Then in footnotes 62-64, Shenk describes how Mozart became the musical genius that he is largely due to that he was born into a unique situation that greatly fostered his musical abilities: his parents, the support, the expectancy, the family history. Are geniuses, then, normal people who are extremely lucky, people who were born into a setting that made them into an extraordinaire? Also in animals, a trait that proves advantageous is most likely passed on to offspring: evolution. If genius is something that cannot be passed on genetically, then can humans ever really go through evolution? i.e. can humans ever evolve to be smarter, more talented? Or will we always have to rely on advancements in culture and advent of technology?
Sara Lee(Yoojin3795@hotmail.com)
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Evidence-Geniuses are just lucky people?
In the evidence section in footnotes 56 and 57, Shenk provides evidence corroborating that people who were remarkably talented in one area such as music, sports, memory, etc. were limited in their expertise in just that one area, which proves that they were “acquired skills” not the product of some innate genius. From an evolutionary standpoint, do you think it would be more advantageous to be terrifically talented in one domain or area, or to be normally/mediocre talented in all areas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In terms of evolution, I think it would be more advantageous to hold a variety of talent in different areas, even if it’s not exceptional in any specific one of them. Evolution implies a long period of time, and in that time, a lot can change. Ornithologist Dean Amadon says that “specialization has been of little importance to evolution, since during times of geologic upheaval and great environmental change, only generalized forms have survived” (Amadon 133). As one that studies birds, I think Amadon’s claim makes sense because if a species has learned to do one specific job, but the environment continues changing its demands over time, it’ll be more difficult for that species to adapt and survive. In terms of talent for humans, recent studies have led Anders Ericsson to say that any “experts’ superior memory is limited to their domains of expertise” (Shenk 243). Any form of limitation can become a disadvantage for any species going through evolution.
ReplyDeleteIn human history, there have been numerous “geniuses” that demonstrate superior expertise in a specific category and we call it talent. Mozart’s example was especially exceptional because of the time period he was in; it wasn’t as easy to get access to such musical upbringing young Mozart received. However, today, “many young children exposed to Suzuki and other rigorous musical programs play as well as young Mozart did” (Shenk 64). Yet we also know that we wouldn’t have even called Mozart a prodigy if he hadn’t gone on to become such a profound adult composer. Therefore, I don’t think geniuses are “lucky”. I think that they have gone through the grueling, lengthy, and dynamic process of acquiring the skills and knowledge to become exceptional.
It’s hard to determine if humans today are “evolving” to be smarter or more talented because again, evolution is looked at from a period of millions of years. But the advancements in culture and technology suggest that humans are adapting to social demands. Because of the ecological footprint (the aggregate land and water area required by each person to produce all the resources it consumes and the waste it generates), humans know that they have to continue changing (Campbell 1193). Just because “genius” traits aren’t genetically passed on, doesn’t mean we can’t still evolve.
outside source: The American Naturalist "Specialization and Evolution" Dean Amadon
Deletehttp://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2457340?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56008642073
Agnes Kwon (akwon0215@gmail.com)