[Ellahn]

Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts of a Chess game), doesn't account for perception of time (Time passes slowly when we don't like what we're doing) and completely ignores training "quality" (Playing chess against newbies is useless as practice, playing against masters is enlightening).

It's ALSO not your "fault" that you do not excel at something. Your experiences ever since you were a baby shaped you, your tastes and pretty much determined your whole life.

Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.

Obviously, being complex areas they are affected by many indirect skills, and the more something is loved, the safer it is to assume the indirect skills involved are also loved or at least liked, indirect skills matter. Clearly fiddling with computers and watching movies that involve technology is not programming, but will make you better at it.

In the end, the best explanation so far is that your tastes are the defining factor. And yes, it can be argued that tastes are genetic, but currently there's not nearly enough data to debunk the standing theory, we need more studies and we need better studies, taking all variables into account and actually monitoring the subjects throughout their lives.

Maybe in 50 years we'll find out where our tastes come from. Not that it actually matters since it's out of our control anyways.

[JackMorgan]

I've got over a decade of deliberate and intense study and practice in programming. I love it and I love learning new things about it. I've worked in half a dozen professional languages and over a dozen for fun. I give conference talks and have two books out. And yet several people I work with can absolutely run circles around me due to much better long and short term memory. For every hour I put in, they can get farther with ten minutes. I only hold my own in the same league as them with 5x more effort. It's absolutely possible that there is a "wet-ware" component to mastery.

[Ellahn]

And you probably run circles around a lot of people. If anybody said you were gifted it would be a lie, it's the result of dedication. I've never seen anyone say "I have talent", and I've been to music and computer science colleges. I've seen a lot of people saying that other people have talent though.

But my point is not that everyone faces the same hardships, is just that those hardships or lack thereof are not genetic but acquired, probably mostly during early childhood but I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.

I just think we shouldn't dismiss achievements as a result of just talent (or luck). Luck actually plays a role, as well as many other things (As I said, economic and social situations and a lot more).

We just need to be sceptical of linking stuff to genes, humans are not so simple. There are many other factors at play, and even if we can't change ourselves, we may be able to raise our kids better by considering these subtleties and their possible impact.

Plus those "geniuses" love when people acknowledge their hard work, try talking to them about it. I find the amount of effort some people put into their craft to be staggering.

[sametmax]

> everyone starts on even ground

No everyone doesn't. Some people are born sick, some have better cardio, some take more weight easily, some people are born twice as big, some grow very little...

And it's the same with mind abilities. Your mind have various qualities, and you are not born equals to others. Some can concentrate better, some can abstract less, some more creative, some are shy.

Add all the differences, and yes, you have people that will have an easier time than others. Bolt and Tyson have been trained, but they started with a nice base to work on.

[Ellahn]

OK, I didn't consider health issues.

And obviously some people have easier or harder times. I am simply more aligned with modern humanist psychology, believing environment is way more relevant than genetics.

This doesn't mean you're at fault for sometimes having a hard time keeping up, this just means that it's most likely not in your genes.

[paulpauper]

Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.

Yes, technically, no one is born knowing trig or calculus, but the people with genetic gifts make the transition from 'shitty' to 'good' much faster than those without such endowments, all else being equal. An elementary school environment where all children come from similar backgrounds and are young enough that 1000's of hours of practice is impossible, teachers can readily identify the gifted from the average--the gifted tend to know so much more and learn so much faster than everyone else (in the classroom environment, where parenting cannot be a factor), and it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous. This is because gifted children learn with fewer repetitions (due to superior working memory and or other factors), which is key.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous

I disagree; parenting during the earliest years makes a huge difference. By the time they get to elementary school, some parents have been reading to their kids and some haven't, some parents gave their kids more educationally incline toys and some didn't, and some kids, whether by parental choice or by chance, have been watching more educational programs on television or less.

Early brain development is fast enough that even a few years of environmental factors can absolutely make a difference.

[Ellahn]

One of my points. Hard (And dangerous) to pin things on genes with so many factors at play.

[watwut]

Finger length is relevant factor in piano play. Most people dont hear soinds as well as pro-musicians, our ears webe born less good. That would be talent. More generally, fine motor skills are simply not equal between children even when the kid tries hard.

The importance of right genes is pretty clear when you look at sports. Different sports favor different body types and if you don't have one, you won't suceed.

[Ellahn]

Not sure what it's called in English, but there's perfect/absolute hearing, in which a person somehow knows the actual frequency of a note.

I know a couple musicians that have it, one of them lost it in an accident, both studied a lot, and most musicians I know, including some of the most successful ones, don't have this.

It's a good point, but empirically not verifiable, musicians train to identify intervals (Even the ones with perfect hearing), and in a similar discussion in class when I studied for a music degree, the only things the class disagreed were the impact of perfect hearing in the likelihood of becoming a musician, and that there may be some innate ability to maintain rhythm. On everything else we were unanimous in believing there is no such thing as talent.

Now you're free to believe differently, still, people that you think have "talent" will mostly be offended and feel that their hard work is not being recognized. Phelps isn't amazing BECAUSE of his body. His body is just a very small part of what makes him awesome, and though maybe a bit less awesome, he could still be awesome with a different body.