Brain debate
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
I think personality is the key to what someone becomes good at. If you have an introverted personality, you're more likely to choose interest that doesn't require interraction with people. Since you don't have any parties to attend:), you're more likely to spend the time required to gain expertise(the expertise need not be in something positive, maybe serial killing?:~ ). Where as someone extroverted will naturally gravitate towards people oriented interest, and wont have the level of solitude require to excel at subjects like physics/math... There may however be some natural dispositions that favor people in various disciplines. I am sitting in my flame proof buncker, so don't even bother. by the way, perl stinks.
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
It's the brain. But, using it can improve things. I should probably add some empirical data, so: in studies involving related people separated at birth, twins show the highest correlation in their IQs. Siblings show similar, though less correlated IQs. And strangers have no correlation in their IQs. From a mathematical standpoint, when comparing twins adopted into separate families against strangers adopted into separate families, there is a 50% correlation between twin's IQs, whereas there is none between strangers. (Interestingly, twins IQs become more similar - not less - as they get older. What probably happens is that the adoptive parents have a great deal of control over the environment when a child is young - so their IQ is more similar to the adoptive parents, whether that is higher or lower. But as the child gets older, they begin to take more control over their environment, which allows them to construct an environment more "in line" with stimulating or supressing their own intelligence.) At best, you could argue that genetics make people more or less interested in learning, which makes them smarter - in that case, it's not that the brain is somehow better at learning, it is more indirect than that. If that explanation is true, it throws a wrench in the whole nature versus nurture question because it means that nature is influencing people to seekout the nurture that builds intelligence. The other explanation is simply that some brains really are better at learning. Both might be true, but I would be surprised if the latter explanation (some brains are better at learning) was completely false. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
I agree with you 100%. I think what separates a scientist from a guitar player is interests that were fostered at an early age and the brain adapted to meet those interests because we all know how adaptable the brain is. I just saw something about a study that showed that when a group of people were asked to learn to juggle and practiced daily they not only got better at juggling as expected, there was also a detectible physical change in the brain. When they stopped, 6 months later the physical change was gone. Anyone who says that scientists and great composers are born that way is just fooling themselves, it flies in the face of scientific fact. Some might say the argument that a person is "born that way" is a way to explain away a lack of effort, but I don't believe that, I think the brain adapts to handle what you are interested in and practice at. No amount of effort will make you a great mathematician if you have no interest in it. The interest is the key. People have been known to accomplish truly amazing feats when they were extraordinarly involved and interested and motivated to do so. It all comes down to how much you are interested in doing something. No amount of motivational tapes or positive thinking is going to make a kid a great musician when their parents are forcing them to become one against their will. The kid themselves might even believe they are trying hard and want to do it, but subconsciously I bet you there is zero interest and no good results will come of it. The argument you outline is age old and is often referred to as the "nature versus nurture" argument. I'm firmly on the side of nurture.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose BierceJohn Cardinal wrote: I'm firmly on the side of nurture. I'm firmly on the side of both, if Einstein had grown up on subsistance farm in africa he would never have met his potential. On the other side of the argument there are people whose abilities are so far ahead of the people around them that it cannot be purely their environment that is responsible for their ability. Take John von Neumann for example; the guy could divide 8 digit numbers in his head at the age of 6, had a photographic memory and influenced almost every area of science in the 20th century. People at the Instiute of advanced study semi-jokingly refered to him as a demi god who could do a convincing impression of a human being. This was while Godel and Einstein were there.. I'm never going to be an olympic class sprinter, why should the mind be any different? Ryan
-
I agree with you 100%. I think what separates a scientist from a guitar player is interests that were fostered at an early age and the brain adapted to meet those interests because we all know how adaptable the brain is. I just saw something about a study that showed that when a group of people were asked to learn to juggle and practiced daily they not only got better at juggling as expected, there was also a detectible physical change in the brain. When they stopped, 6 months later the physical change was gone. Anyone who says that scientists and great composers are born that way is just fooling themselves, it flies in the face of scientific fact. Some might say the argument that a person is "born that way" is a way to explain away a lack of effort, but I don't believe that, I think the brain adapts to handle what you are interested in and practice at. No amount of effort will make you a great mathematician if you have no interest in it. The interest is the key. People have been known to accomplish truly amazing feats when they were extraordinarly involved and interested and motivated to do so. It all comes down to how much you are interested in doing something. No amount of motivational tapes or positive thinking is going to make a kid a great musician when their parents are forcing them to become one against their will. The kid themselves might even believe they are trying hard and want to do it, but subconsciously I bet you there is zero interest and no good results will come of it. The argument you outline is age old and is often referred to as the "nature versus nurture" argument. I'm firmly on the side of nurture.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose BierceJohn Cardinal wrote: I think what separates a scientist from a guitar player is interests that were fostered at an early age and the brain adapted to meet those interests because we all know how adaptable the brain is. I have to respectfully disagree. I'm a scientist and a guitar player. Both stem from a marked difference in the way my brain works. I was totally mystified by the noticable differences in cognition among my friends until I was an adult. But I discovered then that I have an unusual capacity for seeing patterns that others lack. I can 'see' a chord progression without having much knowledge of music theory, and I can as readily solve an engineering problem by spotting patterns of system behavior that are very subtle. This ability didn't grow out of an interest in either subject, but rather the interest grew from the inate ability. I was attracted to the things my brain is good at. The hardest choice I ever made in my life was selecting what to study in college. Not because there were so many choices, but because there wasn't anything I didn't excel at. That weird pattern-spotting talent applies to so many fields, most of them technical, that it was really hard to choose just one field to specialize in. Engineering let me combine many different fields of study, and utilize my strange talent to the fullest. I'm not downplaying the role of interest in any way. Interest leads to dedication, and dedication is a prerequisite for excellence in any field. But to ascribe accomplishment solely to interest is shortsighted. Many of us excel in our chosen fields because of inate ability. Brains are complex items, and there is no doubt that the combination of ability and interest can lead to spectacular accomplishment. But to assume that interest is all that is required to create an outstanding performer is silly. Far more people possessed of great interst in a field of accomplishment fail than succeed, all for lack of ability. Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
I think we all definitely have talents but that it does take effort and interest to make anything out of it. Different people have different talents, so one may be horrendous at maths while brilliant at painting. In this crowd the former is held in higher esteem but really they are both admirable traits. Also you tend to be interested in what you are talented at because the sense of achievement is a powerful lure. Path of least resistance for maximum gain. So IMO our brains are different, which is great, hate to all be the same lot of mathematical geniuses. And I am dubious about using IQ to scale people, awful thing to do IMO. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
the grey cell count has to matter, my belief :eek:
-
John Cardinal wrote: I think what separates a scientist from a guitar player is interests that were fostered at an early age and the brain adapted to meet those interests because we all know how adaptable the brain is. I have to respectfully disagree. I'm a scientist and a guitar player. Both stem from a marked difference in the way my brain works. I was totally mystified by the noticable differences in cognition among my friends until I was an adult. But I discovered then that I have an unusual capacity for seeing patterns that others lack. I can 'see' a chord progression without having much knowledge of music theory, and I can as readily solve an engineering problem by spotting patterns of system behavior that are very subtle. This ability didn't grow out of an interest in either subject, but rather the interest grew from the inate ability. I was attracted to the things my brain is good at. The hardest choice I ever made in my life was selecting what to study in college. Not because there were so many choices, but because there wasn't anything I didn't excel at. That weird pattern-spotting talent applies to so many fields, most of them technical, that it was really hard to choose just one field to specialize in. Engineering let me combine many different fields of study, and utilize my strange talent to the fullest. I'm not downplaying the role of interest in any way. Interest leads to dedication, and dedication is a prerequisite for excellence in any field. But to ascribe accomplishment solely to interest is shortsighted. Many of us excel in our chosen fields because of inate ability. Brains are complex items, and there is no doubt that the combination of ability and interest can lead to spectacular accomplishment. But to assume that interest is all that is required to create an outstanding performer is silly. Far more people possessed of great interst in a field of accomplishment fail than succeed, all for lack of ability. Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
I believe different brains have different capacities. That's why people have different IQs, though some of the IQ tests are dumb - like asking who the 5th US President was to an Indian guy, who might barely know the names of the last 3 Presidents. Nish
My take on gmail - Is gmail just a fashion statement? My blog on C++/CLI, MFC/Win32, .NET - void Nish(char* szBlog); My MVP tips, tricks and essays web site - www.voidnish.com
IQ tests are pretty meaningless. They only show that a person can do that particular test. Also they are a learnt ability, i.e. the more of them you do the better you will get. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fuity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain) -
The grey cell count matters a lot. Brain tissue is normally pink, and only turns grey after death. My blog.
ProffK wrote: only turns grey after death. Is this natural or what? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it turned grey as a result of storing it in formaldehyde. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
ProffK wrote: only turns grey after death. Is this natural or what? I seem to remember reading somewhere that it turned grey as a result of storing it in formaldehyde. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
I would say the second is more correct. Sure, effort makes a difference, but it's fairly obvious that some people are highly intelligent without trying very hard, and others try as hard as they can but just can't keep up. Then you look at people like musicians (I'm one, so I know this example). Some people are very musical, other's just can't do anything musical no matter how hard they try. Even being in the same family doesn't really mean a lot. I've been judged to be in the top 2% of musicians in Australia, but my younger sister is about as unmusical as you can get. I know I've put in a lot more effort than her (she has tried to learn piano and flute for a few years though), but neither of us sing much, yet I can sing in tune easily and she can't. Everybody's brain is different. Similar in some ways, but substantially different in others. If everyone was too similar, the world would be a very boring place ;)
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
Ryan Binns wrote: Some people are very musical, other's just can't do anything musical no matter how hard they try. I heard differently: It was about sixty years ago that Dr. Shinichi Suzuki, a Japanese violin teacher, started the Talent Education Movement, with a revolutionary idea that all children can learn to play the violin if they are taught by the same method that they learn to speak their own language.[^] From what I understand of this method - Very few of these children are born with any in build musical ability. Another thing I read was about what languages babies talk. All babies babble in the same language regarless of the language of the parents. Language is taught, it isn't something someone is born with.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
...should prove interesting... http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ein.html[^] John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
Nature vs. nurture. There is a lecture that is played on UCSD TV every now and then by Prof. Ramashandran (sp?). The talk is about brain function in the context of art appreciation - rather interesting. One example case he talks about is synesthesia : A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color. The patients he examined tended to see "5"'s as being tinged red. He proposes that as the numeric and color processing areas are next to each other it is likely that there is some cross wiring. He then talks about metaphor (relating normally unrelated objects) and gives Shakespeare as an example "Juliet is like the sun". He suggests that some of the great artists likely had this kind of cross wiring between various areas of their brain, which allowed them to automatically see metaphors that we would have to labour at to think of. If all this is true (and i think it makes sense) then i would say that some brains are created more 'gifted' than others in certain areas. But, this is hardly the defining factor in intelligence or wisdom. They still need to be able to use the rest of their brain to utilize any advantage they may have. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
Yes effort and usage are part of the things to consider but only part. The brain is an organ that uses chemicals to function. A break down of processing occurs when the process gets to far out of bounds (called dementia folks and it occurs to 50% of the elderly population.) So diet and other enviroments especially in childhood, will effect capability. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
I believe different brains have different capacities. That's why people have different IQs, though some of the IQ tests are dumb - like asking who the 5th US President was to an Indian guy, who might barely know the names of the last 3 Presidents. Nish
My take on gmail - Is gmail just a fashion statement? My blog on C++/CLI, MFC/Win32, .NET - void Nish(char* szBlog); My MVP tips, tricks and essays web site - www.voidnish.com
I agree that few brain fails to develope, but if we talk of fully matured human, is'nt it true that given a condition two person will deliver best (provided the provided conditions are same to both) results provided they give their 100%. I know I am contradicting myself as no two results by different humans will ever match, but is'nt that because of the lack of effort or concentration.
-
I would say the second is more correct. Sure, effort makes a difference, but it's fairly obvious that some people are highly intelligent without trying very hard, and others try as hard as they can but just can't keep up. Then you look at people like musicians (I'm one, so I know this example). Some people are very musical, other's just can't do anything musical no matter how hard they try. Even being in the same family doesn't really mean a lot. I've been judged to be in the top 2% of musicians in Australia, but my younger sister is about as unmusical as you can get. I know I've put in a lot more effort than her (she has tried to learn piano and flute for a few years though), but neither of us sing much, yet I can sing in tune easily and she can't. Everybody's brain is different. Similar in some ways, but substantially different in others. If everyone was too similar, the world would be a very boring place ;)
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
Recognising patterns is the basis of all learning, based on the more primitive recognition of difference. My blog.
Yes, and certainly everyone here at CP is skilled at it - we wouldn't be in the professions we are without that ability. What still amazes me is how the rest of the population can have so much difficulty with it. :( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
I agree with you 100%. I think what separates a scientist from a guitar player is interests that were fostered at an early age and the brain adapted to meet those interests because we all know how adaptable the brain is. I just saw something about a study that showed that when a group of people were asked to learn to juggle and practiced daily they not only got better at juggling as expected, there was also a detectible physical change in the brain. When they stopped, 6 months later the physical change was gone. Anyone who says that scientists and great composers are born that way is just fooling themselves, it flies in the face of scientific fact. Some might say the argument that a person is "born that way" is a way to explain away a lack of effort, but I don't believe that, I think the brain adapts to handle what you are interested in and practice at. No amount of effort will make you a great mathematician if you have no interest in it. The interest is the key. People have been known to accomplish truly amazing feats when they were extraordinarly involved and interested and motivated to do so. It all comes down to how much you are interested in doing something. No amount of motivational tapes or positive thinking is going to make a kid a great musician when their parents are forcing them to become one against their will. The kid themselves might even believe they are trying hard and want to do it, but subconsciously I bet you there is zero interest and no good results will come of it. The argument you outline is age old and is often referred to as the "nature versus nurture" argument. I'm firmly on the side of nurture.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose BierceI believe strongly in nuture and think that some people given the correct exposure can become especially strong in an area relative to their peers. In other words, if a kid is read to and incouraged to speak then their speaking ability will be on par if not better than their peers. However, I do think some people have natural aptitudes for subject areas. When I was about 5 I started staying at my grandmothers and while attending preschool was identified as a student who had difficulty learning, tredemoninately in the area of basic reading and letter recognition I presume. What else would they teach preschoolers. ;-) Unfortunately, I had a speech impediment. While staying with them I started taking an interest in counting change and telling people the purchase price for a order from our produce stand. Within a month I not only learned to add but had began a self instilled understanding of multiplication by memorizing the 5 items costing 1.25 would always sum to 6.25 By the time I began kindergarden I knew my multiplication table to 12. This area came natural too me even though speech and reading aloud didn't despite an immense desire to be successful in this area. I wanted it a lot more than I wanted to be good at math and I focused on getting better considerably to no avail. Math was and has always been easy for me. On a side note. Oddly enough after about a year of loving math and slowly focusing more and more of my energies in this area I "lost" my speech impediment and somehow became a very strong student of both math and the liberal arts. I have also seen my brother take immense interest in something and not picking up on it as quick as I do but I guess one could chalk that up to prior experience in learning new things since I more readily take active interests in different areas...
-
Me and my friends were discussing on a topic: My point was every brain is similar as far as it is functioning well and it is the personal effort that differentiates a scientist to an ordinary man. My other friend believes that it is brain that differentiates an extra talented brain. Any opinion?
What is talented ? Who is to say that a scientist has better skills than this 'ordinary man' surely a large part of the difference is what we know not , not some mythical ability to learn or apply learning in faster more apt ways ?