[Bomu]

It's all about genes!
Not the fact that some people are born with artistic or genius genes, but different types such as the ones that control state of mind.

Some people are born with a brain that can assimilate more knowledge at once, other people are born with competitive thinking or are able to interpret what they see around them differently. Other people just have a photographic memory and also some people can translate thought from mind to a physical representation better than others.

In other words, it's lots of little things which make a good artist. And the more you have, the better! I for one would never make Master status, 'cos although I have fairly good hand-eye coordination, was born with fairly good "artistic interpretation" and can visualize and understand things that other's can't translate onto paper, I wasn't born with a that something which makes me want to keep drawing and evolve, OR the acute memory which some people seem to posses.

So perhaps the definition of talent is in fact a combination of many factors to do with the mind and the more of these factors you possess, the more talented you are!


... For my next trick, I will unravel the meaning of life

[SolarC]

I think we are talking with terms which aren't clearly enough defined. Like when speaking of talent do we mean talent to draw something as correct as possible from life or do we mean the talent of imagening innovative pieces which speaks to people?

I think why some people who are naturally talented to draw (things accurately) won't have the motivation to draw is because they are not talented to imagine things to paint which would inspire them. I think that artist has to feel the things and understand some abstract and emotional things to make a good painting, no matter how talented you are of drawing from real life. Of course also the process of learning to draw and paint also takes different time from different people, but in the end I'd say it's possible for anyone to learn the technique. There just aren't many who would do the effort if they don't have anything else to enjoy about art than technique.

The previous was ofcourse made very simplistic, and I think everybody is a bit different in these talents which are sums of smaller things. But yeah I think different talents exist. For an example I see my brains function more with audio than visual data, but the need to express myself via pictures also makes me learn to draw and study visual art, because there are really different things to express with pictures than sound. And my experience of creating art through music has given much for my paintings and also the otherway around. The only thing I think this might have restricted me in creating visual art is that I can not trust my memory when coming to complex forms aswell as someone else might, but hey that's why the sketchbooks are for. And with experience, logic plus innovation you can go pretty far without reference.

[edraket]

Ok well.. I think it's quite simple.

In terms of sports or other physical abilities talent is pretty much obvious. Some people are built to do certain physical activities and some people are not.

Sumaleth... you are not seriously trying to say that in sports everyone has the potential to become a winner are you?

I think the same goes for art. But there are so many factors and so many different fields that qualify as art that practically anyone can succeed at it when they put their will to it.

What does need to be mentioned here (or maybe I just missed it) is that apart from hard work it's also important that you find out what your strengths are and where your opportunities lie.

[Mindsiphon]

I think passion + persistence = talent.
If you love something enough you will learn it. The more you love it the more you'll time you'll commit to it thus the better you become.

Think about it.
Famous athletes, musicians and artists all have a love and passion for what they do.
I'm sure they have consumed many hours in their youths just practicing practicing practing.

Think about the things you are not too fond of.
Cooking, science, writing or whatever.

Some people excel at the above while others are lousy.
Some might say this person is a talented cook or a gifted musician.

The reason is because they love it so much that they have committed themselves to it and the process of learning from trial and error have refined their skills to be superior to those who may just like to view art or like to eat good food or read a good book.

I'm sure that those who are considered gifted dedicate a good portion of their life to what they do and love.

[c]

Regarding talent, it exists.

Why? Because we are all different, and in the 'artistic' bell curve there will be some who can draw or paint better than others.

If talent didn't exist, if we were all created equal, then you could get 100 people, expose them to the same things, and get 100 identical pieces of art.

Talent, whatever it means, has to exist because variation cannot be seperated from people.

The success of an artist can't be summarized with two or three words. Talent, persistance, passion, etc.

If you had to describe a great person, could you do it with a few words? I know I couldn't.

The same can be said for great artists.

[XandGash]

I had a drawing class nearly every year I was in school, but that had nothing to do with me becoming a better artist. My desire to be the best at something I enjoyed was the biggest factor. I remember drawing with my little cousin when we were young. I slacked off, and he surpassed me, which made me get back into it and surpass him.

In 6th grade, someone paid me fifty cents to draw them a bunny on a card. This moment of gratification, that someone liked my artwork enough to pay for it, led to me becoming serious about art. What forced to improve though, was the kid in 7th grade who was getting between two and five bucks for his work, which was better than mine. I improved alot, but I don't know if I ever got better than him, because he left that year.

In 9th grade, I had a friend in art class who drew better than me. In fact, there were several people who had considerably better work than me. But, by 12th grade, I had worked enough to surpass them, and was he most talked about artist in school.

Now I find myself improving in order to find recognition on a professional level. My competition is all of you who are revered by many, and make a living doing what you love. I'm making headway, but I won't be satisfied until I'm known as the best artist of my time.

In my case, my "talent" lies within my ability to notice what makes other's work better than mine, or what makes it pleasing to the eye, so that I can have a better understanding of how to go beyond that.

Basically, I'm only as talented as you all force me to be.

[wayfinder]

talent is a manifestation of the intuitive grasp of the underlying principles of a process. this allows the talented person to make decisions fast and right, without thinking about them. without having to intellectually know how to do it right.

and there's the link to intelligence for you: some forms of intelligence allow people to react faster to intellectual challenges, to think things through with better models, better prediction than others. on the outside, this looks like talent, because it shows the same symptoms (doing something right faster than others, often in the first try), but it is in fact a different way of coming to a decision.

if a decision is originating in talent, the person often doesn't even know why he/she chose to do as they did, they just couldn't imagine doing it "wrong"/different. when a person uses their intellect to analyze the situation thoroughly, thus coming to a deliberate decision on what to do, based on what they expect to work, another part of the brain works on the decision.

this method is less impulsive, but more stable and secure than relying totally on talent. what an education does is to teach someone the underlying principles so that they can intellectually check the decisions made by talent, thus combining the two.


on the topic of IQ - have any of you ever had theirs tested? the tests usually have 10 or more categories, which together make up the oh so important number. it is in fact a mediated value, and different tests weigh different areas differently. most tests include some mathematical parts, 2D and 3D imagination, language etc. I for example have a pretty consistant level throughout all the categories, while a good friend of mine has peaks in mathematical areas. he's a lot better with numbers than i am, but my overall test result surpassed his. the IQ is not a measure of specific talents, in fact it's rather worthless if you want to know anything about yourself - the more specific test results are far more interesting.

[sliver fish]

[QUOTE]
If talent didn't exist, if we were all created equal, then you could get 100 people, expose them to the same things, and get 100 identical pieces of art.
QUOTE]

its impossible to get a hundred people exposed to the same things (from birth).. its not even possible to get 2 people to do that.. the thought of it is purely mechanical.. and if it were possible, yes.. 100 identical pieces of art would be produced

[Jeasterrealist]

long time reader first time poster.. bla bla bla

anyway..

let me break it down like this

we started as people with little communication skills verbably.. so we had to use our hands either waving them about in certian fashions or drawing on the wall

from that we developed a skill an art skill as usfull as throwing a spear. the Drawings ont he walls could've been one hunter explaining to his kids and other hunters how to properly throw thus spear making it as important if not even more so important to have good drawing skills

from that we develop trible tatooings ways to graphicaly display family colors, stories, and or pattern. some cultures thought tatoo's to be beatiful some thought them to represent pride while others a means of creativity.

moving right along we start getting modernized with the introduction of "civilized" living inwhich hamlets are created villages thus leading to a king a ruler.. and what better way to preserve you're all mighty graceness than to have you're portraite done.. thus why goverment even to this day still is in close bonds with artest

from this we see art branching out and developing to better fit the "communication's"

and lets be honest a painter who speaks not a word can graphicaly illustrate an intire epic battle for all too see

to really get down to the piont art learned we all have the ability to put abstract thought onto paper, some people find it a means of creative outlet while others just dont' have the time and got discuraged cause that side of the brain was slow and unwilling.

genes? na

i'd go with instict drawing was and always will be a means of survival if i can't speak another langauge i could always draw what i was saying real quick sketch and get my point across a lot easier than throwing togethor some words from one of those mini translation dicionaries

...*lurks back*

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

its impossible to get a hundred people exposed to the same things (from birth).. and if it were possible, yes.. 100 identical pieces of art would be produced

Sounds wrong to me. Even identical twins who've never been apart display differences in personality and skills.

[Liser Studios]

no... it's impossible to expose 2 people to the same things.
think of this, you have two newborn babies. you give birth to them in an art gallery. they stay in that art gallery their whole lives.
yes, they're seeing the same paintings
but they will eventually see them in a different order... they will be drawing at different times,etc. it's impossible to have them both do the same thing at the same time. try having both of the draw a still life of something in the museum.
they're both drawing at the same time, the same thing.
but they're viewing them at different views.
one kid will see the shadows and such better. one kid might get distracted by a fly buzzing around his ear. now he's not concentrating as much.
sure, it might just be a fly. but add up all those flies and it does make a difference.
basically, what i'm saying is that you cannot give 2 people identical experiences.
heck, if talent is true, it must be something in genes... right? then why are there identical twins, which oviously have identical DNA, yet one can draw and paint and the other is an a baseball player? the baseball player can't draw worth crap, yet he has the same exact DNA as his brother.
so, it the artistic brother had to have got his "talent" somewhere else. He probably kept drawing when he was a kiddie, while the brother decided he liked to throw footballs at his brother while he tried to draw.
so..... i'm probably making no sense
lol

[sliver fish]

yes.. thank you Liser =)
i agree completely with all of your posts on this topic

[manta2saint]

I agree that "talent" is yet another symbol set by human beings to add to a pile of things that we "understand." Throughout all time, humans have created their own stockpile of terms and symbols to represent what they can grasp. Yet, many times, they are just not explainable. We try harder to add to our knowledge than to understand what we already know.

Consider it. Is it not the things that we cannot fully grasp that make it matter anyway? To minimalize talent into a word is to make art only another form of assured science. Scientists will always find that what they know is still only a smaller part of the unexplainable. There are no concrete facts that cannot be questioned. Such as with the understanding of cells and how genetics work. There is so much more underlying this knowledge. Even our current knowledge of science is only a fraction of the intricacy of all existance. It is so unexplainable that we will never know it all by any scratch of the surface.

Is it not the unexplainable that makes things matter? Do you understand love? Do you understand life? Do you understand the ability to create artwork that causes more to take favor of it? Without the unexplainable, knowing anything doesn't really matter. Still, we will continue to search for it. We must understand that things occur for a reason. They occur so that everything before and after it can occur. Talent comes not from a mix of things but from a reason, an exact understanding of all things before and after that situation. We can explain anything with science, but what explains the science and our need to expain anything at all. We can't know. We live so that all other things can live and understand. Children become good by precise planning of the unexplainable. Love drives us to connect with our life, and life drives us to understand love. It is the reason, and it gives us reason to have "talent."

Art is yet another fact of life, just as all things are. If we knew everything about "talent" and why some have it, why would we care to explore it further? What we know is always pushed down to make room for more things to find out. So, of course things that truly matter will remain uncertain. For with certainty, we look for the uncertain, and without uncertainty, we would all have no reason to go on.

In conclusion, "talent" does not exist as exactly why some people are better at creating art than others, since it would be only a minimized fact to add to our archives of know-how, but in truth, "talent" does exist as the uncertainty of why some people can create artwork that makes others think more of it.

So, just go out and draw; do not worry about making art an exact "science." Take it as what you think it is, and enjoy the many blessings you have been given.

-Michael

[Steven Stahlberg]

So some people here really think that inheritance plays NO role at all in becoming an artist?

How can you argue with this:

quote

Quote:

In the end however there are areas which are not influenced directly by exercise. Every person's body has biochemical and anatomical characteristics determined by our genes and by our diet and environment

National Institute for Medical Research, 1995

[manta2saint]

oh. ha. Maybe I forgot to say something about that, Steven.

I personally believe that inheritance does have to do with artistic ability. A combination of genetic traits could lead to the expression of further artistic ability, but artistic ability is only gained through the realization of these genetic traits. Still, it all mainly has to do with how the genes were inherited in the first place, how the person realized these abilities, and what he does with them. The mind is a powerful thing that can mold what we do, but even the mind is given to us. It is all part of the reason. Just another part of why the pebble came to be placed right where the man was to trip. We are free to do anything, but without having been given what we need, we can do nothing. Further, if we have what we need, what is it that makes us want to use it?

-Michael

[Torstein Nordstrand]

Some wonderful posts on this topic, I think. It actually feels like this thread is going somewhere too...

Identical twins will always be treated differently. There is no other way. Their mother can only feed one at a time, and the father can only play with one. And, most importantly, twins (like other people) react to each other. If one gets praise (or gets lifted by papa first), the other might get annoyed. If one hurts himself badly when young, he might be more reluctant than his twin to take risks. Each and every experience, no matter how small, creates a difference in man. There's no way to map it out, and that's what makes scientific psychology such a dead end (but an interesting one at that ).

Stahlberg, I don't seek to deny the existance of genes. I do believe in the fact that we are not alike at birth. What I advocate is simply that genes, or inborn 'talent', 'giftedness' (which is another 'explanatory' word based on religious 'comprehension'), and whatever we like to label the incomprehensible, has no place in determining what we can or cannot do. I believe the artistic system of creativity, execution and meditation is so complex and grand that small differences in our genetic code is without significant consequence in our lives. I want us to look at our own lives to judge our capabilities. Our success lies in what we do, not what we were or could be.

Oh, and that snippet of scientific information tells me little. A good artist will be concerned with his skills in every choice he makes, including his diet and his environment (what people he surrounds himself with, what colours, what culture, what galleries). But this piece of text is not contradicting what I think plays the absolutely major part in our progress. Namely dedication and learning.

Please reconsider deciding to rely on 'talent' as an explanation of anything if you do so because it sounds more 'scientific', simple and factual. There really seem to be no science as of yet that can indicate anything on this topic. If it is proved, though, I too will believe that. For now, mental traits developed through learning is good enough for me. Nobody gets better without practice. All masters seem to have been extremely dedicated. Doesn't sound very genetic to me...

Creativity, execution and learning is in my head, not in my arm...

[Steven Stahlberg]

It sounds comforting, that we could pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, up to any level we want, if we try hard enough, and if we're only given an equal chance to do so.

But I think our genes control us more than we may suspect. Not nice or comforting, or even very PC, but sometimes the ugly version of the truth is the right one.

For instance, alcoholism seems to have a genetic factor, the same with adiction to gambling and dangerous sports. AD/HD (which I have) is thouht to be genetic. Epilepsy, color-blindness, autism, IQ, short term and long term memory loss, eidetic memory, a thousand other little factors that can go this way or that in the brain, are all inherited, or at least there from birth and impossible to change.
What is the likelihood that all these differences should stop right at the threshhold of the higher functions of our brains? That our cortex is somehow 'off limits' to genetical differences?

We could never be exactly the same, not even if we're raised in a Matrix-like virtual reality world, where everything can be made exactly the same. To think that seems a philosophy related to socialism, in a sense. (Another nice idea, not quite workable in real life.)

Hey, I'm not saying we're all locked in our little boxes from birth, doomed and predestined to whatever. Just want to give the genes their due.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[Torstein Nordstrand]

So,

all you are saaying... is give genes a chance?

But seriously, you're mentioning something that I tried to explain above, a factor I consider as deciding for many who have an opinion on this matter.

It is of course your own business where you decide to put your beliefs. You feel genes are underrated, ok. Cool. But here's where I'll have to pick a fight: the examples you give are mere quasi-'scientific' assumptions, or theories without explanations or basis in fact. Alcoholism has a genetic factor? That's new to me 'If a father has a drinking problem, his son is liable to have the same negative personality trait'. That is a truthful statement, I think. However, can it tell us anything about genes? Nope. Statistics give us no explanation. Here's mine, based on more statistical, near-facts: Most kids have their parent of the same sex as a role model, like it or not. Many kids object to this, and demonstrate their unwillingness. But most kids through time develop similar habits and manners as their parent. That's one of the many reasons why divorce and singleparent families can be so devastating - the kid loses the natural rolemodel. This equals confused kid who doesn't know who he's supposed to be. What I'm saying is, if parents in a house drink at home, there's a greater chance that their kids will drink early, too. (they'll probably taste alcohol at home for the first time, too) And the earlier they start, the more easily they will fall victim to abuse. Statistical fact. Personally I started drinking when 18, not by conscious choice, but I believe it was because my parents never touched alcohol in front of me before that.

I can say the same with gambling and the dangerous sports. Who's yer daddy? If a man becomes an antiquarian, and his son follows up on the occupation - would you say it was in their genes to study old furniture?

Epilepsy, ad/hd and autism are physical malfunctions that probably can be inherited, I don't know for sure. They can indeed affect our mental properties, but they are not part of the regular equipment humans are born with. They are deficiencies that can limit (or elevate) the person they're attached to.

By the way, kids with autism usually have other brain deficiencies as well, so like I've pointed out, you're talking about situations of the mental faculty that are damaged, not ordinary variants.

I have no idea what causes eidetic memory (if it exists as something inborn), or memory loss.

And IQ... let's at least TRY yo keep it out of the discussion, shall we?

Go genes. Go experience. Go life!

[Liser Studios]

allrighty... i got another post to add here. it crossed my mind while i was trying to sleep last night.
well, as someone just said, all the masters were extremely dedicated. also, Da Vinci's father wasn't an artist, he was a lawyer, and i'm not sure what his mother was. but heck, women probably weren't even allowed to paint back then. lol

what else crossed my mind was this.
ok, i have 1 brother. he's an athelete, he was the #1 reciever in our conference in high school, big buff guy, all the girls liked him, bla bla bla. he's not an artist.
I consider myself artistic, but I don't know what others think of my art, but I'll just go on assuming I am.
My dad was an artist, but quite a lazy one. He liked to draw, but only cartoons (his teacher used to bug him to draw realistic stuff, but her refused, since he said he couldn't make it as an artist), liked to paint (but only landscapes, refused to paint people or animals), bla bla bla. I saw some of his drawings, he had some "talent" but he didn't develop it.
Now, his dad (my pappy) was a pro football player (actually, a "semi pro"... there was a league back after WW2, where some pro's from the NFL, some vet's, some vet's who used to be in the NFL, all made a league... kinda like the XFL, i guess). So, he was an athlete. My grandma (on my dads side) was just there... she was a tomboy when she was younger, so i guess she was an athlete.
Two athletic parents (or at least non-artistic) to an artistic son?
But, his grandma (my grandma's mom) Deana, was artistic.
i'd have to say that, instead of beating around the bush and saying "well, there were all these recessive traits, he got that one gene from his grandma, and the other gene (which had nowhere to come from, since he'd need to be AA to be artistic, but he only has one A... know what i mean? he would have been Aa...) came from bla bla bla"
i'd have to say that, when he was younger, he didn't like his daddy too much. he was too small to play sports. he loved his grandma, and his grandma got him into drawing. this can especially be seen when he was arguing with his art teacher (in high school) and he'd say "that's not what deana taught me!" lol
so... yeah... how about them yankees?

ah, just wanted to add something else:
someone brought up things like epilepsy, aclaholism,etc as being inherited. true, some things are inherited, like cancer (although it hasn't been PROVEN, but it's still quite logical)...
but i agree that alcaholism isn't inhereted genitically. it's just a kid seeing daddy do it, so he does it too. for an example....
my ex-g/f's dad is an alcaholic. she hates her dad, always has; but she really looks up to her mom, who is totally against the drinking. My ex-g/f is totally against drinking. Now, Cathy (my ex's sister) really likes her dad. She's the trouble making, "lost my virginity when i was 13," likes to party, kind of person. Genetics? No. She just learned it from her dad... she thinks her dads partying every weekend and getting drunk off his ass is cool, so she wants to do the same.
Also, I know that epilepsy isn't genetic. My brother has it, and he's the only one in our family with it, or any "brain problem." According to our doctor, we don't know where epilepsy comes from either. There's suggestions, and we know there's something wrong in the brain, but we don't know the source of the problem... although there's many suggestions. But, yeah, he's the only one in the known history of our family that's epileptic.
I know what you're saying though, things like cancer and such can be inhereted. Your body structure is inherited. Wether you have a lot of fast twitch muscles or slow twitch muscles is inherited. Your brain capacity is pre-dertirmed. But, I think art isn't physical... athletic performance is determined by your fast twitching muscles, something you can't effect... the only thing that can hold you back artistically would be your brain capacity, your ability to learn. It's not physical...
hmmm... i dunno.
i was gonna say something about how an athlete is more restricted than an artist. no matter what, my brother ran a 4.6 fourty yard dash. no matter what he did that's how fast he ran. Not because he couldn't work at it, but because that's all his body could handle, you can only have so many fast-twitch muscles, so thick of bones,etc. But when i put a pencil onto a paper, is there any physical characterstics that determine wether I'm a good artist or not? i dunno. I don't think something that has to do with thought is as limiting as physical abilities... know what I mean?
sorry for the ramble

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Liser Studios ]

[Torstein Nordstrand]

I think no-one here will state that our biological start is alike for every person - Genes play their part, I'm merely advocating their minimal importance in our artistic outcome. And since this thread still is about 'talent', I'd like to rephrase my view in that spirit:

"Talent is not a biological statement concerning a persons genetic basis, it is a common statement made on observed quality in a person whose abilities appear to surpass same-aged individuals"

However, after you guys stated that they'd found out alcohol is an inherited disease, I was intrigued. Looking up some online scientific sources on alcoholism, I found much material. Here are some snippets:

Just a definition:
"Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations."

"...Research tells us that the number-one reason adolescents give for choosing not to use alcohol is their parents" "We have failed to appreciate that the roots of alcoholism and alcohol abuse have their origins in adolescence"

Here's the 'Alcoholism is a disease!' article, which does not mention genes at all. It's about physiological changes drugs do to our brains as a result of continuous abuse:
"...continued use of an addictive drug brings about structural and functional changes in the brain that cause compulsive use..."

This one's interesting... although the fact that identical twins are treated by many people as the same person, whereas fraternal twins are treated as individuals, should be considered:
"...interviewing 1,934 female twinsabout their consumption of coffee ...study included 485 identical (monozygotic) and 335 fraternal (dizygotic) twins. Identical twin pairs, unlike fraternal twins, showed almost the exact same total caffeine consumption, intoxication, tolerance, and withdrawal. From a genetic perspective, addiction to caffeine looks much like that of other drugs of abuse..."

This is what I found on genetics and alcoholism. They've found multiple genes that appear more often with alcolholics than non-a's. Most interesting:
"Researchers have concluded that inheritance plays a role in alcoholism, and they are closing in on the genes that can lead to it.
'These genes are for risk, not for destiny,' Gordis stressed at a National Press Club briefing."


Last thought: I am certainly no expert on the matter, but there are fantastic amounts of genetic variety, right? Well, something tells me that by digging and digging and mapping the genes, we won't be able to foresee much anyway. Picture this:
"Your son-to-be has the genes a, b, g, h and 6."
"And you mean this will make him an artistic person?"
"Could be. We have found many artists with those genes. They affect concentration, and the ability to be fascinated. But there are about one billion other genetic variables that will affect those two traits that I mentioned, some will be triggered, some will not."
"So you're saying that anything can happen?"
"Yes. Those two traits might even prove to be a hinderance for his other artistic genes. Or maybe they will uplift a completely other trait. As I said, there are thousands of other genetic codes present in your son, and they can bring him anywhere."
"So it's really up to me and Emma?"
"As parents it's up to you. And him. And everyone else. Indeed EVERYthing else. May fortune smile on your son."

[wayfinder]

i just want to say that i believe that talent plays a huge role of quality distinction in the lowest and highest levels of art. in the low levels, it sets aparts fast starters from slow starters, and in the highest levels, it sets apart those who work from those who shine. in between, talent seems to lose significance a bit, at least that's the way it looks to me. then again, it's 3:30 am, so i should be sleeping, not posting.

wish me luck for my design pre-diploma in about 5 hours! i need all my talent there

[FelixL]

When you were at school, didn't the performing students said they didn't study for that 96%? They were lying, trying to look like it's easy for them...

We glorify success that seem to come with little effort and call it talent. Sweat and tears is called effort, effort usually leads to success. No quick fix here.

And if we are artists, it's because we suck at microbiology and know nothing about genes...

[Mindsiphon]

I read somewhere that the way people learn and the way their minds work are either visual, auditory and kinesthetic.

Not everyone is 100% visual, auditory or kinesthetic but I think most artists lean toward a visual way of thinking.

An athletes learning process would be more kinesthetic.
An athlete would have a hard time becoming a talented athlete if all he did was look at
pictures of people playing sports.

A musician would lean toward auditory naturally.

Great artist may be 75% visual, 12.5% kinesthetic, 12.5% auditory.

Average artists may be 50% visual, and 25/25% kinesthetic/auditory.

I think the way in which our brains work is genetic and therefore what may seem to come a bit more natural to us than the athlete or musician is because of our genes.

I'm not sure how this would work for a great athlete who is a talented artist and talented musician.

[Liser Studios]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mindsiphon:
I'm not sure how this would work for a great athlete who is a talented artist and talented musician.

---

duh, they have 3 brains.
lol
j/k
but yeah, i agree with your post. people interested in arts probably think more visually, or whatever you call that. that probably has a huge part to do with our "talent"
nifty

[Steven Stahlberg]

Torstein, some very good points there.

[Lunatique]

Torstein Nordstrand- actually, Steven is right. Alcoholism runs in the family. It's treated as a disease. It's the same with gambling and dangerous sports. Some people are born with a deficiency that sort of makes the "danger alarm" in their brain quite useless. They will take risks where other people will back off and get nervous. People with that genetic trait will take dangerous risks or gamble their entire savings away without being able to stop themselves.

They did tests with these people and found that the "danger alarm" in their brains don't do its job. It seems the "danger signal" that it's supposed to be sent out to stop someone from doing something foolish is missing.

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

quasi-'scientific' assumptions, or theories without explanations or basis in fact.

They do have basis in fact, I'm not making this up. I try to only quote things I believe came from proper research. I just can't remember every source of every factoid, how or when I heard something.

I did hear, several years ago, that some reasearchers thought they found a gene that made it easier for certain people to become addicted (presumabely not only to alcohol).
Now you may think this is very vague, but at least it's an indicator. Whereas I've never heard any such research supporting the opposing view (doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, please tell me if you know of some).

This would seem to be supported by my own experiences as well; I started drinking heavily at 15, I mean really heavily, and regularly. The purpose was to get absolutely blotto every weekend. I even had some blackouts. I kept this up for a few years, then stopped when I left that circle of 'friends'. I never looked back, never had a hankering in my life to get high. But there are cases of alcoholics who've become dependent very quickly. My wife feels a definite physical urge to drink, as does my father, an urge I just can't understand at all. Because we're wired differently, on a very basic level.
Same thing with cigarettes, I really tried my best to become addicted (cause we all thought it was so cool to smoke back then, shows you my strong character )... didn't succeed. While others get hooked after the first pack. I tried different kinds of tobacco, marijuana, haschish (sp?), no urge to try more.

I tried parachuting, cause a friend of mine was addicted to it. He couldn't stop going on about how wonderful it was.
I tried it twice, in case the first time was a fluke. No, I still didn't like it. Sense of danger, yes. Did I like the rush of adrenaline? Enough to go back, over and over and over like my friend? Nope.

I think it has something to do with the neurotransmitter serotonin. In any case - it's a situation we're born with! Can't do anything about it, except take medicine. From a medical website:

quote

Quote:

Serotonin or serotonin deficiency has been implicated in the cause of various medical disorders including depression, migraine headaches, sleep disorders, bulimia, and premenstrual syndrome.

Sure, some things may be results of environmental poisoning, but that's highly unlikely to be the cause of all these differences.

quote

Quote:

And IQ... let's at least TRY yo keep it out of the discussion, shall we?

Why? It is a measurable quantity, even if slippery, and even if the truth is much more complex than a simple number. Within 20 - 25 points or so it helps to fairly reliably indicate the general ability of a person's mind to think. A person measured to around 70 is going to be noticably different from the average person. Or would you lump lower IQ together with what you called brain deficiencies?

Autistic children also have abilities we normals just do not have. Some can glimpse a city skyline then draw it perfectly from memory. Some have that memory for music that Mozart had. So maybe they're not damaged, just variants that aren't really working out.
Or if they are, then HD/AD is a type of damage too, such a brain works in a slightly different way - in most modern daily situations the HD/AD mind works less efficiently than others.

And then we have the differences between left handed people, and right handed. I don't know if it's genetic, but it sure displays a difference in the original wiring of the brain.

[SolarC]

SPAM!

I'm sorry guys this goes a bit off the subject but I wanted to point out some information about drugs and addiction after reading stevens last message!

I've done a lot of reading of drugs and addiction. It is not a miracle you haven't got hooked on the drugs you wrote about. So hear comes some drug information for you so you see why.

"Same thing with cigarettes, I really tried my best to become addicted (cause we all thought it was so cool to smoke back then, shows you my strong character )... didn't succeed. While others get hooked after the first pack. I tried different kinds of
tobacco, marijuana, haschish (sp?), no urge to try more."

In case of cigarettes it takes quite a lot of smoking to form the physical addiction. So it's practically impossible to get a physical nicotine addiction even in a month if you smoked a box of cigarettes per day.
So if someone is getting addicted to cigarettes after smoking a box of them the only way is auto-suggestion which I think can be seen as self hypnosis.

The physical addiction to nicotine comes from real changes in your brain, which takes quite some time to happen completely. (If I remember correctly over the year of regular everyday smoking.) These changes are actually never "corrected" back even if you quit smoking. It's not as dramatic as "changes in your brain" may sound. What happens is that your brains will connect the nicotine into the satisfaction center. It has not known to cause any other harm, but is one of the reasons which makes cigarettes so addictive. )

Although it is wise to remember that nicotines addiction pedal with a scale of 0-100 is 96.(the heroin is the only tested drug to have a worst addiction pedal than cigarettes) Addiction pedal measures addiction in whole and don't separate physical and psychological addiction from one another. I think what makes cigarettes so addictive is the culture of using cigarettes which is so irresponsible. People smoke it way too much all the time and implicate it into their life so it's really hard to get rid off psychologically. (I smoked 6 years and I think the worst part of the addiction was the habit, purely psychological.)

What comes to Cannabis it's addiction pedal is much lower than normal cigarettes (40 if I remember correctly. Practically the same as coffee). The physical addiction is small and almost impossible to attain. Of course you can get yourself a psychological addiction if you start using it as irresposibly as people usually do with cigarettes.

And then the parachuting:

"I think it has something to do with the neurotransmitter serotonin. In any case - it's a situation we're born with! Can't do anything about it, except take medicine. From a medical website: "

When you do something like parachuting the chemical reactions in your brain are mainly first a peak of adrenaline (before you jump), and after you are landed a peak of serotonin to unarm the adrenalin. (which is the good feeling after doing something really scary)

It is very similar feeling than in mdma (ecstacy) which releases serotonin in the brain although it releases also some dopamin and nor-adrenalin.

You can not get physically addicted to serotonin either. There is some of it in your brain everyday if you are in healthy condition, have working serotonin production in your body and don't eat too much E.

"Serotonin or serotonin deficiency has been implicated in the cause of various medical disorders including depression, migraine headaches, sleep disorders, bulimia, and premenstrual syndrome."

Atleast depression part of this is right. The others I don't believe. By the way, you can also get a depression for eating badly. Body creates serotonin from albumin and if I remember correctly it need also vitamin C in the process. A body with normal working serotonin production can create enough serotonin in nine hours to get you feel better. Serotonin is also used in a brain as a counter chemical to adrenalin. So if you feel that you are angry, impatient or too full of adrenalin without really good reason it probably just comes from the lack of serotonin. Which is due to eating badly or eating too much ecstacy. (or too often) There are also some people who need to take medication to get their serotonin production working. (people who get help from the antidepressants) Ofcourse psychological problems may also act a big role in brain chemistry.

It is very easy to see what the lack of serotonin does, because if you eat too much ecstacy after a day or two all your serotonin is used and you'll have to wait your body to contruct some more of it. (something like over 200mg, with an avarage man with good serotonin levels takes of all serotonin. Which means that it is stupid to eat more, because you are not getting anything out of it and it just takes you longer to recover. Except some dopamin which won't give you any better feeling, only makes you more confused.)

I just haven't heard anyone to have any other symptoms from the lack of serotonin than depression and short temper.

Hope this can give something to the real subject of discussion. If not I'm sorry to spam you like this. 8)

[Steven Stahlberg]

No need to apologize, facts are everything in a discussion like this - anyway I love learning. Thanks