ON-topic Poll: Nature vs. Nurture

[Caj]

My question is, tho: when should we jump to the conclusion something "innate" is genetic?

My own example: I am left-handed, which is genetic. I have an innate artistic bent, which supposedly is due to my being left-handed or right-brained or such. But then, I've spent my entire childhood being told by everybody that I was innately artistic because I was left-handed, and I was more likely to get art supplies for Christmas. Maybe it was just that?

Not a genuine counterexample and that's the problem with the line you are taking.

I can't provide a genuine counterexample because I am arguing a negative: that this isn't a matter of genetics. I can't prove it isn't, but I ain't seen any evidence that it is.

The number of skills that together make for musical talent would run to dozens, of which maybe a dozen would be very important. Most of these skills are quite subtle things so would very likely be polygenic. High level traits that consist of different clusters of polygenic traits are very complicated.

I'll accept that they could have a genetic basis, but not that they would be or are, until some scientific evidence affirms it. Until someone finds that genetic basis, I'll take the null hypothesis that there isn't one.

In my opinion, the zillions of giant influences during childhood development whomp the high-holy crap out of any potential genetic factors. To look at someone's personality, for example, and provide a genetic explanation for it is like throwing a paper airplane out a skyscraper window on a windy day, watching it land in a fish market across the bay, and invoke the carbon content of the paper to explain why the plane chose to land on a red snapper rather than an octopus.

Or better yet, we throw two airplanes out the same window at the same time with the same force, and one lands in a taxicab on the other side of town. What could cause that difference in behavior except geneti---oh wait, paper airplanes don't have genes.

I bring that up because we sometimes assume "nature" when we can't find any overt "nurture" explanation. E.g., we gave both those airplanes the same treatment, or I and my brother are raised in the same household by the same family. But regardless of how uniformly you raise or encourage your children, they will have different childhood experiences, due to every little thing. Often we can't trace a trait to any particular experience or cause, even when that trait is environmental; many people have phobias, for example, and have no idea why.

Caj

[Nanohedron]

The question of "Nature" to me is a tantalizing exercise in speculation. It may or may not have bearing, but at this time is pretty hard to prove when it comes to musical inclinations and abilities. No matter how much I love what I do, no matter how much my chosen idiom speaks to me like language itself, and no matter how much my instrument makes sense to me, without practice I founder.

Possibly I'm substandard.

[Montana]

I bring that up because we sometimes assume "nature" when we can't find any overt "nurture" explanation. E.g., we gave both those airplanes the same treatment, or I and my brother are raised in the same household by the same family. But regardless of how uniformly you raise or encourage your children, they will have different childhood experiences, due to every little thing. Often we can't trace a trait to any particular experience or cause, even when that trait is environmental; many people have phobias, for example, and have no idea why.
Caj

The problem with this example is that you and your brother do not have the same genetic inheritance. So not only are the genetics different but as you say, the environment will always be slightly different. The only way to eliminate one variable is to ensure the genetics are the same, i.e. study identical twins (come from the same egg). Now if you put these two identical individuals in different environments, you can measure or assess the differences and conclude these are due to environment. You can never do the reverse (eliminate all environmental variation).

[Wombat]

Caj,
I pretty much agree with everything you say about the complexity of environmental factors. I just don't see how you can leave genetic factors out of the story. You can no more tell the detailed environmental story than I can tell the detailed genetic story. But what I voted for was both. I don't know if we'll ever be able to factor out the precise contribution of each. But since genetics is regarded as part of the explanation of how we differ as a species and as individuals in countless ways, I don't see why musical ability would be different. The view, if it really is your view, that we are all of us equally able musically, despite having different genetic endowments that contribute to eye colour, to certain kinds of athletic ability, to a propensity to have Tay-Sach's or sickle cell anaemia, is itself a thesis about genetics—about a curious absence of genetic contribution in the midst of a great deal of genetic shaping.

I pointed out that the skills that go into making up musical apptitude are almost certainly polygenic. That means that they could turn out to be horrendously complicated and resistant to explanation, just as complicated and resistant as environmental factors are. Even if we never get to have an explanation which neatly separates the two, that doesn't mean that it's rational to deny that both are involved and to cleave to one to the total exclusion of the other. But if a person is congenitally deaf, isn't this genetic and isn't it a handicap when it comes to being a musician? I hear you to be denying this, or at least holding a thesis that refuses to affirm it.

[The Weekenders]

Yeah, Montana makes correct point. So much speculation when only identical twins in controlled enviro could make the case. But what the heck…

I believe that at least 60% of all people are innately musical to some degree. Possibly higher. A lot of people can sing or hit a drum and keep time. I have met very few people who were fundamentally unmusical.

To be very gifted musically is a much smaller percentage. I was raised in a non-musical house, with only records for musical input. I had a few free piano lessons at six, then played trumpet in elementary school. Then my grandmother paid for my guitar lessons as parents couldnt afford it. That set the stage for my eventual music degree in guitar etc etc.

The wrinkle in this is that I think the concept of being SUCCESSFUL in music has a lot of nurture in there. I am gifted musically but not a raging success at it. Part of it is my own nature, my socio-economic strata but I think that being raised in a society that does not value music as much as others makes it very important if your family has set a precedent. Part of my youthful revelation in going to college was meeting high-art/achievement East Coast families that knew what to do with their musical, visual arts or literary talents. I could swear that most of the publishing world is a literary playground for many East Coast family dynasties.

Something that I didn't know but found out later, as an adult, was that my maternal grandfather (who I only met once when I was tiny) was a big band musician who had a hard time holding down a day job (during the Depression)...Man, now that's genetic!! My grandmother didn't care for me much because I reminded her of him so much..I also found out, that some of my Californio (pre-Gold Rush hispanic californians) ancestors were pretty good at hanging around the porch strumming guitars and dancing for days at a time. Needless to say, our rancho was quickly squatted and litigated into the hands of a New York lawyer.

Hard-wiring can be frightening in this case.

[mamakash]

Whenever I see a topic like this, I think back on my genetic makeup . . . my dad tried to play violin as a kid. Sounded like he was strangling a cat. Or so he tells me.

I think there are enough people out there, through hard work and patience, have learned to master musical instruments. On the other hand, there have been plenty of kids who've taken music lessons from early on who never learn to love it or continue on into adulthood.
And then there's the rare breed of people. One day, or perhaps from the beginning, something clicks. It makes sense. It becomes as translatable as a spoken language. I remember Tori Amos saying something to that extent, "As a small child, I crawled onto the piano and played. I always knew how to play."
I loved to draw and doodle as a kid and remember being envious of a girl in my school who drew beautifully from a young age. I borrowed books from the library on how to draw horses or cats and even though I followed the steps, I still couldn't replicate what I wanted to. It just didn't click.
And then, when I was 13, suddenly it did click and make sense and I studdenly had this ability to replicate what I saw or wanted to create. It popped out of nowhere. I was fasinated by this. Everything took a backseat to art from that day.
I still have that doodle!

Music never clicked. I started too late in life and my brain organized information differently . . .ADD and possibly dyslexia. I learned how to "read" music in 7th grade and was stuck with Every Good Boy Does Fine for years. It wasn't until after the brain trauma and rehab that I sat down at a keyboard in my house, with sheet music, and relized that notes had nothing to do with letter designation, it had to do with their relationship to each other. See, a bump on the noggin can be benificial. I'm not sure that if I hadn't changed the way I learned I would have even learned the tin whistle. Too bad I didn't get those lessons in grade school.

[Guest]

Nature - nurture ..hmmm

Reminds me of Psychology books and such. Doesn't the questioning beg even deeper questions?; like, how can an observer make the observation if observing is part of the hardware that is looking at observing?

If you want to learn anything bad enough then you'll find a way to do it.

My 10 cents

[The Weekenders]

aw, toasty, yer wreckin' the fun. Great story Mamakash.

When I was real little I would lay on the floor whenever my Mom ran the old Electrolux vacuum and get goose bumps on my arms from the sound it made. I can remember vividly the sound it made.

Took me years to make a connection that it was a musical or sonic response on my part. I think it was the aural parallel of looking at a hypno-spiral or something.

[Darwin]

Yeah, Montana makes correct point. So much speculation when only identical twins in controlled enviro could make the case. But what the heck…

A friend of mine had twins, but she absolutely refused to turn them over to me, even though I had a number of really interesting experiments in mind. Some people just aren't interested in doing their part for the advancement of science.

[Caj]

Caj,
I pretty much agree with everything you say about the complexity of environmental factors. I just don't see how you can leave genetic factors out of the story. You can no more tell the detailed environmental story than I can tell the detailed genetic story.

But, this is precisely why I wait for evidence. We have loads of evidence that environmental factors affect musical inclination. What we lack is similar evidence for genetic factors that would make one person more musically-minded than someone else.

Maybe we have the public perception that these things probably have some genetic factor, but public perception does not equal a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is pretty much what we presently know from evidence.

Now, you mention deafness. Yes, we can have hereditary disorders (or even little things like tiny pinky fingers) which will interfere with someone becoming a musician in the first place. For that matter, if your genetic makeup dictates that you will be born a chicken rather than a human being, that will also impede your musical career. But I'm talking about some genetic factor directly affecting musical talent, e.g. a "music gene".

But what I voted for was both. I don't know if we'll ever be able to factor out the precise contribution of each. But since genetics is regarded as part of the explanation of how we differ as a species and as individuals in countless ways, I don't see why musical ability would be different.

Just because our genes make us different in all sorts of ways doesn't mean we should expect the same of very complex, high-level traits, e.g. whether you decide to be an accountant or a history teacher.

Now, surely we expect our biological traits to have some affect on our personalities, interests, etc---your height, for example, can have a substantial impact on the way people treat you as a child. It probably affects your confidence, maybe the hobbies you choose to take, etc. Nevertheless, this is a far cry from a genetic basis for musical abilities, or the idea that musical inclination is X% environmental and Y% genetic.

Caj

[Wombat]

Caj, you keep ignoring that I said that musical ability, to the extent that it isn't acquired, would have to be polygenic, ie due to the subtle interplay of perhaps dozens or hundreds of genes. There isn't going to be a music gene any more than there will be an intellignce gene. The reason I mention congenital deafness is that its genetic basis is so obvious. But so many other factors that make it easier or harder to play well can often be broken down to some extent and small factors isolated which would have a genetic basis that I can't see how genetics could be completely irrelevant when there is simply no other ability for which this view would even be remotely plausible. Even if genetic factors are small, which I seriously doubt, the answer is still both if they are not insignificant.

I wish we could have a bet on this, but, with heavily polygenic traits, I seriously doubt that either of us would be around to collect when the genetic evidence is in. Even if you are right about musical ability and maybe comparable traits, although I can't see how you could be, the genetic knowledge we'll have if things proceed at the current pace is something I'd rather we didn't have, in many respects.

[BillChin]

But, this is precisely why I wait for evidence. We have loads of evidence that environmental factors affect musical inclination. What we lack is similar evidence for genetic factors that would make one person more musically-minded than someone else.
...
Caj

I agree about the lack of a "music gene." However, I am almost 100% opposite of your overall opinion. Some genetic factors are clear. A small percentage of people are born with perfect pitch. Others can learn to emulate it with great effort but not duplicate this natural talent.

Some people are born with a high degree of manual dexterity. For whistles and many other instruments that is a huge advantage. Yes, someone who is "all thumbs" can acquire some degree of proficiency with many years of practice, but someone born with high dexterity has a huge edge.

Again, I agree that the vast majority of people can be trained to be decent musicians. Good enough to play in a band, or orchestra, if he/she devotes enough time and energy to the task. What I disagree strongly with is that the exceptional performer, the one-in-a-million can be created by environment alone. In my mind, there has to be a great deal of natural talent for someone to be exceptional. The person with greater natural talent in the form of higher dexterity, better ear for music, will always have an edge over someone who logs the same practice hours as a lesser talent.

Taking the analogy over to basketball where it is much clearer. A person that is 5' 8" and can not jump may practice a great deal and become a reasonably good player. However someone who is 6' 8" and can jump and run will be a good player with little practice. The taller person has a much better chance at becoming an exceptional player. I believe the analogy translates to music. If someone is born with a high dexterity and perfect pitch, that person can be a reasonably good musician with little practice. If someone is born with low dexterity and an average ear for music, that person is going to have to work hard to achieve the same level.

I have met people with what I see as pure natural talent. One friend picked up a harp and within a week was playing in front of crowds and being paid for it. I believe this friend is one-in-a-million and most of that talent is nature not nuture. An average person might have to practice for years to achieve a similar level of profiency. And if both practice equally the more talented one will always be ahead.
+ Bill

[Montana]

Okay, this will probably cause more debate. I talked about people being tone deaf before but I guess there's also "tune deafness". So it looks like there may be a genetic component to elements of musical ability... However, even this article reflects the disagreement going on in this thread.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1209186.stm

[Caj]

Okay, this will probably cause more debate. I talked about people being tone deaf before but I guess there's also "tune deafness". So it looks like there is a genetic component to musical ability...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1209186.stm

Wow.

See, this is what I'm talking about: even if there was no genetic basis whatsoever, you should still see similarities in musical ability among identical twins!

You should see two kids born at the same time in the same household, going to the same school, to be more alike in musical ability than two arbitrary people. This is true even if musical ability was entirely environmental. Such a study needs to be controlled heavily, tho I bet that wouldn't be easy.

Caj

[What's more, you notice in the article how people just assume that "inborn" means "genetic"?]

[Caj]

Caj, you keep ignoring that I said that musical ability, to the extent that it isn't acquired, would have to be polygenic, ie due to the subtle interplay of perhaps dozens or hundreds of genes. There isn't going to be a music gene any more than there will be an intellignce gene.

I'm sorry Wombat, I shouldn' have said "music gene". I do know what you mean: the idea is that any genetic influence in musical abilities could be quite subtle and complex, probably hard to isolate experimentally.

Meanwhile, my own position is not that there is no genetic basis, but that there is no substantial genetic basis---meaning, if any genetic influences affect musical ability, they'd probably be so utterly clobbered by environmental factors that we won't be able to find any experimental evidence thereof.

So we're disagreeing over the extent of any genetic influence, and I sez it's small if not negligable. If this is true, we won't see any evidence for it. If I'm wrong, we can find evidence. This is part of the reason I'm taking the "small if not negligable" position: it is the other position that can be established empirically.

I wish we could have a bet on this, but, with heavily polygenic traits, I seriously doubt that either of us would be around to collect when the genetic evidence is in.

A strict empiricist might say: if we'll never find evidence for XYZ in our lifetimes, we may as well accept that, for all practical purposes, there is no XYZ.

I am not so strict, but I'll say this: if we really have trouble isolating a genetic influence, then it can't be all that significant that we should even think about it when deciding whether or not to take music lessons. We'd be talking about a subtle influence rather than something we'd really notice in practice---if we really noticed it, we could easily gather solid experimental evidence.

This I find upsetting about that article: the suggestion that if your kid is not good at music early on, maybe you shouldn't waste money on lessons. That's an awful conclusion to draw even if this was evidence for a substantial genetic influence.

Caj