Personal View site logo
People are not equal
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    A study just published in Psychological Science, by Miriam Mosing of the Karolinska Institute, in Sweden, suggests that the sceptics are right. Practising music without the right genes to back that practice up is indeed useless.

    Dr Mosing drew her conclusion in a time-honoured way—by studying twins. She and her colleagues surveyed 1,211 pairs of identical twins (who share all their genes) and 1,358 pairs of fraternal twins (who share half) born between 1959 and 1985. They asked each participant whether he or she played a musical instrument or actively engaged in singing.

    The first measured a person’s ability to detect differences in pitch. Each participant heard two notes. Sometimes the second was different from the first. Sometimes it was not. Participants had to say whether the second was higher or lower than the first, or the same.

    The next test, of appreciation of melody, asked people to distinguish between two sequences of four to nine notes, in which one sequence would sometimes differ from the other in the pitch of a single note. The final test, of sensitivity to rhythm, required volunteers to decide whether two sequences of five to seven notes with the same pitch, but possibly different time intervals, were indeed the same or different.

    Expert musicians are exceptionally good at detecting differences in pitch, melody and rhythm in these sorts of tests. Dr Mosing therefore expected to find that if someone had put in sufficient practice time his musical ability would be as high as an expert’s. But that was not true. In fact, there appeared to be no relationship between practice and musical ability of the sort she was measuring. A twin who practised more than his genetically identical co-twin did not appear to have better musical abilities as a result. In one case the difference between two such twins was 20,228 hours of practice, even though the pair’s measured musical abilities were found to be the same.

    That is not to say practice has no value. But it is a fair bet that only those with high musical ability in the first place can ever hope to master these skills

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21606259-musical-ability-dna-practice-may-not-make-perfect

    In reality same is true for almost anything. As it is your brains and your ears that are limiting factor here.

  • 13 Replies sorted by
  • RamboRambo

    I could have told you that without any tests and trials VK, I'm musically useless and no amount of practice has changed that. :-)

  • bwhitzbwhitz

    Good article. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise to those who study evolution with any degree of honesty. Egalitarianism always seemed like just another religion to me...

  • last_SHIFTlast_SHIFT

    It's cause we don't have the right sub 1000$ camera with 18 stops of usable dynamic range, built in IS, and on-board 8K recording.....sigh

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I do not think it is evolution. It is just nature, people are different.

  • bwhitzbwhitz

    I mean more of the idea of looking at evolution... to realize that different traits are just a part of nature, like you said.

  • robertGLrobertGL

    I hope they weren't paid to research this

  • babypandababypanda

    i think everything has mostly to do with karma. if you suck at music, then it's likely because it's not in your present-life karma to be a musician. maybe you need to be doing something else in this lifetime. but keep practicing, because i believe all skills you acquire get carried over into future lifetimes. so you might suck until you're 90 but be a child prodigy mozart at the age of 3 in the next lifetime. or something.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    i think everything has mostly to do with karma.

    Sad to upset you. But it is everything to do with your brains.

  • johnnymossvillejohnnymossville

    This is something we all learned on the playground at school before the age of 10. Billy might have been as dumb as a fence post, but he was the first guy you wanted on your kickball team. Conversely, Joey was always the last kid to get picked for basketball, but he was the smartest kid in class.

    Forced equality goes against nature and just lowers standards for the best to match or coddle those less able. People are different. Embrace it.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Forced equality goes against nature and just lowers standards for the best to match or coddle those less able.

    Yet without forced equality (in media and corporate world) current system will collapse.

  • johnnymossvillejohnnymossville

    I think I know what you mean by that, but I also think there is a difference between a level playing field and forced equality. On a level playing field, where there are basic rules and guidelines, the best will rise to the top and the lesser will fail or go find something they are more suited to doing well.

    One of the big problems we find ourselves in now is that the playing field isn't level and the basic rules/regulations are being enforced selectively, which punishes those who are still playing by those rules. The notion of "too big to fail" is largely grown out of this.

  • thornthorn

    Forced equality goes against nature and just lowers standards for the best to match or coddle those less able.

    Thank you.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Researchers tested reading comprehension and fluency, along with mathematical questions on 12-year-old twins and another group of unrelated children from nearly 2,800 British families. When they compared the twins’ DNA sets with the results of their reading and math tests, they found thousands of subtle genetic changes that help shape a child’s performance in both subjects.

    "This is the first time we estimate genetic influence on learning ability using DNA alone. The study does not point to specific genes linked to literacy or numeracy, but rather suggests that genetic influence on complex traits, like learning abilities, and common disorders, like learning disabilities, is caused by many genes of very small effect size,” said lead researcher of the TEDS study Robert Plomin professor of King's College London.

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/reading-skills-and-math-ability-influenced-same-genes-deepening-understanding-nature-vs-nurture

Add a Comment