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.

Groups? I'm talking about the vast majority of people here. I wasn't ridiculing anyone, rather it is they who ridicule non-verbally fixated people and think they know everything because they can name stuff and navigate through the world by over-simplifying (pigeon-holing) everything and ignoring details and complexity.

Look at the revolting patriotism, prejudices, flags, emulates and uniforms that are supposed to signify status. Are non-verbal fixated people likely to have invented such things?

Quote ow:

---

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.

---

It serves a purpose, which is why I did day it was part of what makes us human. But in the modern world, this mode of thought has been developed by education to such an exreme that it has become almost like a detached, primary mode. This could be prevented if we teach subjects that prevent it becoming too dominant much more seriously.

The effect of language dominance has been understood for thousands of years by Zen Buddhists and Taoists.

Language is essentially an artificial, 'digitised' view of the world, whereas reality is seemless. We see more colours than we could ever name, for example, and we could never adequately describe a colour to the blind or a trumpet sound to one who has been deaf from birth.

Society has a view approaching worship of artists. Top artists can earn way above, and have their opinions sought and respected way above their material value to 'practical' society. I would say then it's the absolute opposite to you assertion; the vast majority aren't ridiculing artists... not good ones anyway. Perhaps some twat who puts a glass of water on a shelf or exhibits a pile of bricks... but then hey, why not expose the naked emperor.

No, i'd say in the main that artists are given a pretty good ride.

Quote J.A.S:

---

...The effect of language dominance has been understood for thousands of years by Zen Buddhists and Taoists.

---

Who may be talking out of their arse.

Quote:

---

Language is essentially an artificial, 'digitised' view of the world

---

Is it artificial? Have you ever listened to a pair of blackbirds singing to each other between two trees? It's similar to modem noise actually.

How can it be artificial? We are natural beings and we have language. Actually, we have lots and lots of languages. If it were artificial then wouldn't we just have one?

Quote:

---

No, i'd say in the main that artists are given a pretty good ride.

---

But they're (or rarely) the most deserved. It's all about making money. Paintings are just used as giant stamp collections.

The most practical/analytical people who are regarded as artists (I don't know where they all come from because I don't remember many of them in school) tend to be able to better cope with University courses (i.e. going to the same depressing building for 3 years, talking to the same dullard teachers who try their best to kill the last remnants of inspiration in their once wide-eyed students).

Creative people are especially seen as a problem in schools because they are less likely to conform (they have their own ideas about stuff) and teachers just want to get on with their jobs without the hassle. There are so many online documents dealing with this issue.

So if an artist makes maoney they aren't a real artist?

Real artists can easily be recognised by them being a PITA at school and poverty sticken disfunctionals as adults - unable to function in a world of alphabets?

Come on.

Quote:

---

Who (Zen buddhists) may be talking out of their arse.

---

Oh well, we're on a different page then. No not talking, that's the point. Look at this.

Quote:

---

Have you ever listened to a pair of blackbirds singing to each other between two trees? It's similar to modem noise actually.

---

It's not a complex language that they're conveying. Read this.

Quote:

---

We are natural beings and we have language.

---

Originally, this was not so dominant. It was rather simple, "get this", "run!", "we need to cook this now", not like today. We are the same people, but teaching everything through language has now gone too far.

Quote:

---

So if an artist makes maoney they aren't a real artist?

Real artists can easily be recognised by them being a PITA at school and poverty sticken disfunctionals as adults - unable to function in a world of alphabets?

---

No, that's a (straw man) extreme I never said. All I'm saying, is that many of the greatest artists (of all times) were and are neglected and misunderstood, and this could've been avoided with less biased education.

If you don't wan't to attract these "straw man" arguments as you call them (and i see others have attracted this criticism) then perhaps stop using terms like "the vast majority" and so on.

If you can't provide a bit of balance in the arguments then people just think you're a nutter and try to offer "mirror man revucation." That's what i was doing. You say "I never said that" but you ddn't not say it either.

It's not my job to understand and accomodate for the breadth of your implied exremeties. I onluy know of you what i read.

Now, if i had a pound for every time that someone online had posted a link to some document or the other in the hope that i'd become immediately educated in some blinding flash of wisdom then i'd be a very heavy or rich man depending on the type of pound. You have to use your education to contextualize the word pound as we aren't Genrmans. If you can't say it in a paragraph then it ain't worth saing imo.

Regarding education and back to your point. The job of the educational establishment is to arm children with the skills they will need to get across town, so to speak, not to cater for every nuance of possible human personality. It would be impossible to do that. In fact if you took kids off to the special "pictures and sounds" school there would be outcry, not least from parents who would discrimination. These things have to be dealt with as abstract by parents and perhaps sympathetic teachers.

And if you really wan't to go down the rivers and streams in the moonlight route then there's always religion and religious schools or evern home education.

But all these "greatest people throughout history"?

A piece of great art survives, ike great ideas survive, because aside from breakages and accidents someone always keeps them and treasures them. The greatest works are still with us.

I'm afraid that in the art world there are many pretenders who you'll find in the cheese aisle at the supermarket taking half an hour to choose a piece of cheese because they are all cheese, but slightly different. In fact a lot of no hopers who couldn't find their arse in a thunderstorm.
The "excuse me" mob, always with an excuse.

Get the bloody work out. If it's good it will go the distance. It's not about "oh nobody understands me, tey are so uncooth and vulgar neanderthlas". It's often just a load of old crap! And the alphabet people aren't as polarised as you think. They know crap when they see it.

Hmmm.
Harry Potter
Discworld Series
Great Short Stories of the World

There's a lot of that there writing in those (extremely limited) examples, but each has evoked bright, richly coloured images in my mind. I don't see how the language has limited me in any way at all.

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

Quote Folderol:

---

Hmmm.
Harry Potter
Discworld Series
Great Short Stories of the World

There's a lot of that there writing in those (extremely limited) examples, but each has evoked bright, richly coloured images in my mind. I don't see how the language has limited me in any way at all.

---

To those who love reading or writing creative literature, this is by no means an attack on that art. (Nor is Aldous Huxley's 'Lecture on Language' or 'Doors of Perception'). Words only serve the poet, like paint to the painter, or clay to the sculptor. Great writers imaginatively stretch the limitations of words by means of analogy. They beautifully convey sensations and complexities using references to common sensory –wordless concepts and experiences. But just beyond the realms of common experience and description, words ultimately fail.

(You say Harry Potter? Try William Blake!)

Quote:

---

If you can't provide a bit of balance in the arguments

---

I gave very specific references in answer to your assertions. Birdsong is not a complex computer-like language, buddhist monks are clearly not talking out of their arse, and I claim language-based education was not as dominant as it is now. I say bring back apprenticeships, show kids how, not just lecture them.

Quote:

---

You say "I never said that" but you ddn't not say it either.

---

I didn't not say a lot of things, more things than there is time left in the universe.

Quote:

---

The job of the educational establishment is to arm children with the skills they will need to get across town, so to speak, not to cater for every nuance of possible human personality.

---

If you say so.

Quote:

---

And if you really wan't to go down the rivers and streams in the moonlight route then there's always religion and religious schools or evern home education.

---

I'm actually strongly opposed to faith schools. Buddhism and Taoism have little to do with religion as we know it from scripture-based religions. Some branches have tried to turn them into these kinds of religions but in truth it's just a way of being. Similarly, meditation is just a way to turn off the verbal mind.

Quote:

---

If you can't say it in a paragraph then it ain't worth saing imo.

---

Er... look at your last post.

Quote:

---

"pictures and sounds school"

---

Yes another straw man... pictures and sounds school that's what I had in mind because I'm just so naive and childlike. What's wrong with sculpture, painting, dance, music, meditation?

Ah, the old break up the post and answer lines at a time trick, nice.

I see you have made up a name to call me, also nice.

I tell you what, you remind me of one of those eco-protesters who turn up for protests outside oil comanies in cars.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote Folderol:

---

Hmmm.
Harry Potter
Discworld Series
Great Short Stories of the World

There's a lot of that there writing in those (extremely limited) examples, but each has evoked bright, richly coloured images in my mind. I don't see how the language has limited me in any way at all.

---

To those who love reading or writing creative literature, this is by no means an attack on that art. (Nor is Aldous Huxley's 'Lecture on Language' or 'Doors of Perception'). Words only serve the poet, like paint to the painter, or clay to the sculptor. Great writers imaginatively stretch the limitations of words by means of analogy. They beautifully convey sensations and complexities using references to common sensory –wordless concepts and experiences. But just beyond the realms of common experience and description, words ultimately fail.

(You say Harry Potter? Try William Blake!)

---

So now advanced language is ok as long as it's deemed worthy by you? But there's some other group who, what, aren't using language in a worthy way and so should be put in a box and pointed at? Blake used the language to just "be" but old Bob down the road has been imprisoned in shackles of symbolism, his progeny to be saved from this terible fate at the schoold of pictures and sound?

Quote:

---

Ah, the old break up the post and answer lines at a time trick, nice.

---

I was trying to work out how to do this on my new phone actually.

Quote:

---

I see you have made up a name to call me, also nice.

---

You? No, a straw man the thing that you're stabbing at (i.e. a misrepresentation of my argument). There are a lot of things I've put forward. Many people will understand what I'm trying to say because they'll already have references to go by.

Quote:

---

So now advanced language is ok as long as it's deemed worthy by you? But there's some other group who, what, aren't using language in a worthy way and so should be put in a box and pointed at? Blake used the language to just "be" but old Bob down the road has been imprisoned in shackles of symbolism, his progeny to be saved from this terible fate at the schoold of pictures and sound?

---

Blimey, I just thought s/he should read William Blake. Anyway... I'm off for a nice beer now. It's all just words this you know. Just words.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

---

Ah, the old break up the post and answer lines at a time trick, nice.

---

I was trying to work out how to do this on my new phone actually.

Quote:

---

I see you have made up a name to call me, also nice.

---

You? No, a straw man the thing that you're stabbing at (i.e. a misrepresentation of my argument). There are a lot of things I've put forward. Many people will understand what I'm trying to say because they'll already have references to go by.

---

I'm not making a straw man argument though, that would be slighly misrepresenting your position, but i'm not doing that am i? I'm disagreeing with your position. I can read, i can see what you're saying... I just think it's bollocks and i'm making some attempt to put an alternative view. Not create an alternative view to disagree with.

You must fink i'm daft or summink.

No i'm sorry but i've read and discussed these issues so many times for so many hours with so many people of so many kinds and i see the naivety bouncing off the page. It's nice and idealistic but what happens (and it happens in your text) is that thre's a superior, and an inferior position. It always happens with idealism. There has to be something wrong on order that there can be something, or someone, who's right.

And that makes me sick. I see it with religions, movements, politics... it's so human, it's as human as the smell of an armpit.

That's the enemy. The need to set one person or group off against the other. Or to save some poor sad saps who have just got it all so wrong.

There's never any realistic thought through answers though, just the old pointy finger. And if i see anither text, video, ebook or some other BIG SELL about how wonderful everything could be if we could just get everyone to think like this, or that... well, pass me the bucket.

Enjoy your beer.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

---

So now advanced language is ok as long as it's deemed worthy by you? But there's some other group who, what, aren't using language in a worthy way and so should be put in a box and pointed at? Blake used the language to just "be" but old Bob down the road has been imprisoned in shackles of symbolism, his progeny to be saved from this terible fate at the schoold of pictures and sound?

---

Blimey, I just thought s/he should read William Blake. Anyway... I'm off for a nice beer now. It's all just words this you know. Just words.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Exhaulted Wombat and White Car Man are the same person (the latter being the more 'common sense man' approach). Are you also the same human by any chance? (Just wondering.)

---

You're wrong actually, and I am neither of them. I can tell you though that WVM could teach us all a thing or two about art... there's some people on here who have been around the block a bit. You shouldn't be too quick to be right.

These quotes explain it better than I could...

Aldous Huxley:

"Our language doesn't help us (by its structure) to think of the world as a continuum, [with it] we have to think of it in terms of these seperate objects ...whereas of course the world IS a continuum..."

"Again and again, in many traditions, you see enlightenment described as a grammer-transcending state of mind, where the world is looked at, not throught the language and its symbol system, but [aspires to] the direct experience..."

"...though it is absolutely necessary -we would not be human without it- we have to get beyond this preoccupation with language and its limitations..."

"Language, though tremendously important, has limitations and in a variety of ways can lead us astray... it gives us the capacity to be consistent, both for good and for bad in our behaviour... it makes possible for a human being to behave in an intelligent and even angelic way, but also to cherish the most hideous superstitions and prejudices and to act upon them in a consistent and grotesque manner."

"Language is a device that makes it possible for human beings to do continually and in cold blood, what animals can do only in the heat of passion, either in the positive passions of affection or love, or in the negative passions of hatred and dislike".

Goethe:

“We talk far too much. We should talk less and draw more. I personally should like to renounce speech altogether and, like organic Nature, communicate everything I have to say in sketches. That fig tree, this little snake, the cocoon on my window sill quietly awaiting its future – all these are momentous signatures. A person able to decipher their meaning properly would soon be able to dispense with the written or the spoken word altogether. The more I think of it, there is something futile, mediocre, even foppish about speech.”

Marshall McLuhan:

"The greatest propaganda in the world is our mother tongue."

"Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy."

I would extend this to stereotyping too, which is basically reducing the complexity of people to fixed cartoonish labels. Within the verbally-fixated population there is obviously great flexibility and everyone is able to transcend this to some extent. But it is at the root of all prejudice.

If you said the name "Beethoven" to most people walking about, they'd instantly get an absurd image of a wild man shaking a stick in front of an orchestra, or something like that. This is the symbol for 'classical music' they find laughable. This might seem pretty harmless, but think what cartoon image many people see in their minds when you say the word "muslim".

These are symbols people develop in their own minds, yet they're symbols they might despise and use in place of true complexity, so they can no longer see it and don't need to deal with it.

Now, if you say "verbally-fixated"...? No I don't think of a symbol. I see it as a condition that affects us all to some extent.

Is it possible to look at a word and not read it? Similarly, most people find it absolutely impossible to stop thinking, to stop that internal chatter. (For me, only music and art really stop it completely.) That's a pretty insane condition for (yes) the 'vast majority' of people to be in.

So, I don't think it's something nutty or even radical to suggest that we try to address the balance and teach (some) subjects like life-drawing, sculpture, photography, music and dance just as seriously as we teach Maths, English and Science.

Can you imagine if most people were as bad at maths and English as they were at drawing? There'd be a national outcry. Yet, I believe the effect of learning things like life-drawing goes beyond the skill, and helps people see more beauty in their lives and in people.

Quote:

---

And that makes me sick. I see it with religions, movements, politics... it's so human, it's as human as the smell of an armpit... And if i see anither text, video, ebook or some other BIG SELL about how wonderful everything could be if we could just get everyone to think like this, or that... well, pass me the bucket.

---

Wow, I just suggested we should teach art and music as seriously as symbol-based subjects -quite doable, hardly idealistic.

Where did I say I wanted everyone to think a certain way? The whole point is to actually get people to think in more flexible ways rather than verbally, or in cartoonish categories like...

Quote:

---

"eco-protesters who turn up for protests outside oil comanies in cars"

---

...which is just like that "people who protest against capitalism while drinking Starbucks coffee" one.

What the hell are these people supposed to do when they live within this infrastructure? Never protest? Stop drinking coffee even when they're freezing their nuts off?

It is this thinking that made me wonder if you are White Car Man, because you both seem to think people are hypocrites if they don't take everything to the absolute extreme logical conclusion. Like I suggested working within limitations when composing, so then I must also hop on one leg wearing a thong, playing one note on the piano, or whatever to remain faithful to the notion. That is being too fixated on the word 'limitation' and not on what people might mean by 'working with limitations'.

Do you think that people with a limited vocabulary are closer to an ideal?

Like the Blackbirds? Someone has worked out that they have a very limited vocabulary, yes? But what about Cantonese? The meaning is in the inflection. So perhaps the Blackbird has a wide vocabulary but because none of them have learned to speak a western language they can't explain the intricacies in words we understand. Is that a possiblity?

But lests say he's right, the person with the theory about Blacknird language. Lets say that because he's right then the Blackbird is closer to an ideal, it's possible. Closer to an idea because there's a limited vocabulary.

So does someone brought up in an intellectually deprived family, an illiterate; are they closer to an ideal?

Orwell saw a dystopian future where the plebs were controlled in part through a limited vocabulary. But in your vision they would actually be better off, less corrupted by words.

I just don't understand why there's a need to swing to polar opposites. We have complex language, we also have art, dancing, music, architecture, dreams and so on. Do we have to dump our complex language to reach some high life quality ideal Zen state? We don't have to know the names of stars to appreciate the night sky, nobody does. Eveyone wonders at the night sky whether or whatever language they have. How many stars can the average gazer name?

I think maybe, the average Joe is underestimated by a certain breed of intellectual, or people with pretentions to intellectualism.

And you didn't "just" say xyz, you've said loads of stuff and linked lots of stuff to get your point across... my "sick of" comment was about all of that and the other things i detailed. No doubt people who have the time to read this bollocks will know what i mean and agree or disagree, headliners will decide in theor way too. We put our stuff out there and wait for the fruit salad to hit us, or flowers. I don't want to, or think i can control others. We just say or bit, put the work out, people react to it based on such a complex set of factors, so what? That's the beauty of it. Kate Bush sings "It's in the trees, it's coming" and a million people all get a different picture in their head.

Language is great imo, and the more of it the better. I can show you a picture of a tree but so what, with language i can tell you what i think about the tree, building community, our greatest strength.

But hey, if you think we would be beter off with, yes, no, food, danger, sex... Fine. I disagree. I don't have to be WVM to disagree with you. There's probably millions of people that disagree with you and i'm just another one of those.

You make some good points though, quite thought provoking sometimes. I'll always argue though, every time with anyone because that's how we reached the level of sophistication we have an a species... we argue our case and we make others dig depper and the depper the better.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

Quote GTL:

---

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.

---

No! That is NOT what I was saying !

You are NOT agreeing with me !

Quote:

---

So does someone brought up in an intellectually deprived family, an illiterate; are they closer to an ideal?

---

Now you are suggesting I'm advocating another extreme. I'm not.

I said: "...we should teach art and music as seriously as symbol-based subjects -quite doable, hardly idealistic."

We should try to develop both to an equal extent depending on the strengths of the child. A child who can draw well but can't tell the time might be too dominant in the 'right brain hemisphere' (spatial) tasks. We need to get a balance, but also allow people to develop their particular strengths (rather than just compensate their weaknesses).

Quote:

---

No! That is NOT what I was saying !

You are NOT agreeing with me !

---

Blimey, calm down. I meant I was agreeing that talent might be developed rather than inborn. (In my opinion, by encouraging children to see through to the actual 'stuff' of reality.)

Quote J.A.S:

---

...We need to get a balance.

---

Yes and No, what we need is 100% literacy at 11 years. Once we have that then we can start bollocking around with soft subjects. Then our prison populations would fall, our vast swathes of kids alientated form society would start to shrink to something manageable and armed with good litteacy people can then start to read and understand all those great texts you linked and expand their minds in other ways. And given all that money and resource we free up as our social problems diminish we can then have some good development programmes for people with "talents".

Quote:

---

Yes and No, what we need is 100% literacy at 11 years. Once we have that then we can start bollocking around with soft subjects.

---

Bollocking around? 'Soft' subjects? What first attracted you to the art of music?

Spatial skills need to be developed just as early in order to prevent language becoming too dominant. It's not that difficult... you just get kids to sketch shapes from a book, then pictures, then from life. Ask them to act or dance early enough in their lives and they'll lose self-consciousness and burn up some of that fat. Get them to play in a band after school rather than boozing at bus-stops. Let them grow their own vegetables so they are curious enough to taste them. All this should be completely normal.

Expressing ourselves through the arts from an early age might actually prevent many people turning to crime for money (to try to buy fake happiness through material things).

Also, people go insane through 'over-thinking' much more often than through some biological brain problem. By doing things that interupt and stop this endless cycle of obsessive thought in people's minds, they can avoid this turning into a serious psychlogical problem.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

---

Yes and No, what we need is 100% literacy at 11 years. Once we have that then we can start bollocking around with soft subjects.

---

Bollocking around? 'Soft' subjects? What first attracted you to the art of music?

---

I don't know. I've been singing and drawing and playing and wondering ever since i can remember. It had absolutely nothing to do with school. My big sister get me a guitar at five years old but we always had a piano and i've always played. So what first attracted me? I have absolutely no idea.

Like i say, nothing to do with school. Thank god i wasn't whisked off to the school of light and sound though, might have missed all that great science and history and English and math, and more importantly a diverse community of kids with different talents.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Quote:

---

Yes and No, what we need is 100% literacy at 11 years. Once we have that then we can start bollocking around with soft subjects.

---

Bollocking around? 'Soft' subjects? What first attracted you to the art of music?

Spatial skills need to be developed just as early in order to prevent language becoming too dominant. It's not that difficult... you just get kids to sketch shapes from a book, then pictures, then from life. Ask them to act or dance early enough in their lives and they'll lose self-consciousness and burn up some of that fat. Get them to play in a band after school rather than boozing at bus-stops. Let them grow their own vegetables so they are curious enough to taste them. All this should be completely normal.

Expressing ourselves through the arts from an early age might actually prevent many people turning to crime for money (to try to buy fake happiness through material things).

---

"might" prevent is right. I think that's hippy bullshit, sorry. You don't have to steer kids towards art and creativity, if they're into it they'll do it. It's part of being human. The best thing you can do is arm them with language skills.

It's not hard to grow veggies is it. You stick a potato in the ground it grows. You don't need three periods a week to teach that!

Quote:

---

"hippy bullshit"?

---

"Hippy bullshit" was unfortunately tokenistic of genuine ways of life that have been around longer than our culture. Thousands of years in fact.

Quote:

---

You don't have to steer kids towards art and creativity, if they're into it they'll do it. It's part of being human.

---

Education culture steers them away from art and creativity. And it's also about developing spatial skills that can be used in all subjects -even science and maths.

Quote:

---

"It's not hard to grow veggies is it. You stick a potato in the ground it grows. You don't need three periods a week to teach that!

---

Exactly! As I said it's not that difficult -so why don't they do it? It's not about "knowing that they grow from seeds... job done". It's about watching them grow, their changing colours, smelling them, cooking and tasting them. It's about being in touch with reality rather than opening a plastic packet or tin from the supermarket or scoffing some offal pie from Greggs.

Anyway to finish on a less argumentative note...

I feel that the 1950s/60s beat/hippy movements that many are so cynical about today, actually contributed immensely to monumental changes that occurred in Britain and America (liberating African Americans and gays from a living hell, greater freedom of the press, art movements, etc). It did not fail, and the sentiments in that music, comedy, books and film are still influencing young people today, providing alternative views to their right-wing parents, for example.

However, I can understand people having a problem with ideas like 'positive thinking' ... we've all tried it, and how long did it last? A day ot two?

But this is the very problem... it takes about 21 days for something to become a habit, that's what they never tell you! This is because the brain has to make real physical changes (new neural pathways, etc) and divert from the old ones.

So, changing the negative-thought habits of a lifetime is bound to fail unless you do it consistently beyond 3 weeks (a fact known all too well by the military and used to condition new recruits).

By positive thinking I just mean focusing on the positive things that happen, even if it's just a nice bowl of soup you had that day. That's all.

The other week, I forgot my umbrella, I got soaked, splashed and then some moron speeded up when I was crossing the road. How can I think about this positively?

1. I got wet, but at least it was warm weather.
2. The driver's punishment is being who he is.
3. I also saw a huge crow fending off a cat by swooping down at it for about 7 minutes. That was pretty amazing, well worth what led to me to being there at that moment.

Try doing that for 21 days, not too hard maybe.

Meditation too is really nothing special or mystical. Most cultures have something like it. It can take many attempts to get the hang of it, but it is the key to becoming more consistant in mood and temperament, stopping your brain feeding back in the same cycles of thought. You feel more similar from day to day. It makes you feel sharper, it can be as refreshing as REM sleep because you are not even dreaming, it makes you feel more comfortable in your own skin, sort of more intimate with your surroundings. People can sense the difference too, you naturally put them more at ease because you're no longer awkward or nervous. In other people, I've noticed it gives them a sort of strange 'presence', that's hard to explain.

Personally, I don't use a mantra to replace verbal thought, I just focus on breathing the same way a western doctor would advise someone having a panic attack. Everytime a thought comes to mind, I just let it go by constantly re-focusing on the sensation of air going through my nostrils, into my lungs and out.

Unless I do this, only drawing and music (or a hammer blow) can shut my brain up!

I read the original version of that, publish and be damned is my motto. The trouble with standing on a "nice" platform is that it's a bit self limiting, it cuts down one's freedoms of expression.

Whereas for instance everyone knows I'm a sort of "arsehole with a heart" so i can say pretty much what i like without compromising my public image.

There is a newish (2009) book about musical talent from Oxford University Press

The Natural Musician

I haven't read it yet, but will as soon as I can...

In contrast to the more nurture than nature view advanced by Sloboda, the publishers say "Unlike many others, [Author] Kirnarskaya does believe in the existence of talent...(my emphasis)

Has anyone read The Inner Game of Music here? It's pretty much about how language interrupts our natural approach to playing instruments, and makes us nervous, overly critical of ourselves, etc. It was a spin-off from a more famous book for tennis players I think.

Also, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain offers similar insights into life-drawing skills. (For me, this book actually gave me reverse insight into the way other people were who struggle with these subjects more.)

I think there is a tendancy in the west to separate mind and body far too much. The way you're wired up physically, your muscle strength, nerves, etc, all surely influence whether you are going to be able to dance, move with grace, play certain instruments, impress, intimidate, attract, etc, etc. Our brain controls these movements too, and this is a form of intelligence that influences the rest of the brain. Perhaps you can put dance motions, grace, into the contours of a melody, for instance. (Emotions are also physical. Where else to you feel emotions if not in the body? Fear is butterflies, a pounding heart, shaking, dry mouth, wide eyes, tension. Grief adds pressure in the forehead. Love is an all over endorphine rush, exhillaration (increased energy), focus of thought, etc.)

All these physical factors in turn will strongly influence your concept of self, your self-esteem and what you feel you can achieve, confidence and how that influences social skills, how people react to what you do just because of how you act or look. I think as soon as we include all these physical and mental factors, and accept that mental factors are also physical, the concept of 'talent' becomes a bit hazy. I'd tend to use the word 'aptitude' instead. Thus, perhaps Beethoven was singled out by his ambitous father because he had an 'aptitude' for music his brothers didn't.

Quote J.A.S:

---

The way you're wired up physically, your muscle strength, nerves, etc, all surely influence whether you are going to be able to dance, move with grace, play certain instruments...

---

Pay attention at the back !

That's genetic determinism again !

See my previous posts for a reply.

Studies of the Tritone Paradox seem to suggest that the way we hear things as adults is influenced by the speech we were exposed to when we were children .

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=206

--------------------
Music is it's own reward .

Quote J.A.S:

---

So, I don't think it's something nutty or even radical to suggest that we try to address the balance and teach (some) subjects like life-drawing, sculpture, photography, music and dance just as seriously as we teach Maths, English and Science.

---

Yes, these are subjects where a strong grounding in technique is invaluable, training all students to be employable and enabling those who are so inclined (and so gifted) to be creative.

But some idiot has given young musicians and artists the idea that it's all about being "creative" from the outset!

Quote:

---

That's genetic determinism again !

---

Are you seriously suggesting physical characteristics are not genetically determined either? Unless it's an astronomical coincidence that identical twins look the same, of course there's going to be genetic determinism! If twins look the same, why would they not have a similar tendency to develop strong or weak muscles, nerve sensitivity, wiring, etc. In fact, surely they look the same partly because they have these things in common.

They look the same because they are the same, they are the product of a split single fertilized egg.

Extennsive studies of identical twins separated at birth give much weight to the idea that 'nature' is a far stronger determinate in who we are, than 'nurture'.

Quote ow:

---

Extennsive studies of identical twins separated at birth give much weight to the idea that 'nature' is a far stronger determinate in who we are, than 'nurture'.

---

Not in the published scientific literature they don't, as already pointed out.

I think for some of you there is confusion between structure and function; Yes MZ twins look the same, and I look like my relatives, which is structure, but they may choose to behave differently in life, which is function. Although I resemble my relatives quite strongly, my lifestyle choices are dramatically different.

Depends how you feel about the phrase "who we are". That's "who we are", not "what we do".

Be interested to see some published papers on Identicla Twins if you could point meat some good peer reviewed stuff.

Regarding music particularly, as I have already said :

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

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

---

Regarding twin studies in general, a good introduction and overview would be :

1. Chapter 5, 'Heredity and Environment', of 'Themes, Issues and Debates in Psychology' by Richard Gross, 3rd edn.

2. Chapters 41, 'Intelligence', and 50, 'Nature and Nurture', of 'Psychology : The science of mind and behaviour' also by Richard Gross 5th edn, which is a GCE 'A' level/1st year undergrad introductory text, and so aimed at the beginner.

The gist of it is, over the last few decades, it has been found that nature and nurture are processes, rather than things that can be measured....If you want any more detail after this, both give primary sources.

Now that the exam season has just ended, you will likely find them in your local library, if there is still one on your manor.

Some of course may find these complicated, but given this is the SOS forum, I would say they are kindergarten compared to some Roland manuals of my experience hehe..

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

I think for some of you there is confusion between structure and function; Yes MZ twins look the same, and I look like my relatives, which is structure, but they may choose to behave differently in life, which is function. Although I resemble my relatives quite strongly, my lifestyle choices are dramatically different.

---

I think you are also refusing to consider my argument that structure influences function (and vice-versa). You seem to be thinking of the brain or mind as something completely independent of genetically-determined brain and body structures. We have to consider how these unfolding structures influence mental development, and even how the way we look, how physically strong we are, how attractive we are, our hormone levels, etc, influence our mental development. Do you really think these do not influence our concept of self, our temperament, our position in the social hierachy and the influence of all this on our character? I wish this were true.

For a start, we could question why something like a 'nerd' phemomenon exists, and how it is possibly influenced by the way such people look physically. Or, rather, it is society's (still primitive) judgement of a person's worth by their physical prowess.

As far as differences in identical twins are concerned, I have watched a BBC Horizon documentary on this, which involved many different research angles. I saw how when one twin led a drastically different lifestyle, the biggest change was that he became fat and couldn't lose weight easily again like the other twin. This has led to speculation that some obesity might be caused by a virus, but it is probably due to epigenetic changes (genetic 'switches' being flicked).

But still, the physical differences were hardly profound, so if you accept that physical development is regulated to a significant extent by genetics, you have to consider how physical development influences mental development (on many different levels).

Why can't you address specific arguments using your gathered knowledge rather than just pointing to the same researchers? I have a stack of books I need to read already.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Why can't you address specific arguments using your gathered knowledge rather than just pointing to the same researchers?

---

As I have already noted, that superlative review of the area by Sloboda is some 70 pages long.....not something that can easily be reduced to a few hundred words in a forum...but presumably from the contents of your posts, you would disagree ?

And I have already explained that nature and nurture are complex processes rather than ingredients to be quantified.

Also, Sloboda's work would likely be of great interest to many of the forum, given their interest in creativity and musical education etc....

Sorry but I don't think you need to cite detailed research to give an informed opinion on such a simple argument.

It is obvious that, even if everything else were identical, someone with the body of Mike Tyson will inevitably turn out radically different than someone who looks like Rick Moranis from Honey I Blew Up the Kids!

Think about how differently they'd be treated by people, the difference in testosterone and growth hormone levels and the effect of all this on personality, ability, choices, etc.

That's genetic determinism!



But your post clearly disputes this:

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Quote J.A.S:

---

The way you're wired up physically, your muscle strength, nerves, etc, all surely influence whether you are going to be able to dance, move with grace, play certain instruments...

---

Pay attention at the back !

That's genetic determinism again !

---

Bewildering!!!

Quote J.A.S:

---

Sorry but I don't think you need to cite detailed research to give an informed opinion on such a simple argument.

---

Obviously I do not agree with that.

I wonder do you think it is simple because you have chosen not to engage with the science ?

As I have already said, earlier on in this thread :

Quote GTL:

---

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.....

---

Quote:

---

I wonder do you think it is simple because you have chosen not to engage with the science ?

---

I say 'simple' only in reference to my suggestion that, a persons physical heritage and physiognomy will inevitably influence who they become to some extent. I'd say this qualifies as genetic determinism.

IF the science is disputing this (and I doubt it is) I'd say it's on the shoulders of researchers to somehow convince us otherwise.

Quote:

---

If you want to believe in a particular kind of genetic determinism...

---

Again, 'wanting to believe' is a foreign concept to me. I've been an atheist ever since I found out santa was dead. Some things I do want to be true (like goodness in people) but I've no desire to believe something to be true when it isn't. I have nothing to gain from believing physical inheritance influences mental development either.

Thanks


P.S. On a lighter note, I know from wearing costumes at masquerade balls and festivals how a different outward appearence influences 'concept of self'. It's a strange experience to converse with friends all in fancy dress I think. People dance a lot more too. I think the 'Total Recall' idea of escaping oneself might have some real purpose. Nerds can become Greek gods for a day, office workers can become rock stars, judges can become sexual deviants (again). All tribes dress up as creatures and animals to feel different and I think there should be more of it in our culture.