"You can do anything if you believe in yourself and try hard enough"

[Tappmann]

<p>

OK, this isn’t a good argument to make for inherent talent. Let’s remember, the real reason we all have a feeling there’s a notion of inherent talent is that a lot of what we process and figure out happens subconsciously. It’s not like we will ourselves and control every thought we have.</p>

<p>Success in high school and college can very well relate more to how prepared someone was. 2 years of good preparation before high school can make someone astronomically more ready to face high school math than another.</p>

<p>One major reason some people end up just more capable to produce in a subject is that at a young age, their minds were conditioned to think in a certain way. As you grow older, it’s tougher to condition yourself. So this explains a lot of the extreme talent you see.</p>

<p>However, it wouldn’t explain the crazy, out of the blue examples of brilliance, which exist. It doesn’t explain Ramanujan the mathematician, who re-derived tons of mathematics at a pace and style independent of what modern folks at the time were working on, from simple texts.</p>

<p>There IS a sense of innate drive to do something, because not everyone can explain where their own drives came from. And all of us experience it to an extent when we realize that a lot of the truths we hold were realized subconsciously or without our actively trying to force pieces together. The formal reasoning we employ is more of a check to truths’ validity under whatever context we care about - it’s not the source.

</p>

<p>Sure. I completely agree - anecdotal evidence is not a good way to support an argument. I’ll try to present a better one here.</p>

<p>We’re basically talking about nature versus nurture here. Whether or not a person is inherently good at something - the obvious example being math - or whether they just need to work harder or find better instruction. The answer isn’t simply that everything is innate; your ability to derive mathematical proofs isn’t set in stone at birth. As your comment about “condition[ing]” a kid’s mind references, the environment that a child grows up in is also quite important.</p>

<p>Your view might be best described as the “tabula rasa.” All or most variation between individuals is a result of their environment. Unfortunately, if you delve into the realm of cognitive science a bit, this simply isn’t true.</p>

<p>On the topic of intelligence (relevant here) specifically, a study by Thompson et al. (2001) found that differences in the anatomy of the cerebral cortex are under genetic control. These anatomical differences parallel differences in intelligence, amongst other traits. The study was published in the scientific magazine [url=<a href=“Volume 4 Issue 12, December 2001”>Volume 4 Issue 12, December 2001]Nature[/url</a>], if you’d like to look at it.</p>

<p>I’m pretty tired. Going to sleep now.</p>

<p>Edit: @Kvasek: If success at sports is a result of hard work and body structure, aren’t you conceding this argument to me? The size and shape of human bodies is influenced - heavily - by genetics. If that isn’t the definition of innate ability, I don’t know what is.</p>