April 12, 2005 at 6:05 pm #706numbskull66Participant
According to Lamarck any characteristic that any person has is inherited by their parents. I was wondering what everyone thought about talent. Is it inherited or does a person have to learn to do something on their own?
I really would like some input on this topic because I am having trouble starting my research paper.. any help would be greatly appreciated.. Thanks
April 12, 2005 at 10:02 pm #21345JamesParticipant
I think potential for talent can be inherited, through genes. Whether or not the talent is recognised depends other factors like practice.
April 13, 2005 at 8:46 pm #21365
Actually according to Lamarck, characteristics acquired in the lifetime of an organism is passed to their offspring. I play rpg games and usually talent is something innate which is inherited/genetic. Proficiency though is developed. Let me give you an example
In the game Fallout, when you start the game you pick the innate talents of your character such as “Perception” which affects shooting skill. Suppose your character starts out with really crappy perception, the beginning shotting accuracy stats would be low; but as you shoot more, the experience builds up and soon the experience with shooting will increase your accuracy as if you had the talent to begin with.
April 22, 2005 at 7:47 pm #21613protozoanParticipant
But according to darwinism the talent is result of random changes in DNA. How unbelieveble for me. According to that, the talent could be lightly inherited by offsprings.
April 25, 2005 at 8:41 pm #21679CharleneParticipant
💡 Why not? Alcoholism can be inheritated, why not talent? =p
Even if one has talent in a certain category, one must take advantage of that talent and practise it frequently to reach exceptional performance. Or else, talent is useless if used in vain. 😀
April 26, 2005 at 10:48 pm #21752
Intelligence is thought to be a polygenic gene inheritance. Therefore, in my opinion, talents may be also inherited in such a way. I mean most actors come from an acting family, and most musicians come from a musically inclined family.
April 27, 2005 at 10:51 am #21769protozoanParticipant
I think the clue question is how talent came to live. Is it because particular group of people were listening to the music and so their children inclined to listen the music too (and play too probably) or some random changes were taking place on DNA strand so the host man of that DNA get inclined to music.
April 27, 2005 at 7:16 pm #21788MrMisteryParticipant
Did anyone think about natural selection? I mean, a guy who has a talent to lye will produce more offspring than a guy that always tells the truth(trust me on this one, i always tell the truth 😀 )
April 27, 2005 at 7:52 pm #21794CharleneParticipant
Well, are you the one who always lies or the one who always tells the truth? lol! 😀
June 7, 2005 at 6:29 am #23961Mister JonParticipant
Talent is brought from a parent to a child not because of inheritance but because the parent wants to teach their talent to their child as quickly as possible and bring them up within that talent. ‘A natural talent’ i think is impossible, practise and a good teacher is the key.
June 8, 2005 at 8:21 pm #24087MrMisteryParticipant
Not quite… Here in romania we have a painter who was an orfan and grew up on the street. Used to sell his painting for food. He had talent, and no parents. My opinion is that it is poligenic, like intelligence and personality
PS: topic moved to genetics forum. Does this really connect with evolution?
June 10, 2005 at 10:58 pm #24282
That’s what I said. lol
June 11, 2005 at 3:20 pm #24332asusorParticipant
YES, it’s result of some genes and enviromentquote numbskull66:
June 13, 2005 at 6:29 pm #24528quote asusor:
And it is usually determined how big a part genes and enviornment play a role. It’s usually given in a percentage. This trait is 45% genetic and 55% enviornmental.
The ability to burn easily is genetic, but the actual burning of the skin occurs due to enviornment.
June 13, 2005 at 7:47 pm #24577
My whole family is musically inclined and so am I. However, much of my family is not highly intelligent, but it seems I have some sort of a polygenic trait for it in myself?
June 13, 2005 at 8:01 pm #24587quote b_d_41501:
It doesn’t necessarily have to be polygenic. There could be a single gene that allows you to become musically inclined.
June 13, 2005 at 8:26 pm #24605
Really? I thought it was polygenic just like intelligence?
June 13, 2005 at 8:29 pm #24608
Ditto on that, you’ll probably need genes for good ears, good brain processing, and perhaps manual dexterity.
Oh and it also helps if you’re taught asian languages. They require perfect pitch.
June 13, 2005 at 8:37 pm #24617
Yeah, that’s what I heard as well. I don’t know any however.
June 13, 2005 at 8:47 pm #24633quote b_d_41501:
It probably is. But since we don’t know for 100% certain, it’s best to leave it up in the air until someone who’s studied it intensively can give more information.
June 15, 2005 at 2:36 pm #24826
Yes, it is still up in the air. Something as complicated as this must be polygenic though, it will be discovered. Just wait!! lol 😀
June 17, 2005 at 10:04 am #24963ExiledParticipant
Hello everyone!Because of this my first post in a forum concerned with biology,i hope you’ll forget me a few things:
-first of all,my English, 😉
-second,my probable lack of knowledge in some more specific fields of biology.
Thus said,let’s go back to the topic.
As for talent,I think that the truth lies in the middle between casuality and inheritance.I think that a person develops his/her own talents according both to his/her genoma,that “decides” in which fields of knowledge that person will be more gifted,but also according to his/her parents and the kind of instruction them decide to give to their child:one concerned in preserving the talents already acquired/developed by the family or one that allows the person to choose by himself/herself is own way through the world,and to develop his/her own talents.
I hope this is the first of a great number of posts,
June 17, 2005 at 1:24 pm #24967
People who say they have bad English usually are much better than those who don’t post that at all lol. No worries, you post better than many here in the board.
June 22, 2005 at 11:34 pm #25309neuro5Participant
I think you inherit certain genes that enhance or inhibit certain (especially physical) characteristics. But a lot of talent has to do with a person’s ambition, which often comes from external experiences.
August 15, 2006 at 1:02 pm #53427NameInProgressParticipant
There has actually been a gene discovered that might detremine your I.Q.
However, I don’t think that there is a gene that says ‘this kid will be good at music’.
Maybe it’s not the actual talent that is inherited, maybe it’s the requirements, such as good hearing to be able to play an instrument well?
I don’t think the environment plays such an important role. If a person has a passion for something, then they’ll make the best of whatever resources they have.
August 15, 2006 at 4:51 pm #53443DustfingerParticipant
i think yes you have to have the genetical disposition but it´s mainly a learning thing. start early and you´ll be successful.
October 27, 2011 at 7:54 am #107342rapulaParticipant
Of course talent can be inherited but it has no relation with intelligence…. which is one’s own and unique ability or capacity..Though people around a kid say that he is a master at drawing and has inherited it from his dad or mom.. it solely depends on the practice taken by the kid… and one thing… as a child of five years.. he cannot become a master jus by drawing a stroke on a sheet of paper…he certainly needs practice and the environment which encourages him
October 27, 2011 at 10:22 am #107351JackBeanParticipantquote rapula:quote rapula:
so which one?
October 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm #107372
"Is talent inherited?" – Absolutely.
1. Talent by definition is an aptitude for something. Presence of talent does NOT guarantee its use. Thus, while I have a talent for math (I understand new concepts of it almost as if I already knew them) I prefer studying biology and my math practical abilities are about average and way underdeveloped. I inherited my talent form my father, who does not use it either (he knows less math than I do).
2. Intelligence has nothing to do with the talent. Please, look up definitions.
That is absolute nonsense. Since I.Q. is a made up concept, it’s like saying that you discovered a gene that determines what you made up…
I.Q. is subjective, superficial, and culture specific; so how can it possibly be determined by any gene (considering I.Q. exists only in our imagination)?
September 14, 2014 at 11:13 pm #115431
Amongst people with equal cerebral health, there is nothing innate within the intellectual capability of a person like talents, inclinations or inherited abilities. All that forms the dispositions and the personality of an individual comes solely from their growth.
The reason for this is the nature of how growth works inside the human body:
DNA evolves from bodily necessities and changes extremely slowly in response to these. What is inherited does not come from DNA evolution, but from DNA fusion and renewing.
The brain, on the other hand, develops all that is needed during the lifetime, and all that is inside the brain is just a piece of "software" that is created after the birth, not inherited. Artistic talent is not stored inside the DNA, it’s just a wont that builds up from environment (e.g. practice).
If anything, I would say that pure brain speed/neural connectivity might be inherited, being the brain raw structure stored in the DNA.
September 20, 2014 at 4:42 pm #115437quote Banderi:
Completely false! Do you realize that according to what you are saying, autism is not genetic and we know that it is? Do you realize that what you call "cerebral health" is determined by genetics?
September 28, 2014 at 11:34 pm #115462quote Banderi:
Bro, do you even read? It was LITERALLY the first line.
October 12, 2014 at 7:56 pm #115498
As I said before, there is no such thing as "equal cerebral health". Not even in twins – identical genetics + different epigenetics.quote Banderi:
Best example to the contrary of what you are saying is when among twins one is right-handed and another is left-handed. Or do you think it is due to upbringing? Or is it another exception under elusive "equal cerebral health"?
October 13, 2014 at 11:10 pm #115501
Being right- or left-handed is actually one of the best examples of upbringing.
Genetically identical twins have exactly equal cerebral health, as in, brains with identical biological structure – therefore, no difference at the moment of birth. Absolutely *all* of their differences are gain after it, as the person evolves.
Twins (to be more correct, clones) are, in fact, also one of the best examples for the point I’m trying to explain. Thank you, I really didn’t think of it.
October 22, 2014 at 1:06 am #115510
You must specify the scope. Just how much genetic or environmental variability are you taking into consideration? If I inhereted the genetics of a dog, I would be terrible at reading. If I had untreated syphillus, likewise, I would be terrible at reading. If I was born in a suffocating vacuum, I would be dead.
Unless you specify the scope, the only logical answer is that it’s both genetic and environmental, for one builds atop the other, and each contain necessary factors without which the talent would never develop.
October 22, 2014 at 1:17 am #115511
To be more specific, I admit I was taking into consideration only the human race and standard breeding. Also, to avoid further logical problems, I was talking about relative cerebral health (i.e. comparative between two individuals), but it can be generalized once a proper measurement method is found.
P.S. I’m not lurking 24/7. I was just happening to check for answers at the right moment.
October 22, 2014 at 1:29 am #115512quote Cat:
That’s just one example. There could be higher concordance rate of handedness among identical twins than among fraternal twins. Twin studies on even the most culturally unique variables usually estiamte that about 30% of our variability is due to genetic variability.
October 22, 2014 at 1:35 am #115513quote Banderi:
Oh… I thought you were stalking me. 🙁
October 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm #115514
I still don’t get the twins example, but I think he mistype’d.quote wildfunguy:
Oh….. Looks like you got me……….
I’m afraid I’m going to have to finish this once and for all, Mr. Wildfunguy….
July 15, 2015 at 7:20 am #115741RZachary1Participant
i don’t think so, it can be inherited it is purely god gifted. If talent inherit through genetics then every talented person has so many talented child.
July 21, 2015 at 7:05 am #115743
That’s why it’s not inherited nor innate. You can only get it through hard work.
February 1, 2016 at 2:25 am #115906
That’s because they learn from the surrounding ambient and pick up similar tastes.
May 18, 2016 at 2:43 am #115992FornitaParticipant
In my opinion, inherit part and environment are all needed for talents. Inherit part contribute the physical fundamental for talents. And environment determine whether the "talents" could become real talents.
June 25, 2016 at 6:04 am #116044RyanShellingParticipant
Remember the brain can learn anything to near perfect performance after enough practice, though some people are born with a varying degree of talent which develop at a faster rate than a non-talented person, however if the non-talented person practices much harder, they can become better than the talented person. So it’s more of how hard you work.
July 6, 2016 at 6:17 am #116052SarahJamesParticipant
Everyone has a brain that can become finely tuned to whatever it’s trained on and that can give the appearance of talent. Is an acting families daughter really born with talent or the product of her environment, from years of training acting as a child?
There’s variances and multiple answers to your question, but it is a mystery that I like to think about it!
July 19, 2022 at 6:20 pm #219218
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
No related posts.