|
|
Truespace 7.6 price?
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Truespace 7.6 price? // Roundtable
Post by brotherx // Jul 16, 2008, 5:45am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
Wizard,
My mum actually was quite good with numbers and very poor at english. I would therefore suggest it is a genetic disposition to skills. My dad and both grandfathers were very skilled with their hands (father is a carpenter, one gf was a plasterer and the other a mechanic) and so is my youngest brother who works in plumbing. My grandmother was also very good at english and my middle brother is an author who has work published but has yet to make any money from it. I see the pattern forming...it all has obvious roots.
Liking Science fiction is not a skill or a learned ability...it is an acquired taste. My wife hated south park until she didn't, X-Files too...and Buffy, heroes, lost, etc...just like I didn't like olives until recently, or feta cheese. you try things often enough you learn to appreciate and even enjoy them.
She hates to admit it but she likes these things due to exposure to them and learning to appreciate them for what they are.
She still hates bad acting which kind of goes hand-in-hand with Science Fiction. She is very very skilled at the english language hence hating the cheesy lines. Her parents are both very skilled at english and also music (father in law played in a string quartet) and my wife actually did a music/teaching degree. We're looking to get a piano. Coincidentally, both her siblings also are academically inclined and have musical ability - they are both in the mathematical field and my father in law is a very skilled economist. |
Post by Steinie // Jul 16, 2008, 5:55am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
In closing, you may not be surprised to know that I was seriously considering writing a book on this and related subjects but then I downloaded tS 3.2 and got sidetracked!!
1) Wizard, You just DID write the book!!:rolleyes:
2) trueSpace is going to cost How Much?!!
3) Sure glad politics and religion wasn't mentioned...:) |
Post by TomG // Jul 16, 2008, 6:00am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
"She still hates bad acting which kind of goes hand-in-hand with Science Fiction"
Sad but true! Thank heavens for books :)
On looking for "talent" or genetic factors that may give that a basis, the study of identical twins raised separately gives weight to the suggestion that even things such as political views or clothing tastes have some genetic foundation - genetically identical twins are more likely to be similar in these items than non-genetically identical twins, even if the genetically identical twins are raised in different households with different environments.
This is the empirical evidence upon which I base my beliefs that some things in a person's make-up, from personality to abilities in various physical and mental skills, have preset levels built in from birth. I do believe everyone has a different rate of learning as a result, and some people may have a ceiling to how far they can go and how good they can get, while others have a significantly higher ceiling.
On pricing, well I can't talk about that just yet, which is why I'm talking about all this other stuff for now ;)
Tom |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 16, 2008, 6:56am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
LOL, but Steinie I did mention both Politics and Religion. :p
And as Wizard already pointed out, the price of waiting for the price of 7.6 is suffering through pointless debate that is only tangentially related to 3D by the stretches of olympic proportion is because if we told you.... Ack wait! No I wasn't going to say anything! ............
.
.
.
[This post has been censored and scrubbed of all sensitive unreleased content. The poster may be unresponsive for a few days as his brain is reprogrammed.] |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 16, 2008, 7:06am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
............
:cool: |
Post by marcel // Jul 16, 2008, 7:18am
|
marcel
Total Posts: 569
|
OUPS!
When i said "Talents is more important than softs" i didn't now how the conversation will be.
I don't speak english very well and i don't understand all but i am sure i have create a new threath in this threath. Is it a talent?
I have my opinion about talents but no word for that.
If i remember, the question was about the TS 7.6 price?... |
Post by Délé // Jul 16, 2008, 8:22am
|
Délé
Total Posts: 1374
|
Ok, I'm not usually one to kick a dead horse...but I've got my kicking boots on today. :)
I have to agree more with Tom. For me the "empirical" evidence is Kim Peek. He was the inspiration behind Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. Kim Peek has autism. As I understand it, the two hemispheres of his brain merge together as opposed to being two halves like in most people. This gives him some incredible advantages, as well as disadvantages.
For instance, he can recall every single word of every single book that he has ever read. He likes to read too, so he has read a lot of books. I recall seeing him in a demonstration at a University, where students were asking him questions about any of the books that he read. He could quote any page of any book verbatim.
Now this is something that I could NEVER learn. I could certainly improve my memorization skills by learning memorization techniques and practicing. However, I will NEVER attain the innate ability that Kim Peek has. This is because his brain works very differently than most. As hard as I try, my brain is just not wired like that.
Oddly enough, Kim Peek has trouble doing ordinary things that we take for granted, like combing our hair or brushing our teeth. These things most people can do much easier than Kim. He needs help doing these things. He does not posses good coordination. Try as he might, he could never be a great gymnast or snowboarder. His brain is not wired to be able to do things involving coordination easily. He could learn to do these things to some extent, but there is always going to be a limit to his abilities in these regards.
Now this is an extreme example, but to me is proof positive that our brains are wired differently and that these differences cause us to be predisposed to certain abilities. We can learn a LOT. I would say that practice and hard work is a bigger part of the picture in most cases. Someone that is determined to learn how to do something can get very good at it if they work at it hard enough. They can even become better than someone with a talent that doesn't utilize it. However, we all still have certain advantages and disadvantages due to how our brains are wired. We can't rule out innate ability or "talent" as a factor. To me there is no question that it plays a part.
Different people have different talents. Some will always be predisposed to excel in areas that others struggle. Personally I think it makes for an interesting and dynamic world. :) |
Post by kena // Jul 16, 2008, 8:34am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
Oddly enough, Kim Peek has trouble doing ordinary things that we take for granted, like combing our hair or brushing our teeth. These things most people can do much easier than Kim. He needs help doing these things. He does not posses good coordination. Try as he might, he could never be a great gymnast or snowboarder. His brain is not wired to be able to do things involving coordination easily. He could learn to do these things to some extent, but there is always going to be a limit to his abilities in these regards.
actually, in a recent special, they reveled that his inability to comb his hair, or to put on a coat was due to an injury to the head he got as a child. His difficulty due to his Brain construction is in socializing. He was not able to conceptualize "being in another man's shoes". He has shocked the medical community by showing that continued exposure to other people is allowing him to learn better how to do that. Previously, they thought that an autistic person just could not learn social skills at all. |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 16, 2008, 8:37am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
These are not my underwear.
Definitely not. Definitely not my underwear. |
Post by Délé // Jul 16, 2008, 8:43am
|
Délé
Total Posts: 1374
|
actually, in a recent special, they reveled that his inability to comb his hair, or to put on a coat was due to an injury to the head he got as a child. His difficulty due to his Brain construction is in socializing. He was not able to conceptualize "being in another man's shoes". He has shocked the medical community by showing that continued exposure to other people is allowing him to learn better how to do that. Previously, they thought that an autistic person just could not learn social skills at all.Ah, I hadn't heard that, interesting. How do they know what is from the autism and what is from the accident though? At any rate, I still think my point is valid. I will never have the memorization capabilities that he has, and he will continue to struggle in other areas that come easily to most people. I'm not saying that he can't learn and improve, only that there are certain things that he will struggle with that others can do more easily.
That's kind of the whole point I was trying to make. Some people will more readily excel in areas where others will struggle. They have a physiological advantage and their ceiling is a tad higher because of it. ;) |
Post by TomG // Jul 16, 2008, 9:32am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
"The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" is a great read. And an awesome title.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 16, 2008, 9:45pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
"She still hates bad acting which kind of goes hand-in-hand with Science Fiction"
Acting? Who needs acting when you've got a space ship!!:D
On looking for "talent" or genetic factors that may give that a basis, the study of identical twins raised separately gives weight to the suggestion that even things such as political views or clothing tastes have some genetic foundation - genetically identical twins are more likely to be similar in these items than non-genetically identical twins, even if the genetically identical twins are raised in different households with different environments. Yeah, I'm aware of this - it's the biggest flaw in my argument and the main reason I'm still up here on the fence.
I suggest it could interesting to study these 'twins in separate upbringing' studies. Asking 'in what way are these two individuals (who are also separated twins) similar?' is bound to produce a list of obvious similarities. What has struck me about the material I've seen on these cases is a lack of questions asking 'in what way are these two individuals (who happen to be separated twins) totally disimilar and how do these answers compare to the first questions and to control groups of pairs of individuals who are not twins?
Astrologers also talk about a phenomenon called 'Astrological Twins' in which totally non genetically related individuals (well as non-individual as it's possible to get seeing as everyone on the planet is descended genetically from 1 of only 8 original couples) display (or perhaps 'appear' to display) remarkable similarities that coincide with similarities in their birth charts.
One person can look at a cloud and say "Look, there's a giraffe" and the people with him will usually also see the giraffe. It's a function of pattern recognition. The whole question of twins - genetic or Astrological - and possible similarities between them is an exercise in seeing patterns in one and recognising similar patterns in the other twin.
It's because of this - and other things like Galileo single handedly removing the entire Earth from the centre of the universe - that I am often suspicious of how things (in this case the pattern in being human that we call talent) appear to look. Is it a giraffe or is it a cloud that only looks like a giraffe? Is it a pattern of behaviour that indicates the existence of Talent or is it something else entirely that just looks like talent? I don't know but I find it fascinating to speculate!!:D
@Délé - Welcome to the trueSpace Philosophical Ramblers Club. You raise a good point with Kim Peek but I'm not sure that it stands as proof of talent.
We can say that Autumn Leaves are brown when they fall from the trees and this is true. The statistical anomalies such as the occasional leaf that falls while it's still green does not prove that Autumn leaves are green when they fall.
Another point, you say "However, we all still have certain advantages and disadvantages due to how our brains are wired" and others have said similar things using the 'wired' metaphor. But our brains are not wired - certainly not in the sense that a computer or a radio receiver is wired. A radio may have an innate talent for picking up radio waves but it's not going to learn any new tricks and suddenly learn how to be a cash register!!
The human brain is a dynamic and ever growing network. Actual physiological and electro-chemical changes occur to the structure of the brain when it learns something.
De Bono uses the metaphor of 'learning surfaces' to describe learning functions. Imagine a tilted sheet of wax and dropping a bead of hot water on it. As the water runs across the wax it creates a channel. The next drop creates another channel - unless it falls close enough to the first channel inwhich case it will increase the first channels size. As more drops fall in similar places - the equivalent of similar experiences - the channels carves get bigger and bigger and form the actual structures of the brain, the physical connections between brain cells.
Now there are only so many connections - although new ones can be made as the brain still learns even in old age, so there is a degree of parallelism. A connection or channel that might be used when ... tying a shoelace may also be used in other action, like buttering your toast or dialing a phone number.
This means that at the cellular connection level a brain cell either fires or it doesn't. Either a charge crosses a particular synaptic gap or it doesn't, making a brain cell a link in a binary network.
In my PC transistors etched onto the CPU chip perform the same task - that of a binary gate. A specific transistor cannot tell the difference between opening in response to input from a Windows Media File or a Jpeg file or a trueSpace Rosetta file. A brain cell cannot tell if it's firing because it's responding to input from a maths problem, or from deciding what to put on your toast or trying to figure out how UV maps work.
Looking at talent like this it's similar to saying that a farm gate has a greater talent for opening for cows than it does for sheep.
Délé says "We can't rule out innate ability or "talent" as a factor" and I agree completely. By the same token we can't rule out the possibilty that talent is an illusion created by the complexity of the underlying processes.
In many cases the metaphor that our brains are 'wired' is useful and productive - in other cases it's useless and counter-productive. I'm taking an awfully long to to say it but I believe that the metaphor that we are 'talented' is often very useful and productive - but it's important to recognise that it can often be useless and counter-productive.
Several weeks ago I watched a local show where this ordinary (ie not autistic or brain damaged) man was given a deck of playing cards. Someone shuffled them for him and asked him to remember the order the cards came out of the deck. He only got 6 cards right out of 52 which doesn'ty suggest he had any great talent for card memorising.
He was then taught memory enhancing methods which we saw him practising over the course of a week. At the end of the show he was given a freshly shuffled deck of cards and was asked to memorise the order which he was able to do with 100% accuracy. Did he already have an undiscovered talent for remembering cards? Or did he simply learn a new and effective strategy for remembering cards? At the end of the day, how can we possibly know if he had an innate talent or not?
An even more interesting question - do I have a 'talent' for really long posts or is it really just an annoying habit?;);):D |
Post by TomG // Jul 17, 2008, 3:16am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Memorizing the cards is an example where a strategy exists that can be learned by any normal person. Same goes for working out "What day of the week was August 15th 1948". These allow us to perform amazing feats.
I am not sure a strategy exists that lets a normal person accurately say how many dots are on screen or how many matches are in a pile, all in a split second, though.
And there is a huge difference between a mechanical task (memorizing a sequence of cards) and an artistic task (having the creativity, imagination etc to come up with the Mona Lisa).
Wiring is an interesting word, but for all connections can change in the brain, there are major patterns of connection in there which are inbuilt too. The brain can build new connections, but it cannot entirely change itself. So, there are some pre-built patterns - take synaesthesia again, there parts of the brain are connected which in normal people are not connected, hearing attaches to sight for instance. Parts of the brain involved in hearing will trigger parts of the brain involved in sight, something that does not happen in most people, and which cannot be trained - the brain cannot "learn" that connection. It's either there at birth, or it is not, and it is beyond the amount of change the brain can do to build that connection.
So just as a radio cannot become a cash register, neither can a non-synaesthetic brain become a synaesthetic one. And, I would argue, neither can a non-Da Vinci brain become a Da Vinci one - a brain can change and grow and improve, a person can learn to say a color for a certain pitch as if having synaesthesia through applying strategies, but they will never actually see the color, they will never attain the overall greatness of a Da Vinci, without being born with that potential (and my argument is, not everyone is born with that potential).
And of course what makes a great person great is more than just one "talent" - its the way many things come together. In the end I think learning a strategy, and having the creativity to apply it in imaginative ways, are two different things. You can be mechanically awesome at playing guitar, techincally great, but produce boring music. You can learn to memorize a deck of cards, but fail to see how the strategy can be used in another situation. You can just lack the imagination, heart, soul, creativity to come up with new ways of thinking, applying skills and strategies etc.
All making good material for the book, I hope, if you decide to return to writing it :) Which reminds me of that quote I half remember "Everyone has a book in them - and for most people that's just where it should stay"
Founded on the same principles I am advocating here, that we all could write a book, learn the skills to write it well technically, but most of us would write pretty lousy books even then, as few of us have "what it takes" to be a good author. Interestingly, there's an area where many people fool themselves the opposite way, rather than thinking there is no way they could have the same talent as a Tolkien, instead they believe they are great writers and can (or could at least) write an awesome book.
However, in this case if you wrote it, I think this book would indeed be an interesting read for those of us interested in this sort of topic :)
Tom
EDIT - though interestingly synaesthetics sometimes have the ability develop later in life, so there's an interesting thing. |
Post by Steinie // Jul 17, 2008, 3:48am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Well I was writing a book but you guys killed that idea.
Tentative title was
"The Man Who Mistook His Secretary for His Wife"
Edit:
I found two uses for the word "Imminent"
We cannot discuss price until tS7.6 release is Imminent.
The farsighted Man's hospital stay is Imminent.
TomG. which is "closer"?:rolleyes::D |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 19, 2008, 4:08am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Damn! Stayed away a couple of days in the hope that tS 7.6 was released - ar Roman updated the Captians Blog - but seeing as none of this happened I guess I'll just carry one where we left off.
Tom - your psychology background is showing! Autism, synaesthesia and so on are examples of brain malfunctions (which is pretty much what psychology is all about - it's not too interested in what brains do when they are working fine!).
Seems to me that 'talent' refers to brains doing things well rather than brains malfunctioning. Thus I'm not sure that discussion of malfunctioning brains is relevant to discussion on brains doing things well. However, I will address autism - particularly the varieties of autism that lead to idiot savants. These savants usually show enormous ability at specific tasks. Invariably (at least as far as I can tell) these savants show special ability in visual cortex functions - IE visual pattern recognition. Those savants that show great musical and mathematical abilities do so through an unusually enhanced ability to recognise and remember patterns. I saw a program about a guy (I think from Brazil IIRC) who was able to be driven around a city he had never been to before. He could then draw this city from any viewpoint to an astounding level of detail - his pictures where huge and could cover entire walls and show architectural details that he had only glimpsed very briefly. This amazing ability depends on pattern recognition and memory. (It should be noted this guy was totally socially inept as is typical with Autism - he was also slowly getting better at social interaction through specialised training).
Tom says "I am not sure a strategy exists that lets a normal person accurately say how many dots are on screen or how many matches are in a pile, all in a split second, though.". This is precisely what makes autism and idiot savants so interesting. For an abnormal person, even one using a malfunctioning mind to be able to accurately count dots on screens and matches in a pile, that brain must be doing something. To undergo a change from a brain that does not know how many matches there are to one that does, a process must occur. There's a good chance that pattern recognition and memory are directly involved. If it was possible to elicit the strategy that damaged brain uses to correctly and almost instantly count matches then why should it not be possible, with focused training to teach this strategy to an undamaged mind?
Tom goes on to say "And there is a huge difference between a mechanical task (memorizing a sequence of cards) and an artistic task (having the creativity, imagination etc to come up with the Mona Lisa)." to which I reply this is a flawed assumption. In order to memorise a sequence of cards, which admittedly would seem like an inhumanly mechanical task, the memory experts look at things that the human mind remembers more easily. The human mind has developed a great facility at memorising patterns, patterns of words and actions, patterns of weather patterns of behaviour. We are all especially good at remembering stories - this is the basis of all preliterate history and of many highly developed skills which have been handed down by word of mouth. We learn at our mothers knee a range of stories that most of us can remember well enough many years later to pass on to our own children.
Story telling and remembering is a talent we all possess as a species, which means it's actually an ability, like the ability to balance, rather than a 'talent.'
The method my card memorising countryman was taught involved extremely high levels of creativity and was in fact not mechanical at all. He was taught to 'create' a story based on how the shuffled cards came out of the deck. The King clubbed the 9 heart sick guys who were merchants twice as rich as the four diggers who worked for the queen of diamonds.... and so on. (King of clubs, 9 of hearts 2 of diamonds 4 of spades, queen of diamonds....). Over the course of a single week this guy learned to create memorable stories and link them to the cards. To do so requires a large degree of creativity and imagination plus the ability to recognise patterns and remember them.
Thus it seems clear to me that a person possessing the same skills for the techniques used by Leonardo as well as the same strategies for accessing creativity learned by Leonardo would be able to paint a picture which might look totally different to the Mona Lisa yet still possess the same or greater degree of artistic merit.
When we look at Leonardo's life he was mentored and supported by rich people to allow him to continue painting. Now suppose he had lacked the political awareness that the maintenance of such mentoring requires he may well have lost that patronage and through necessity become Leonardo the Rat Catcher while the more politically savvy Brian of Vinci became the worlds most renowned painter. How then would history know of Leonardo's 'talent'?
"So just as a radio cannot become a cash register, neither can a non-synaesthetic brain become a synaesthetic one. And, I would argue, neither can a non-Da Vinci brain become a Da Vinci one" This point doesn't hold up for me - for a non-synaesthesic brain to be a synaesthesic one is more like a broken radio becoming a working one. Da Vinci's brain was a working model - the work it created was built in accordance with learned skills with pigments and learned skills with the depiction of light and shade and the creativity he displayed was likewise the result of the learned application of strategies for accessing creativity. All of those strategies and skills can be learned (as Da Vinci proves) and so can also be learned by any other working brain given the same environmental background.
"You can learn to memorize a deck of cards, but fail to see how the strategy can be used in another situation. You can just lack the imagination, heart, soul, creativity to come up with new ways of thinking, applying skills and strategies etc." - This seems really unlikely to me. The 'trick' or strategy for learning to memorise a deck of cards requires the specific development of the imagination. If you can imagine and remember a story mnemonic that allows the recall of the order of 52 cards how much further imagination does it tack to apply this strategy to the memorisation of any list of anything, street names, stock lists, sports scores, peoples names etc. Learning how to count ten oranges also allows you to count ten of anything else.
"You can be mechanically awesome at playing guitar, techincally great, but produce boring music" Boring according to whom? Someone who does not like blues for example might consider Clapton's music to be boring - there is certainly a distinctive similarity to the Clapton sound that makes his music instantly recognisable as his. I don't see how it is possible to say someone is mechanically awesome and technically great yet produces universally boring music. Seems to me the acquisition of mechanical and technical prowess (particularly of music) must also by definition include the acquisition of the comparatively much easier skills of improvisation.
"And of course what makes a great person great is more than just one "talent" - its the way many things come together" We're in agreement here Tom. I was in a band with a drummer guitarist vocalist guy who used to say - "you can always find someone with the ability and you can always find someone with the attitude - it's finding someone with both ability and attitude that's hard". I agree and so I believe the thing that usually gets casually dismissed as 'talent' is actually the sum of a great variety of factors - not least ones own self esteem and self image.
"Interestingly, there's an area where many people fool themselves the opposite way, rather than thinking there is no way they could have the same talent as a Tolkien, instead they believe they are great writers and can (or could at least) write an awesome book". LOL - you got that right - which is 0ne reason why I have 2 half written novels and about six other unwritten books in my head that will almost certainly stay there!
Actually Tolkien is an interesting choice of example - his Lord Of The Rings books are the biggest selling books of all time (after the Bible) - yet many experts say that he wasn't that great an author. Just as the narrative gets some momentum he slows it right down again (the Council of Elrond), he introduces secondary characters at great length and them writes them out of the story (Tom Bombadil) he wanders off into unnecessary and distracting historical poems (The Lay of Beren and Luthien), creates perhaps the s-l-ow-e-s-t characters of all time (the Ents) uses literally thousands of complex names and so on. He may have been an average writer but his genius came from taking the strategies of earlier writers form history and from literature. He distilled those strategic elements - dwarfs, dragons wizards, epic battles, songs and riddles - all story themes that had been in use since the time of Beowulf and Gilgamesh - and took those storytelling elements, learned from other writers - as the inspiration for his own version.
It is said that there is nothing that has not been done before - anything 'new' is actually just a different way of stacking older existing elements. 'All Art is plagiarism' as the saying goes. If this is so what space is there for such a thing as innate inborn genetically endowed talent?
I still find myself having to doubt the existence of such a thing as talent. It just does not add up for me. |
Post by Emma // Jul 19, 2008, 4:18am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
I found two uses for the word "Imminent"
OK, so you gave a 1 , a 2 and I can give you a 3 for it : bevorstehend
for that word you can use "imminent" as english translation
OK, so who has a 4 :D |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 19, 2008, 4:33am
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
Emma !
I got a 4 ! which is Irrtum !:D
http://www.dict.cc/?s=+Irrtum
keep on rendering !:D;)
Peter |
Post by splinters // Jul 19, 2008, 5:50am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Well, I am going camping for a few days in sunny Derbyshire...I hope there will be some news on pricing and release dates when I return...:D
I can but hope....;) |
Post by frootee // Jul 19, 2008, 6:02am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Have fun splinters! We'll see you when you get back. :) |
Post by TomG // Jul 19, 2008, 3:13pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
"All of those strategies and skills can be learned (as Da Vinci proves) and so can also be learned by any other working brain given the same environmental background."
And there is exactly where we disagree. I do not think other people placed in Leonardo's life would have developed the same talents. Replace the baby with a different one via a time machine, and you would NOT get the same Leonardo, and I would argue, they would most likely not have shown his artistic and creative genius at all, desptie having "the same life".
However you seem to be very heavily on the "nurture" side of things, I always found it surprising that people polarised, it didnt make sense to me. But seems they do :) I always believe it is both, but you seem to be saying there is no room for "nature" at all, that all brains are born equal, all are tabula rasa only written to by experience, and so any brain in the same situation would result in the same personality / skills / interests / talents. Not sure how that is supportable (eg identical twins in completely different environments are more similar than would be expected, despite the different environments, suggesting an underlying similarity present despite environment). But each to their own!
I will remain believing that brains are made differently from birth, and those differences then interact with the environment to give rise to the person, someone who is unique both from how they are made at birth, and from the experiences they have, in combination. Nothing will convince me that had I grown up in the same life as a serial killer, that right now I would be killing people (and of course many folks go through similar life experiences as serial killers, but do not become one themselves).
BTW, how brains break gives a great insight into how brains work when working normally. Did you know you can have brain damage that results in you being unable to name fruit, but you can still name vegetables?
Now that is a brain with damage, but clearly the effecs of that damage has shown us something about how it functions normally. Different categories of objects are actually localised in different physical locations of the brain, in normal working brains.
If you were reverse engineering something, taking a part out and seeing what stops happening is a great way to find out how it works. So I think things "going wrong" are a great way to learn about what is going on when things go right, which is exactly why psychology studies those things. Psychology is mostly interested in what a brain does when working well, just one of the best ways to explore that is to look at extremes (since it would be unethical to dive in and start tinkering with someone's brain just to find out).
Have fun in Derbyshire, to our camper!
HTH!
Tom |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 19, 2008, 4:14pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
My preference for tomatoes have gone down ever since I found out they are really a fruit and not a vegetable.
Sorry, but just not having a bacon, lettuce and fruit sandwich.
It is sacrilege! |
Post by frootee // Jul 19, 2008, 6:42pm
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Did you know you can have brain damage that results in you being unable to name fruit, but you can still name vegetables?
Tom
No Tom. No, I... I did not know that. But hey, thanks for sharing! Nonetheless, I do hope this little gem of knowledge won't take up too many of my useful brain cells for any considerable length of time. :rolleyes:
Is this what you've been working on all this time? You say you've been "Busy". Mm-Hm. Yeah right. :p
Ok Ok I'm being a wiseass... one of my more infamous talents. :D
Seriously; that is interesting. But Where do you get this stuff man? :p |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 19, 2008, 7:31pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Tom says: "I do not think other people placed in Leonardo's life would have developed the same talents." Neither do I - I don't think the world is that simplistic. There's no way another person placed in Leonardo's life could have developed the identical talents. The smallest biological differences (even if we replaced Leonardo with a clone of himself) would lead to cumulative effects resulting in dramatically different outcomes.
Suppose we looked at the Leonardo from a parallel universe (as the 'Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics) and compared him to 'our' Leonardo. The sheer amount of comparative probabilities would mean that as they grew biological differences would manifest - even if one accepted the impossibility of totally identical genetics. These biological differences could manifest as for example different testosterone levels giving one Leonardo a stronger drive to succeed than the other. This biological difference would accumulate over time resulting in distinct differences in the Mona Lisa's produced.
Such differences are not the result of some mysterious and undefined talent, however they are the result of biology.
"However you seem to be very heavily on the "nurture" side of things, I always found it surprising that people polarised, it didnt make sense to me. But seems they do I always believe it is both, but you seem to be saying there is no room for "nature" at all, that all brains are born equal, all are tabula rasa only written to by experience, and so any brain in the same situation would result in the same personality / skills / interests / talents. Not sure how that is supportable (eg identical twins in completely different environments are more similar than would be expected, despite the different environments, suggesting an underlying similarity present despite environment)." Then I'm not being clear.:D I think the nature/nurture duality is far too simplistic to be useful outside of the most general applications. Things are not that 'black and white' and when broken down to constituent parts are seen to be all the colours of the rainbow.
Obviously individual biology plays a part. Two identical computers running the same program will still achieve the same final output but will do it at slightly different speeds and CPU temperatures and power consumption. To all practical purposes these differences may be too subtle to matter yet they will exist simply as a function of quantum indeterminacy let alone differences in the effectiveness of various subcomponents. Thus even with essentially identical PC's one will be slightly more effective than the other. Does this make it more talented?
Now imagine two normal humans complete with different inherent genetic tendencies. Lets assume for the sake of hypothesis that their upbringings are so close to being identical that we can remove the 'nurture' aspect of the equation. Due to biological and genetic differences one person will have a greater motivation to compete than the other - not to mention many other simple biological imperatives. Lets suppose our two subjects are working in an area where physical attributes are not significant - say using trueSpace for example. One subject will have more patience than the other, one will have more desire towards perfectionism than the other, one will derive greater pleasure from, and thus put more energy into, being tidy in their work. One will be more prone to daydreaming than the other, one will be more easily distracted than the other.
The net result is that one will appear to be more 'talented' than the other - 'A' is more talented than 'B' at trueSpacing. It is this statement that I take exception to. It implies that A was born with a greater ability with trueSpace than B. It suggests that A is genetically better at trueSpacing than B.
Genes however have no interest in trueSpace - they are interested only in perpetuating themselves and so seek to maximise any biological advantage they can. This means that there is a certain limited palette of human characteristics geared toward survival which are available to all humans in varying genetically determined degrees. Human function is geared toward the fulfillment of a small set of requirements (eg Maslow's hierarchy of needs) necessary for survival of the genes. "Higher' human functions, such as story-telling learning ability, creative ability, imagination etc are all extensions of those primary survival drives.
Leonardo was made of the same atomic components as the rest of us. He was driven by the same genetic imperatives as the rest of us, the same fundamental human compulsions. What makes him different to the rest of us is how those fundamental drives added up inside him combined with the specifics of where and how he grew up.
Rather than 'nature versus nurture' I see the equation as being 'nature plus nurture plus environment'.
'Nature' being the individual sum of the basic human motivations (which, while different for each individual, all fall within a comparatively narrow band the limits of which are set by dysfunctional (Autistic and savant) minds.
'Nurture' refers to life experiences which teach various strategies of varying effectiveness for specific tasks.
'Environment' is self-explanatory - Leonardo, with his natural genetic predispositions and with analogous nurturing experiences would not have achieved the same results had be been born to life as a galley slave, or if he had not received the same patronage etc. His 'talent' would not have been visible.
Thus the single phenomenon usually called 'talent' is made up of various other aspects. We have little choice about the 'nature' the physical aspects beyond having the ability to train ourselves to our personal peak performance levels. We can identify our strengths - such as an eye for detail - and train it to it's greatest potential.
For nurture I submit we have a greater level of control - we can consciously seek specific training and nurturing again so as to maximise our potential - we can learn to do what we already do in more effective ways.
And for 'Environment' we can chose to spend more time at the Art Gallery than the Rodeo (or vice versa) and thus learn more about our areas of interest.
In all three cases - Nature, nurture and environment - the way to maximise individual performance is through training and the refinement of processes and strategies - the most effective method for doing this is to learn from the masters, to emulate those who are already successful.
To do this requires the desire to succeed at the mastery of your chosen field - regardless of any natural advantage such as an enhanced competitive streak - far more than it does on some ephemeral and ill-defined 'talent'.
To quote The Castle (the best Australian film ever made IMO) "It's what you do with it!"
All through my childhood, adults would look at my long fingers and say 'you should play the piano'. Being not good at doing what I'm told I said 'sod the piano' and taught myself to play the guitar instead!
Finally, my real problem with the word 'talent' is that it implies something, some arbitrary gift (or lack thereof), that is beyond our personal control. I believe this creates a Victim Mentality. If, instead of saying I have a talent for playing the guitar, I say I have a strong drive to learn to play the guitar, I generate a healthy Victor Mentality where I am consciously responsible for the degree of success I achieve rather than some biological factor outside my control.
My apologies for the excessive length of these recent posts - I find human potential to be an endlessly fascinating topic and one worth taking the time to discuss fully.
Tom - I would dearly love to discuss this and related points with you face to face over a couple of cold beers one day - I'm sure we would find we had far more in common than we do in difference!:D (I'll get the first round). |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 19, 2008, 7:34pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
My preference for tomatoes have gone down ever since I found out they are really a fruit and not a vegetable.
Sorry, but just not having a bacon, lettuce and fruit sandwich.
It is sacrilege!
What about Bacon, Lettuce and Banana? :banana:
Oh wait - banana is actually not a fruit it's an herb!!:D |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 19, 2008, 8:25pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
'BTW, how brains break gives a great insight into how brains work when working normally'Absolutely although there are drawbacks to the approach - how can you get the best results from your carburetor when the can shaft is broken.
Having said that I had always intended devoting at least 1 chapter of my book to dysfunctional brains - with particular focus on so called 'split-brain' patients where the corpus callosum is severed to treat severe epilepsy.
Studies performed with such patients have highlighted the capability of the human brain to recognise patterns - even where none exist - and also the powerful ability of the human brain to justify itself.
In view of the current discussion I have to wonder whether it would be possible to locate or even surgically remove a specific talent (say a talent for burning buildings or picking pockets). ;):D |
Post by kena // Jul 20, 2008, 8:09am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
um... that would be a DESIRE, not a talent. A TALENT for burning buildings would involve a person being able to cause it to combust without any tools.
Some people have a "talent" for art. Talents are abstract things. SKILLS are an ability to use a tool. Anyone can have a talent, but to get anything done, you need a skill. To learn a skill, you need all those other things (patience, interest, time, and the tools).
A "Talent" for art would allow a person to arrange objects in the correct places, put the lights just right, and get the angle correct.
But these things can be learned as a skill as well. The person with talent my be able to do it quicker, easier and with less stress, but the end result would be the same. |
Post by prodigy // Jul 20, 2008, 8:31am
|
prodigy
Total Posts: 3029
|
nice definition Kena.. you would have to add it on Wikipedia :p |
Post by tamtam // Jul 20, 2008, 8:41am
|
tamtam
Total Posts: 213
|
Why is everyone chatting in my thread so randomly, and going way off the topic... "Truespace 7.6 price?":(. I thought forum posts have to be on topic of the subject the thread starter made.:confused: |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2008, 8:54am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Hi Tamtam,
That's because the price hasn't been released yet so everyone is chatting and discussing until it does. It's part of the process of waiting for the answer, lol. ;) |
Post by tamtam // Jul 20, 2008, 9:19am
|
tamtam
Total Posts: 213
|
Thanks Jack, for clearing that up for me.
I posted some images I made in TS 7.5 in the image gallery forum a few seconds ago. The images are of hamsters (one of my favorite animals!) peeking out of an odd shape that's supposed to be their "fantasy cage".
Enjoy! |
|
