Talent And Genetics

I am certain they exist; I had read something about the links between "musical talent" (which is a concept I don't feel comfortable defining anyway...) and sexual traits (defined in a very precise and scientific way, therefore with hormonal and genetic evaluations). People with androgynous traits, meaning with detectable characteristics of the sex opposite to their own (but we are not talking about homosexuality or intersexuality, we are talking about even less relevant characteristics, such as physical structure, facial features, etc.), had pursued musical studies and careers more often and with more success.

At first glance, this might not seem like research on heredity and genetics, but the main problem with similar research is distinguishing purely genetic characteristics from "external" elements. It makes no sense to conduct research on Muti's daughter, because I wouldn't be able to understand if the results are linked to genetic-physiological factors or simply to the fact that she was raised in a context favorable to musical talent.

And then that taboo comes into play, which I would avoid crossing completely: namely, the definition of musical talent. Jovanotti would probably have been kicked out of any singing school existing on this planet, but currently he is more successful than me and all of you combined. How do I evaluate my "talent" and Jovanotti's? Does someone who makes "bad" music, or at least not divine works of art, but does it well (Allevi, for example, or any Neapolitan neo-melodic singer), have talent or not? The problem with this research is that it is often directed toward discovering characteristics about which we know nothing. Unfortunately, genetic studies make no sense if there isn't a psychological, analytical basis. First, you psychoanalyze half the world to understand WHAT musical talent IS, and then you try to find hypothetical "genetic correlates" or physiological ones. And then you rack your brains to find a study methodology that allows you to distinguish what is genetics from what is education, society, etc. There are many studies on perfect pitch, for example, and many have been conducted on children in the pre-linguistic phase, so even under one year old. Well, it seems that a disproportionate number of children have shown evidence of having perfect pitch... but since perfect pitch is rare at all other ages, then probably the evolution of this characteristic (and probably of other "talents") follows criteria that we do not yet know. If tomorrow I discover that we all have perfect pitch as newborns but that, I don't know, language development interferes and only a few manage to maintain perfect pitch, then I have more elements to direct my research, including genetic research. And one of the reasons why this research is approached successfully in the USA and not in Italy is that there they can afford to form a research group composed not only of geneticists but also of musicologists, pediatricians, psychologists, educators, etc., etc. Because here the problem is not discovering something, but intuiting what there is to discover. I don't know if I explained myself clearly...

In my opinion, it's all bullshit.

I don't know if I have talent, I imagine not or yes, who knows... let posterity pass the difficult judgment..., but I can tell you that in my family no one plays instruments or understands music even 3 generations ago. and yet I have a decent absolute internal musical ear.

Casta wrote:

Can the talent that everyone may or may not have be inherited? Is it something that is transmitted genetically?

In my opinion, no.

Instead, a love for music can be transmitted.

Growing up with an instrument in the house, perhaps this can be confused with genetic transmission.

raffaeleb wrote:

yet I have a decent internal absolute musical ear.

In itself, perfect pitch is not an indicator of talent, because it is a quality common to all human beings, which eventually fades with time or is maintained. So whether or not you have talent certainly does not depend on that. But then, excuse me: is it "decent" or is it "absolute"?

http://www.mindcheat...e-genetica.html

So, the genetic predisposition I spoke of does exist. But not in the immutable form to which we are accustomed to thinking: it is not a "I am good at doing this because I was born this way, you were born another way and will be good at doing other things". It is simply a "I like doing this, therefore I will become good at doing it". As I said at the beginning of the article, preferences are of genetic origin, and from them different talents develop.

This means that you should not feel limited by particular abilities or incapacities to do something: you are not good at a certain task simply because you have never applied yourself to it. Potentially, you could become an excellent philosopher, a great mathematician, or a fantastic artist. You just have to work hard enough. The only question you must ask yourself is: what do you like to do?

I propose this quote

"If all parents paid attention to the true nature of their children and provided them with an adequate environment, all children would reach extraordinary levels of ability.

We are often led to believe that talent is something that nature gives, whereas it is something that nature develops. When a person is born, they are characterized by a certain vital charge, by a force that will animate their faculties: no one can say how skilled a person is by nature. Talent is only known to the extent that it is developed or wasted.

(S. Suzuki)"

Caste, I don't believe in talent transmitted genetically ..... I think instead that the environment is the predominant factor: the social circles, the inputs received, breathing music 24 hours a day, which leads you, sometimes, to pursue the profession of a musician... perhaps the same as your parent (one example among others)...

Pensa al povero Ravi Coltrane, come deve essere stato faticoso per lui essere il figlio di John Coltrane, dover dimostrare sempre qualcosa.

L'elenco è assai lungo, e non mi sembra il caso di citare i figli d'arte...c'era un topic sulla questione

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1248-la-figlia-di-martha-argerich/

Backspace's quote can provide a starting point to discuss one thing: genetic transmission is not as "mechanistic" as it sometimes may seem. It's not that if you are "predisposed" to making music, then you will make music and you will do it well; put that way, it's middle-schooler talk. External factors are TOO important, and that is the reason why investigations are conducted in reverse. That is, you don't look at genes and say "this one will become Rostropovich," but you look at Rostropovich's genes and say "ok, they are like this and like that," and then on very large numbers, you try to find relationships. Knowing full well that if Rostropovich or someone like him had broken a leg at age 3, perhaps he would never have done that work. That being said, the same terms from Backspace's quote are, in the case of music at least, generic and misleading. Or rather, if we don't agree on what musical talent or musicality is, then we will continue to misunderstand the issue. The musicality of an opera singer is different from that of an organist, a rock guitarist, or an orchestra conductor. Even listening well to music presupposes musical talents; many of my musician friends cannot distinguish between good and bad interpretations on CD... This discussion can mean many things. First and foremost, we must understand that a genetic correlate does not necessarily have direct repercussions on the real world as we know it (and have built it). If the synthesizer was invented in 1900, we cannot suddenly invent a part of the brain specifically dedicated to synthesized sounds, or a predisposition for software music (something I have heard very often from people who say that playing a classical instrument and playing a PC are absolutely different things... nonsense!). It is much more likely, instead, that musicality has very generic genetic correlates and that it is exclusively education, society, and life that distinguishes them. But if I say that Giovannino has the music gene but Leopoldo does not, yet Giovannino preferred to become a doctor while Leopoldo now plays the bassoon, what the hell do I need research on the music gene for?! Proving that "only" those who have the music gene become musicians is impossible; it is almost certainly unrealistic, like saying that all women are sex workers except for your mother and your sister. We live genetics as a new founding myth, and still 3/4 of the people I tell are opera singers talk about it as if it were predestination, a gift! Just try telling them that you aren't born in tune, that the repertoire is written for normal voices rather than exceptional ones, or that at age 11 I was terrible at music education etc. etc.

Talents are all learned behaviors. And searching for genetic correlates does not mean solving the problem (on the contrary).

I wouldn't know what to add or how to thank you all for all the insights, ideas, etc.

Compliments to the community, well done!!!

I strongly agree with the reasoning made by Thallo, although for me it is hard to follow his discussions which are full of very difficult terms. It has been demonstrated that an adult's intelligence is determined only to a small percentage by genetics; the rest is determined by the environment in which that adult grew up. Therefore, I believe that talent is rather influenced by a long series, or chain, of choices and events made in one's own life rather than by a genetic predisposition.

I am posting this Wikipedia link... http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoziente_d%27intelligenza#Ereditariet.C3.A0

It remains to be certified whether talent is correlated with intelligence. Certainly, a great musician will have developed a particularly evolved intelligence in that area of human experience; therefore, from this point of view, it seems that the intelligence quotient and talent may be somehow correlated.

The intelligence quotient must not be mistaken for a measure of an individual's total intelligence, as this depends on various factors. The intelligence quotient does, however, provide some indications regarding an individual's ability to solve problems, especially logical ones, which stimulate the use of the prefrontal cortex of our brain. Someone with a high intelligence quotient would therefore be a person who manages to solve problems better and faster than average.

It has also been demonstrated that music, and in particular knowing how to play an instrument, increases IQ. Environmental factors are of enormous importance. The link also addresses the topic of heredity.

For further information, you can refer to the Mensa Italia link, which covers several themes regarding intelligence and its measurement.

http://www.mensa.it/cos-e-il-mensa

I thought I read in your profile that you are a member of the canteen, or am I wrong? What does membership entail?

Yes, but to avoid going Off-Topic if you are interested in knowing what Mensa is, you can check the official website or open a new discussion, or ask me privately. I don't know how much this thing might interest the other forum members.

I am opening a discussion because I am interested in knowing the opinions of those who are members. I have often heard about Mensa on television programs, but I have never understood what being a member entails.

I believe that even in this activity, music, as in many others, genetic endowment and natural predisposition might count for a lot, but in reality they count very little compared to environmental conditioning. Being born into a house of musicians certainly creates much higher probabilities of becoming one compared to being born into a family where music is neither played nor listened to, regardless of predisposition.

If Mozart had been the son of a painter, I don't know if he would have become the equivalent in painting of what he became in music, but he certainly would not have become the person we know...

Ultimately, I think that in those very rare cases where genetic predisposition finds itself developing in a suitable environment, the possibilities for the birth of genius occur. I am speaking of possibilities, naturally, because even with this starting base, the variables at play are numerous and uncontrollable...

I'm jumping into this topic too and I'll tell you about my "experience".

My dad, starting from age sixteen, played football for Sorrento's first team in Serie C1; they came to get him all the way from Mantova because of the talent he had... he fled from there after a few months due to excessive nostalgia (and immaturity, perhaps).

Look, I'm not hopeless at football, but I'm not exactly an expert either, mainly because I'm not passionate about it; something that I am passionate about instead is music, and in particular the piano.

I still have clear memories of when, as a little child, my mother taught me Bach's first prelude, or when I was tiny, I would close my eyes and pretend to conduct whenever they put on some classical music CDs.

In my opinion, it's more a matter of passion than talent, and obviously also about what age you start to cultivate this passion... I have never heard of virtuoso pianists who started learning to play the piano at 20 or 30 years old... my 2 cents

pianothor wrote:

I still have clear memories of when, as a little child, my mother taught me Bach's first prelude

One can also learn from one's mother, if she taught you, I imagine she was a musician, right? I agree on the passion, which can even make one overcome certain limits.

The fact that your mother introduced you to music aligns with what I was saying before.