (but I don't get why people think nature should be fair -it's anything but!) Perhaps everyone has some unique talent, sometimes useful, sometime not.

But it is interesting how that guy who has cut tiles in a factory since leaving school can be picked out of a 1000 people and do as good or better at recognising fake art than people who have studied it all their lives.

Apart from perhaps recognising faces and perhaps fake art, I don't think (up to now) I have any of the hidden talents featured in the show. I've certainly no language skills (except mimicking pronunciation), no great athletic skill, no opera voice, no sense of direction (I even struggled with left and right until I used the (L=low R=high) piano reference! I don't know about multitasking but I'm thinking ...not.

One thing I've always thought is that, I don't think a talent necessarily guides you to the subject that exploits it most. I think most people fall into a job after an interview with the careers officer, or go for something they had a good teacher for, or saw an inspiring film or documentary about, or had a dad or uncle that got them into it. I think I'm lucky to have found music early on, because I'm good for nothing else apart from blowing spit-bubbles, making stupid noises, seeing/hearing likenesses between faces and voices, wobbling my eyes, and other pointless crap.

I can lick my own elbow, which I understand is quite a rare feat.

HTH!

Chris

Perhaps you should have that dislocated shoulder reset now...

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I can eat spaghetti very eligantly wrapped around (just) a fork. I'm pretty nifty with corn cobs too.

But when I smoked, I could never roll a cigarette from one side of my mouth to the other like Clint Eastood in the Sergio Leone westerns. Still gets me down.

... I have very rare feet...

I've got me coat...

Very interesting show - I found the story about the freediver particularly fascinating. I'd have loved her to have her own documentary series where they took you through all her training and competitions. It was simply amazing how quickly and ably she could achieve the challenges her trainer set for her to do. I have trouble holding my breath underwater for just one minute, let alone nearly 4 minutes when I've only been training a few weeks! (NB. I'm not massively fit, but I challenge any normal person, i.e. 'untrained' diver, to hold their breath underwater for 4 minutes. Go on, try it!)

I agree though - many of these hidden talents are just that because the people who possess them have no related activities or interests in their lives that allow their talents to surface. If they did enough episodes of this show with enough people, perhaps a lot of us would discover we had a knack for something unpredictable.

However, I'm not sure what makes an individual 'talented' at something. Back in my teaching days, we identified 'Gifted and Talented' children as being two separate groups: the Gifted children had a high ability in academic subjects, whilst Talented children were more able in 'creative' subjects or sports/drama. I believe these definitions are still used today, however I feel they are misleading definitions, as 'high ability' and 'more able' are quite subjective terms for a definition, and I take issue with the way it's usually worked out, which is by comparing children to their peers in school, rather than to all children of their age group across the country, and also taking the 'top x %' of those children in each school. Obviously the ability of children in any one school is massively dependent on a variety of factors, so to say that the top x % of every school are gifted and talented seems, to me, rather stupid. More criticism here http://www.theg rid.org.uk/learning/gifted/policies/definition.shtml

Anyway, I'm waffling. My point is... what makes an individual talented? What is talent? The government have struggled to put their finger on this. I'm sure a lot of us are born better equipped to learn certain things than others, but when does this move from 'adaptable', 'fast-learner', or 'picks things up easily' to 'talented'? Were some of the so-called geniuses of the past really talented, or were they just 'quite good' at what they did? A lot of these people actually practised quite a bit first - Shakespeare didn't write a sonnet straight out of the womb.

I reckon an awful lot of it is more to do with how our brain works, and therefore we are just naturally better at some things than others. This is obvious by the fact that some of us lean more naturally to creative things (like making music) whilst others are more interested in academia. But the rate at which we improve our skill and ability varies hugely by person to person as well.

An example... my female friend and I both learnt piano at school from a young age (though not together or with the same teacher) and, after just 5 years of lessons, I was grade 5-6 and she had yet to take grade 3, yet we both practised an equal amount - in fact, I'm pretty sure she practised a lot more than me as I wasn't very disciplined until I got a lot better and started to really enjoy it, and she felt more motivated to practise as she felt she was behind. However, another friend of mine had grade 8 and a diploma to his name by the time he was 17, whilst at the same age I was still on grade 7.

So it's swings and roundabouts. Compared to my female friend, I was 'talented' and she was not, but my male friend seemed to be a lot more talented than me - so by this logic perhaps I wasn't talented at all. But then, if you compare him with some of the entrants to Young Musician Of The Year, he would seem mediocre - so perhaps I can rest easy that he was not talented either, and that we are all just variations of 'average'.

It would certainly be a nice thought that every single person had a unique talent, however I just don't believe this to be true. I think actually most of us are average, but due to our unique individual combination of genes and 'nurture', quite a lot of us 'average' people have better skills than others in certain rather specific things (perhaps in spatial awareness, or memory, or logical thinking), which, in a human world of endless hobbies, activities and careers, sometimes seem to match up perfectly with specific things. The fact that we aren't all exposed to everything probably means that most people will never discover what specific skill they are best at, leading us to conclude that those that do are 'talented'.

Now my brain hurts.

--------------------
SOS Web Editor, Support & Social Media
Friend SOS on Facebook | Follow SOS on Twitter

Edited by Jennifer Jones (24/05/12 04:09 PM)

I'm inspired a lot by van Gogh as a person and a painter. His paintings and drawings really dazzle me, but he considered being a mediocre painter quite an achievement that comes only after much effort -not that he was mediocre. He was all about being true rather than being 'brilliant' or 'ingenious'. There are brilliant composers (like Saint-Saëns and Hindemith) who often leave me cold.

Quote:

---

It would certainly be a nice thought that every single person had a unique talent, however I just don't believe this to be true. I think actually most of us are average...

---

Being average at everything or at most things is pretty impressive too. But...

Quote:

---

Back in my teaching days, we identified 'Gifted and Talented' children as being two separate groups: the Gifted children had a high ability in academic subjects, whilst Talented children were more able in 'creative' subjects or sports/drama.

---

...I can't help but feel that people probably do fall into one of these categories. I think that language dominates most children's minds, some more than others. Most kids draw everything as a collection of symbols. Like if they draw a house, they draw like a script: a "chimney" goes "on the" "roof", the "smoke" comes "out of" the "chimney". It ends up like a diagram.

But now and then, I think there are kids who just don't think like that. They're more into what things really look like.

My intellectual side is all artificial. I used to write foneticly and didn't think it mattered. I'm not naturally analytical but had to become a bit more so to do what I want to do. I'm not sure what effect classical music had on me. I sort of 'woke up' at about the age 12.

Quote J.A.S:

---

.. I sort of 'woke up' at about the age 12.

---

Ha ha I reckon I 'fell asleep' about then Found school very boring, I think it's the worst thing you can do to kids, put them in a room and talk at them all day. But I guess it does explain why any talents I might have have remained firmly hidden!

--------------------
getting better all the time..

I haven't seen the show but get the gist of it...

People can be immensely talented in all sorts of areas, but if they never get the opportunity to try things they'll never know. If you grow up without books in the home, with no access to musical instruments, not knowing anyone who is into art, unable to afford to do activities which cost, etc, leave school and immediatly get into a 9-5 day job routine, how would talent ever show itself?

--------------------

After doing the online tests, I'm starting to think that the things I'm not very good at are just simply harder. I couldn't even understand what the multitasking one was asking me to do. I know I wouldn't be good at the language one, or the navigational one, or the others so I didn't bother.

The lie detector one was extremely easy. It's like watching really bad acting in a film, and especially easy if you just listen (I got 6/6 on that one). The art appreciation one was easy once I realised what I was supposed to be doing after the first couple of pictures (I got 39/44). The musical appreciation one ('opera'?!!) was the easiest, even through crappy computer speakers (I got 48/50). I think the one I got wrong was one of the genre ones, maybe because I've heard too much fusion (which the test didn't account for), or perhaps because I chose drums as my most comfortable instrument or something.

I'm wondering now what talent really is. Perhaps the arts are just easier in a way. I can't imagine following a beat is as hard as finding your way through a mountain range or learning a language.

Also, doesn't what mood you're in have anything to do with the results?

Quote J.A.S:

---

I'm wondering now what talent really is.

---

You're really being serious are you? I mean, you are genuinely sat at home wondering what talent really is??

If so, I suggest you try and get out more.

Quote J.A.S:

---

After doing the online tests, I'm starting to think that the things I'm not very good at are just simply harder. I couldn't even understand what the multitasking one was asking me to do. I know I wouldn't be good at the language one, or the navigational one, or the others so I didn't bother.

The lie detector one was extremely easy. It's like watching really bad acting in a film, and especially easy if you just listen (I got 6/6 on that one). The art appreciation one was easy once I realised what I was supposed to be doing after the first couple of pictures (I got 39/44). The musical appreciation one ('opera'?!!) was the easiest, even through crappy computer speakers (I got 48/50). I think the one I got wrong was one of the genre ones, maybe because I've heard too much fusion (which the test didn't account for), or perhaps because I chose drums as my most comfortable instrument or something.

I'm wondering now what talent really is. Perhaps the arts are just easier in a way. I can't imagine following a beat is as hard as finding your way through a mountain range or learning a language.

Also, doesn't what mood you're in have anything to do with the results?

---

I think you are missing the point! The ones you find easy are the ones you have talent for perhaps. As I tell my students , just because you find something easy doesn't mean it is, it may mean you have a TALENT for it! Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote J.A.S:

---

I've always believed that your brain can be hardwired (either genetically/epigenetically or due to conditions in the womb). Few people I meet agree, probably because it's not fair....

---

No. I for one disagree strongly because there is a large and growing body of reliable respectable peer-reviewed scientific literature that explains why this is no so. There isn't the time and space to explain here now, and it would require a fair level of scientific education, but for those who are interested there are some good summary chapters in 'Psychology : The science of brain and behaviour' by Richard Gross, which is an 'A' level/1st year undergrad textbook.

I was still completely off my face from last night when I wrote that. I seemed to think I was sober at the time. Sorry.

Quote J.A.S:

---

I was still completely off my face from last night when I wrote that. I seemed to think I was sober at the time. Sorry.

---

I have a similar 'talent'

--------------------
getting better all the time..

Quote:

---

I for one disagree strongly because there is a large and growing body of reliable respectable peer-reviewed scientific literature that explains why this is no so.

---

Are you of the opinion then that all brains are equally capable? If so, are all bodies equally capable? There are a lot of studies into (separated) identical twins (brought up in very different environments) that suggest that personality could be up to 50% genetically determined (see Kaplan & Sadock, Synopsis of Psychiatry).

I don't know that much about it, but it is interesting! I think it can drift into unsavoury territory though. I do think physicial (genetic) differences could determine personality and even taste to some extent. If you have a certain genetic perculiarity in your hearing, for example, surely it could guide you to prefer certain forms of music over others? What about how good you are at dancing and how that determines if you discover the beauty of more rhythmic music because of it? What about your level of hormones and their effect on personality?

I think it is also a mistake to take the infant as a 'blank canvas' for the adult, because processes in the body unfold as we age (see epigenetics) that could explain some differences in adults that were not present in the infant. It's certainly not going to be as simple as nature OR nurture. Surely it's got to be both.

Quote:

---

There are a lot of studies into (separated) identical twins (brought up in very different environments) that suggest that personality could be up to 50% genetically determined

---

Not really....Twin studies are increasingly recognised as being fundamentally flawed...'Nature' and 'Nurture' are not things that can be quantified in this way...they are complex iterative processess...the assumption of the twin studies that they provide an experimental paradigm in which 'nature' (genes) are 'constant' allowing for the calculation of 'environmental' influence flies in the face of modern genetics, microbiology and experimental psychology. Genes constantly mutate, in twins as in everyone else, under the influence of environmental changes. The environment is a process that can refer to anything from the adjacent gene to the universe containing the solar system containing the planet etc etc..

There is no scientific possibility of a gene 'for' complex entities like sexuality, musical ability and the like. A gene is just a teeny weeny molecule, of which there are millions in every cell, thus it cannot 'determine' behaviour such as music. The brain has some 30 billion nerve cells, with about 10K connections to other nerve cells, that can fire hundreds of times per second. That's a f**k of a lot of work for one gene !!!

The nature/nurture debate really only persists because of its correlation with the right/left political pendulum

Does there have to be 'a gene' for musical ability? I was thinking more along the lines of a fortunate (random) combination of many sets of genes (that are also expressed in the right way due to environment) that might make one person more naturally musical than another.

I don't know enough about it. Simply speaking, twins separated at birth certainly look bloody similar(!) so I can't see why similarities would not occur in the brain structure, how it unfolds during development, hormone levels that influence how aggressive or passive we are, how our physical looks impact on our self-confidence, etc.

Someone with better co-ordination and nerve connectivity would surely make a better sportsman? I really can't believe everyone can be as good as Maradonna! I think it's extremely optimistic to think that we're all equally capable at birth in any respect. (I'm not suggesting you're proposing this.)

Quote:

---

The nature/nurture debate really only persists because of its correlation with the right/left political pendulum

---

Politics aside, I think it's simply more complicated than inheritence of genes vs environment. 'Nature' must obviously involve how the brain develops with and against environmental issues, learning, brain plasticity limits, etc.

If you want to believe in a particular kind of genetic determinism, you are free to do so, and say so in the forum....

For myself, I don't....and FWIW, the only point I was trying to make was that the kind of genetic determinism you mention in your first post is not IMHO one that is supported by the large and growing body of peer-reviewed scientific research, as explained in the book I mentioned.

So we agree to differ.....

For any one else who may be interested, especially with regard to music, the books by musician and Psychologist John Sloboda give an excellent review of the area.

(And that's my procrastination ritual over and done with!)

Quote:

---

If you want to believe in a particular kind of genetic determinism, you are free to do so, and say so in the forum....

---

OK, that's not what I said at all. I suggested it was a mix of genetics, epigenetics and the influence of environment on both of these.

I sense this is more of a moral/political issue for you than about truth, so it is rather you 'wanting to believe' something more than me. The idea of confining the potential influence of genetics to just a single gene (rather than a fortunate mix of genes) makes no sense at all, which is perhaps why you didn't respond to that point.

Finally, I don't want to believe anything, and I don't even understand this idea of 'choosing' to believe. We can only really believe something if we're convinced it's true otherwise it's just 'make believe'. Personally, I don't believe one way or the other, I don't know enough about it (as I said). But whenever there's a perceived dichotomy, it's the middle path is often the sensible thing to consider first.

Quote J.A.S:

---

I sense this is more of a moral/political issue for you than about truth, so it is rather you 'wanting to believe' something more than me.

---

My stance on this is based on detailed reading of the available published evidence, for which I also gave some references.

Yours appears to be based on personal opinion ?

Quote:

---

Yours appears to be based on personal opinion ?

---

I watch a lot of documentaries and seem to absorb a lot of info unconsciously, so it's hard for me to tell what exactly forms my opinion. But it isn't even an opinion, it's just a hypothesis.

I still don't understand why you confine the potential of influence of genes to a single gene, and you seem unable to explain why. If I had your expert knowledge, I don't think I'd struggle to explain myself in simple enough terms for someone outside the field to understand.

Quote JAS:

---

I still don't understand why you confine the potential of influence of genes to a single gene, and you seem unable to explain why.

---

I don't. As I have already said :

Quote GTL:

---

There is no scientific possibility of a gene 'for' complex entities like sexuality, musical ability and the like

---

Quote JAS:

---

and you seem unable to explain why.

---

Quote GTL:

---

Twin studies are increasingly recognised as being fundamentally flawed...'Nature' and 'Nurture' are not things that can be quantified in this way...they are complex iterative processess...the assumption of the twin studies that they provide an experimental paradigm in which 'nature' (genes) are 'constant' allowing for the calculation of 'environmental' influence flies in the face of modern genetics, microbiology and experimental psychology. Genes constantly mutate, in twins as in everyone else, under the influence of environmental changes. The environment is a process that can refer to anything from the adjacent gene to the universe containing the solar system containing the planet etc etc..

---

Exactly "a gene". I'm not suggesting there might be "a gene", but a complex mix of many genes responsible for aspects of our physical characterics, and since the brain is also a physical organ, I don't think we can completely exclude it either.

I also think if I asked the top geneticists on the planet, they wouldn't agree that inherited genes could not possibly play a role in regulating brain development. It's just absurd.

Google Search: genes brain development

I do quite a bit of music with adult learners and there is definitely some sort of dividing line between those who can work at it for ever and get some mechanical aptitude but never 'get' it as opposed to those who are musical even if they can only play a few notes. It is possible there is something in some peoples' history, such as having sung in a choir or having learnt to read music while young that would explain some of this, but I don't think it covers everything. Just as the ability to stand up and play a solo is far less to do with technical proficiency than the ability to 'tell a story' and put the music over.

I suspect part of the 'talent' for music is the ability to hear what you're doing in relation to what other people are doing at the same time. Lots of people never have this, hence the threads that come up with monotonous regularity about the 'joys' of playing with apparently deaf guitarists or drummers (and others - not wanting to diss these categories especially).

It's a bit sad when talentless hacks start to get a sense of entitlement after playing incredibly unmusically for x years in a band. And even sadder trying to explain that they don't get the breaks because ... well, just because.

Of course, since every cell of the body has genes, they have influence, but only at the micro level, such as making particular proteins etc.

What I am disputing is the genetic determinist fallacy, that individual genes or groups of genes 'determine' high level behaviour like musical ability etc

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

What I am disputing is the genetic determinist fallacy, that individual genes or groups of genes 'determine' high level behaviour like musical ability etc

---

I don't think one's genetic makeup determines a musical ability (or any other talent) -- the person has to decide to develop that talent for themselves. However, it must inherently provide the foundation of facilities and capabilities that enable a person to develop to a higher standard than someone else. Whether it is the ear's ability to perceive and analyse sounds and pitches, or a physical coordination abaility, or a memory capability or whatever.... these things are heavily influenced by genetic evolution, and it seems obvious that some people will have evolved abilities that make them able to become better musicians than others.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote tacitus:

---

I do quite a bit of music with adult learners and there is definitely some sort of dividing line between those who can work at it for ever and get some mechanical aptitude but never 'get' it as opposed to those who are musical even if they can only play a few notes. It is possible there is something in some peoples' history, such as having sung in a choir or having learnt to read music while young that would explain some of this, but I don't think it covers everything. Just as the ability to stand up and play a solo is far less to do with technical proficiency than the ability to 'tell a story' and put the music over.

---

I see this with young people too, and I agree that some get it and some don't, with a whole spectrum from very musical to not musical at all*. Nearly all of the young people I deal with have difficult backgrounds and this is often their first opportunity to make music for themselves. It can be quite staggering what they produce when they suddenly discover they can do something. Equally there are some that think they can do it (especially if they've had some previous experience), but in fact cannot hold a tune or beat.

I think 'talent' is as good a word as any?

* By 'musical' I mean they can make music of some sort, and express something through the process of making music, not that they formally understand music.

--------------------
getting better all the time..

That's the definition of musical I work to, Adrian. I have players in bands who can argue for hours over the interpretation of printed music and how long a staccato should be or whatever, but mostly they can't play for toffee (highly technical term there). I also have players who play everything with 'character' but it almost never fits what the rest of the group is doing. I still haven't worked out a measure for the musicality of that approach to playing.

While I don't think there is such a thing as a 'music gene', I'm quite happy to accept the idea of a genetic disposition to general creativity, whether that ever develops is another thing of course. You only have to look at how children in the same family are so different in character right from birth to see that there is definitely no blank canvas.

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote J.A.S:

---

But whenever there's a perceived dichotomy, it's the middle path is often the sensible thing to consider first.

---

Maybe this should be a sticky. It's often the best thing to consider last as well, and sometimes the only sensible thing to consider ever.

My prediction is that if I were to read all the nature/nurture research papers the jury will be found to be permanently out. Nobody knows whether or not a combination of genes accounts for talent in some or even all cases. Even the generations of Bach family talent might have been nurture and not nature. Nobody knows. I do not understand the the crticism of your harmless speculation.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

---

I for one disagree strongly because there is a large and growing body of reliable respectable peer-reviewed scientific literature that explains why this is no so.

---

Are you of the opinion then that all brains are equally capable?

---

Why would all brains be equally capable? Goes against Darwinian principles. There are variations in brains, just as other organs and limbs, which could lead to advantages under certain circumstances.

IMO It doesn't matter whether they are equally capable really, the aim should be that each 'brain' gets to achieve its full potential, though the potential of each might vary.

--------------------

Quote J.A.S:

---

I also think if I asked the top geneticists on the planet, they wouldn't agree that inherited genes could not possibly play a role in regulating brain development. It's just absurd.

---

I don’t know about top geneticists...but it is actually psychologists who study cognition and performance, including music....

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

...Whether it is the ear's ability to perceive and analyse sounds and pitches, or a physical coordination abaility, or a memory capability or whatever.... these things are heavily influenced by genetic evolution, and it seems obvious that some people will have evolved abilities that make them able to become better musicians than others. hugh

---

Quote petev3.1:

---

My prediction is that if I were to read all the nature/nurture research papers the jury will be found to be permanently out.

Nobody knows. I do not understand the the crticism of your harmless speculation.

---

But that’s not what the current literature suggests. Actually there are lots of researchers who know quite a lot, such as the recognised expert on the psychology of music, Professor John Sloboda.

Part C of his 2005 book ‘Exploring the musical mind’ entitled ‘Talent and skill development’ comprises an extensive review of the evidence.

Especially ch 16 ‘The acquisition of musical performance expertise: deconstructing the ‘talent’ account of individual differences in musical expressivity’ and ch 17 ‘Are some children more gifted for music than others?’

These my be something of a challenge to those of who clearly favour genetic explanations. Part C is just over 70 pages long, so if you want the detail, you will have to read it yourself. All I will do here is try and summarise :

‘Heritability estimates, where available, are low’ p293

‘Evidence for inheritance of differences in specific intellectual and mental characteristics is, in fact, very hard to find...’ p297

‘On the other hand, there is a large and growing body of evidence from a number of sources....that differences in early childhood experience can have a profound effect on later cognitive functioning...’ p298

‘To summarize the argument so far, I hope i have demonstrated that it is generally impossible to conclude, from observing two children differing in musical behaviour, that they differ in musical talent, if by talent one means an inherited or inborn difference in capacity.’ p299

‘What we can say with some certainty is that there are a set of circumstances which will increase the chances of attainment of high levels of excellence...This picture contradicts three deeply held ingrained cultural myths, The first myth is that musical achievement depends on the pre-existence of a rare inherited quality ‘talent’.... p312

As I mentioned above, I think the biggest difference between creative/artistic and non-creative/artistic people is this difference in how much language dominates their brain. I think most people use language as a primary mode of thought which makes them over-simplify the world. They ignore nuances and details because they are too focussed on meaning. They do tend to be more successful in life actually because they are better at ignoring details, and are able instead to focus on practical concerns that determine everyday/financial success.

But this fails them when it comes to art, music, film, etc, where the greatness is in those features that aren't practical, or significant to some kind of understanding. I know from talking to people about films that most people seem to miss everything that makes a film really special. "Oh, I don't remember that bit." They are more likely to dislike a film because of story than because of directing or acting.

I think the dominance of this verbal mode of thought has led to concept art being more popular too, and it is no coincidence that conceptual artists are very good at running their careers like a successful business.

I mentioned above about most children's drawings being a kind of diagram based on words. (Many adult drawings are like this too.) Confirmation of this lies in the fact that (such) children seldom draw that which they cannot yet name.

It's not surprising then that a disproportionate number of successful artists, inventors and innovators possessed some level of dyslexia or late verbal development. An extreme case (an autistic child revealed simply as ‘Nadia’) displayed remarkable skill at representational and imaginative drawing at age four, but possessed a tiny vocabulary compared to normal children of the same age. Interestingly, as she responded well to treatment and progressed in verbal communicative skills, she gradually lost her ability to draw.

A similar problem occurs in formal music training to some extent. Many musicians brought up with notation as a constant reference seem to be uncomfortable without it. They claim not to be able to play without notation, or try to reduce everything they hear to its written-down form. So, what about all those timbral nuances that are lost to notation? Well, from my experience, many such musicians are less impressed by these aspects.

Anyway, explaining the limitations of words using words is exhaustingly awkward and counterintuitive, so I'll leave it here...

"The painter who strives to represent reality must transcend his own perception. He must ignore or override the very mechanisms in his mind that create objects out of images." ~Colin Blakemore

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite." ~William Blake

"Tyranny is the absence of complexity or nuance" ~André Gide

I think you are way too clever for this forum mate. I didn't understand any of that.

JAS

My stance was taken from the scientific studies of the question, of which Sloboda is arguably the leading light.

As far as I can see, your latest reply is on a different tack ?

In his extensive review Sloboba deals, inter alia, with the question of powerful yet damaging 'cultural myths' about music.

I hope you find the time to read it, as you are clearly very interested in these questions.

Quote:

---

As far as I can see, your latest reply is on a different track ?

---

I don't know whether or not this is influenced by genetics -is dyslexia/late language development genetic? But I was, I suppose, in more agreement with you in this respect because surely we can bring children up to be much less focused on language and more on sensations, spatial awareness, colours, sounds, etc. How great they can become at a specific area, like dancing, music, painting skill, etc, well I don't know if it can be the same for everyone unfortunately.

Anyway, what I meant about language dominance... I just think it's about language and symbols being an artificial mode of thought (rather than the popular left/right hemisphere notion.)

I think it's a real problem that is caused by being brought up from day one to talk. Of course, this is vital and partly what makes us human, but I think we need to compensate this fixation on words and symbols by teaching non-verbal skills like life-drawing, sculpture and music more seriously.

I remember walking into a gallery once, and when I looked around everybody was just reading (the desciptions next to the painting). I simply think most people are too focused on what everything might mean. Even where there is none, people look for significance anyway like they do in horoscopes. Most art documenteries sound like the wild speculations of mystics to me.

There was an interview on telly recently with a conceptual sculptor who argued "if there's no political or philosophical message... what's the point?" I stongly disagree with this notion. Art is not some form of 'illustrated philosophy', and I feel that beauty itself is something profound in art and not something superficial. Some people think this about music too, that the music is a mere decoration to the 'more important' words and meaning. Why is meaning considered all important, especially when there often isn't any?

When a film is really lacking in this story/language area, but not in others, it really separates out people. For example, there will be those who confidently think that the Spaghetti Westerns are trash because -yes the stories are absurdly macho (tongue-in-cheek actually) and simplistic. There are no twists, very little dialogue, and no difficult plot to grapple with.

But, these would actually detract from what makes these films cinematic gold: The characters, their haggard faces and odd anonymity, Sergio Leone's excellent stylistic innovations in lighting, directing and spacing of figures, the mood, location and wide vistas, the film colours, the intro animations, simple pleasures like smoking and cooking food outdoors and grabbing sleep when you really need it, the dirt and dust, and of course the sounds and excellent music by Ennio Morricone. Some good images can be found here.

Quote:

---

I hope you find the time to read it, as you are clearly very interested in these questions.

---

I would like to, but it probably seems like I'm more interested than I am. I really just sick these posts out as I'm thinking them. I have far too much to say about many things and I don't really know what is worth anything. The language thing is just very rarely spoken about -perhaps because it's ...futile? I've never let that stop me.

Quote White Car Man:

---

I think you are way too clever for this forum mate. I didn't understand any of that.

---

It's quite simple. We divide people up into various groupes and then decide that one group is more worthy than another... we can then ridicule the less worthy groupes.

It's standard stuff old boy, please try and keep up.

I've put this thought in a separate post in case the moderators would rather delete it...

I think for many adults, perhaps their only hope of breaking out of this artificial mould (of words, symbols, categories, pigeon holes, stereotypes, etc) might be a controlled mescaline trip in a beautiful garden somewhere (perhaps with a doctor's guidance). I'm quite interested in this experience after reading 'The Doors of Perception' by Aldous Huxley. (His 'Lecture on Language' is also significant to this subject.)

I'm not really interested in acid trips that make you see things that aren't there, or make you laugh your head off for 8 hours, but mescaline (not known to be dangerous) simply turns off the parts of the brain that interpret the world artificially.

Before mods get too worried... mescaline as a dried cactus can be bought and sold legally in the UK (but only for native Indians in the USA).

None of those things are artificial. We need to be able to categorize and pidgeonhole, identify and memorize shapes an symbols, all animals do. It's a key skill required to find food, find home, choose a nest site, gather nest materials, avoid predators, find an appropriate mate and so on.