Talent vs. Upbringing/Training/Plastic Surgery/et. al

Ivan

This topic (as so many do) originated from a very drunk discussion about wimmin

We were watching channel 355 on Sky digital, which from about 10pm to 6 am has a program type on called "Minx". This basically involves showing scantily clad women in "sexy" songs. Not bad for passing the time

Anyways, we were watching some Beyonce Knowles song, Baby Boy or some such and we got to talking about how she is, well, for lack of a better term; Gorgeous.

Naturally this lead to a heated debate about the deeper intricacies of beauty and the finer points of what defines a beautiful and talented woman.

Until we got onto the discussion of how Beyonce was basically "made" by her father. He groomed her from a very young age and when Beyonce and Kelly and whoever the 3rd one was formed Destiny's Child, it was Beyonce's daddy who ensured that she was at the front, in every video. That she was the lead singer and the centre point in every concert, ultimately leading to her rise to stardom.

Now, my cohort did not share this view point (partly because I have no proof whatsoever and not knowing the girl intimately, this is pure conjecture) so naturally, he was most verbal in his disagreement.

In any case, we continued the debate onto atheletes, scientists, actors and musicians.

Can you take an ordinary person, train the child to be good at a specific role, coach them in the skills necessary and basically shape that person to become the future greatest singer, actor, musician, athlete?

I was very much for the yes. That beauty in an actor/actress or singer can be encouraged through correct exercise, posture, eating habits and perhaps, to some extent; plastic surgery.

That an athelete can be trained from an exceptionally early age (as we see these days) and guided to the point where s/he can be the greatest boxer/swimmer/runner/jumper/etc. without any knowledge as to whether the child has any natural talent to begin with.

Now, I am not saying that talent does not play some part in the development of stars. But in my opinion, children tend to lean towards activities that they are A) good at and/or that their parents guide them towards. This leads to the child wanting to do something over and over again and thus becoming exceptional at it. A great soccer player at age 6, is surely to become a professional soccer player by age 18 after attending the necessary training camps and schools all the way from age 8 to 18.

I further went on to state that; there is a reason that scientific knowledge and atheletic records (music and acting cannot really be demonstrated in this way so were left out) are constantly pushed further, with each generation.

My conclusion that I drew from this fact, is that a child exposed to current knowledge understands things better and therefore goes on to expand on this knowledge.

For a very basic example, if someone discovered the necessary conditions for splitting the atom at age 24 (its a given that this is not the case). Then another person might grasp the concept of splitting the atom by age 18 and then go on to develop this by age 24 themselves.

Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but I believe the logic is sound.

On a similar note, when the world record for the 100 metres sprint is 10 seconds when you are growing up. Then that is what you are aiming for. To be competitive you aim for 10 seconds, to be the greatest runner of all time (at least for your generation) you are aiming for 9 seconds. Then you finally acheive a 9 second 100 metres sprint in an official tournament. You win some gold medals and you retire, content.

The next generation of runners, are now aiming at 9 seconds for the 100 metre sprint and 8 seconds to be the greatest runner of all time (at least for their generation). I'm sure you can see where I am going with this.

Anyways, I wanted to hear peoples thoughts on this. To be clear, I am not stating that talent does not play a part in the grand scheme of things, as I said I believe children tend to gravitate towards things that they are naturally good at, but rather I am stating that talent plays a less of a role in the sucess of a person, compared to upbringing, oppurtunity, life style, training etc.

While I can appreciate that some people might disagree with quite a few of my statements, I'd appreciate at least a definitive vote as to which plays the bigger part in the success of a famous/beautiful/successful person.

Talent or Upbringing?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could post to explain your view. Though if you make it down this far, fair dues!





Translated from original drunkenese

SimpleSam06

Entire corporations have been founded on the principle of "What one man can do, another man can do". If it works for the money, it works.

Also, oops, I voted wrong.

seamus

While there's a certain amount of intelligence required to get along, I would be of the belief that you can train almost anyone to do anything.

There has been a trend in recent years that the top people in very public fields, such as sport and music, have been pushed by their parents from a very young age - Beyonce, Britney, Tiger Woods, etc etc. This tells us that you can replace talent will practice.

The only thing you'll find however, is that the parents will generally be quite accomplished in the field themselves. Beyonce's father was in the music business iirc, and Tiger's Dad was a good golfer. This could possibly mean that they got some skills from their genetics. But it may also mean that they were just lucky that their parents had the knowledge (not necessarily the skills) to push them.

I think it's fair to say that if any of these people had picked up their profession at 18 or 20, they may be good, but they'd be nobodies. Attractiveness is relative - very few people are genuinely ugly. With the right fitness regime and PR people, almost anyone can become attractive.

Look at Irish women - in the last twenty years they've gone from mumsy schoolgirl looking types, to largely having So-cal styles and the bleached blonde look. In order to overcome the attractiveness issue you mostly just have to throw money at it - and not even surgery.

You are right in one thing though - generations will always build/improve upon what was set out before them. Look at football for a good example. The game of today involves much more fine ball control and tactical skill than the game of 40's and 50's. In fact, I would say that the survival of any sport depends upon the participants constantly changing the game and coming up with new techniques to beat their competitors.

Ivan

Thats some good points there Seamus, bonus because its in line with my thoughts, but I have one very important question...

Do you really think there is a genetic predisposition towards golf? If so, do you think its a dominant gene?

But seriously, I think Beyonce and Tiger etc. are merely great examples of where the right knowledge, given at the right time, along with the right guidance and encouragement to train/practice can create truly skilled people in their chosen fields.

[Disclaimer]
I am in no way calling Britney Spears skilled...
[/Disclaimer]

Ivan

On a similar note, I was just watching average lavigne's new track, Hot [TM] or some such... anyways, I remember reading somewhere that she was a choir singer in Canada. Even sang a Gospel hymn that was recorded on some album no one has ever heard of.

Some talent agent must have seen/heard her and decided, hey, this is my ticket to the high life!

Signed her up, created an image for her, as a pseudo "Skater Chick[TM]" got some 40 year old male to write up some songs for her and watched the cash roll in.

When Avril got some cash and hung out with her peers, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc. she got all "Thats hawt" and changed her own image to be more in line with what she wanted, a sexy generic pop artist 4859. Or maybe her label/producer decided it was time for a change.

Regardless. She is quite attractive, though I dont believe her current cleavage isnt at least a little bit enhanced, through quality bra's or doctors of outrageous cost, good make-up, hair stylists and oodles of cash later and she is another generic pop star. She'll ride the gravy train for another year or so and then fade into obscurity.

Its merely the oppurtunity combined with some talent/training/practice led to her being where she is and given the right life style and oppurtunities, I think anyone could be just like her.

seamus

Ivan wrote: »

Do you really think there is a genetic predisposition towards golf? If so, do you think its a dominant gene?

But seriously, I think Beyonce and Tiger etc. are merely great examples of where the right knowledge, given at the right time, along with the right guidance and encouragement to train/practice can create truly skilled people in their chosen fields.

Obviously not golf specifically, but it is a possibility.

Very often you find that children of people who are talented in certain areas are talented in the same areas themselves - mathematics, music, sport, etc.

However, from a scientist's point of view, it's extremely difficult to get any kind of clean demonstration or untainted results.

For example a child with musical talents and musical parents will probably have grown up in a house full of music. How do we know that the child's talent is genetic and not just merely a side-effect of the long exposure to music?
Same taking Tiger Woods into account. From the age of six months old, his Dad would practice swing in the shed while the child watched. He picked up his first club around two years of age (iirc). So there's ample evidence to suggest that Tiger is good merely because of practice and programming, and genetics are irrelevant. I also agree that timing is important - children learn and adapt much more quickly than adults. While children will always lack the motor skills to be truely brilliant until they hit their mid-teens, their intellectual development far outstrips and adult's.

On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that genetics does play an important part in someone's success. Male atheletes are naturally stronger and faster than female ones, merely because of genetics. There's nothing to suggest that genetic makeup only affects physical characteristics, it probably affects mental and intellectual characteristics too.

I would be of the belief that you need a sprinkling of both to become very successful, but years of solid and determined practice can (to a point) be a substitute for natural talent - and likewise natural talent can (to a point) be a substitute for practice.

Ever been doing something for years that you're pretty good at, then someone else comes along and within 3 weeks is kicking your ass at it?

Ivan

seamus wrote: »

Ever been doing something for years that you're pretty good at, then someone else comes along and within 3 weeks is kicking your ass at it?

No

But ok, you make some fair points in that regard, so I'll give you that.

But here's a question. Assuming Tiger Woods is naturally gifted at playing golf, for whatever reasons. Hypothetically speaking, if his father died when Tiger was only a wee lad, resulting in him never being introduced to golf at least not until a much older age, when perhaps he got interested in it because his father played it. Or he never took it up at all.

Could he at age 20, then go on to become the world class golfer he is today? I dont think so, personally but I guess its not really a question you can correctly quantitive and test for as you so aptly pointed out.

If his father was a great polo player, do you suppose those same natural talent that Tiger possessed could be applied to Polo?

I dont believe Tiger picked up any such talents for playing golf. I believe he picked up the love of the game from his father and the desire to be the best, the basic knowledge and training to become the best at a very young age was embedded in wee Tiger either subconsciously or not and the rest is history. But ultimately, I think this question is more one of opinions than anything else

How would this apply to the arts though?
How can you explain a world class singer/actor coming from a home that where nether parent was never particularly any good at singing/acting or even both parents were involved in the financial/administrative side of singing/dancing/acting and thus introduced their children into this world at a young age.

For instance, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera and someone else were all on the Disney Morning show at a very young age. Clearly they were being groomed for stardom from the word go, yet I dont believe any of their families were particularly exceptional at singing/dancing (of course I dont believe the children are particularly exceptional either but their massive wealth disagrees with me).

JC 2K3

I don't really believe in "talent" tbh. It's all about upbringing and practice.

Sangre

For instance, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera and someone else were all on the Disney Morning show at a very young age. Clearly they were being groomed for stardom from the word go, yet I dont believe any of their families were particularly exceptional at singing/dancing (of course I dont believe the children are particularly exceptional either but their massive wealth disagrees with me).

And all those persons were picked for the Disney show because they were alreay massively talented, they could sing, dance, perform in front of large crowds and take directions. Not exactly the easiest thing for a 12 year old to do. They would have literally beaten 1000s of other applicants to get there in the first place.

Anyway, obviously training and direction helps hugely and the earlier one starts the better but I think its nonsense to say that the best athletes are the best only because of practice. They are the best of because they maxmised their natural genetic advantages with practice and training. I think its silly to suggest anyone can become a world class athlete, musician or anything really with nothing but training. They can will probably be above average, maybe even great but anything beyond that is underlining inante ability.

Do you honestly think Tiger Woods' dad would have kept up the golf with him if he didn't show a great grasp at it from such a young age?

Ivan

Children who have been trained by their parents to sing and dance are already good at taking direction, because its a skill they would have needed to develop from a very young age in order to be able to sing and dance in the first place Performing in front of large crowds is hardly a talent, in anyones book. It takes nerves, confidence and encouragement to do that. There is no natural gene for "cohones"

And yes, I do believe Daddy Woods would have continued to encourage Tiger Woods to continue to play golf, one way or the other. In fact there is no way for us to know if that was the case.

Genetics isnt everything. Determination, a desire to succeed, practice and encouragement are large factors.

The point is, do people succeed due to genetics/talent, or in spite of it?

Sangre

They succeed because of both. Do you think anyone could break the 100m sprint?

I think X Factor and others shows of its ilk clearly show that all the encouragement and practice in the world doesn't necessarily even guarantee mediocrity at a certain talent.