The Argument-
David Shenk provides two examples
of how genius is cultivated: nurture and nature. Some examples of geniuses that came to be as a result of
being “nurtured” are Wolfgang Mozart (61) and YoYo Ma (95). Both came from families that were
highly involved in music and became great as the result of being thrust into playing
music at a very young age. Some
genius, however, are more a result of rising up to the demands and competition
that “nature” provides, as is the case in Michael Jordan (96-97). Which method of cultivating genius
seems to be more effective? Relate
your response to K and R selected species. Are the high natural demands and competition required of
R-selected species more likely to create “genius” within the species, or will
the highly experienced parental care of K-selected species cultivate more
“genius”? Relating to Animal Behavior, are more sophisticated behaviors learned
by an individual on its own or by learning from others of its species? Relate
your answer to Chapters 51, 53 and 54 of your Campbell as well as the overall
theme of Interdependence in Nature.
Brad Tiller
(brad.tiller@comcast.net)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the argument over whether nature or nurture is more important in creating “geniuses” in a species, more evidence has been found that intelligence and talent is more affected by nurture rather than nature. But the question being asked does have a flaw, as both examples given are examples of genius or talent growing out of a highly nurturing environment. As is said by Kevin Davies for Nova “The seesaw struggle between our genes (nature) and the environment (nurture)…” (Davies http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/nature-versus-nurture-revisited.html). In both Yo-Yo Ma’s and Michael Jordan’s cases it is due to environmental stimulus that they are encouraged and develop a drive to become the best and improve themselves as much as they can. In both cases it is not their genes, but it is the opportunities and choices given to them by the people around them that have nurtured the feelings of needing to be the best. David Shenk mentions how Ellen Winner calls this drive “’the rage to master’” (Shenk 95) and it is this “rage to master” that has made these men great and not the genes that they were endowed with. Due to this I agree with Akshay as to the fact that nurture does produce more geniuses as I agree with David Shenk since his entire novel is an argument that “This [studies on genes and environmental interactions] obliterates the long-standing metaphor of genes as blue prints with elaborate predesigned instructions for eye color, thumb size, mathematical quickness, musical sensitivity, etc.” (19). The Genius In All of Us is an argument for the effectiveness of nurture give everyone the chance to be a genius in their desired way as long as they can create a drive in them to do so.
ReplyDeleteDue to the support for the effects of nurture rather than nature creating geniuses in a species, this would support the idea that more geniuses are created in K-selection species. Like Akshay describes, in a K-selection species individuals are given more parental care compared to r-selection species where the main focus of the parents is to produce as many offspring as possible in the hope that some will survive. Campbell also mentions how in K-selection species “competition among individuals is relatively strong” (Campbell 1185). This information may seem like a relatively unimportant point, but when compared to a life like Michael Jordan’s we see that it can be, and often is, competition that inspires people to rise above others and to become the geniuses and the great of our societies. This competition that perpetuates itself throughout the lives of K-selection species is the drive behind making geniuses, but in r-selective species much of this is lost since those who survive often receive the badge of being lucky. Also the nurture given to r-selected species by parents is minimal if present at all and with the evidence for nurture more readily creating geniuses this would also support the idea that K-selective species are more likely to turn out geniuses since the greatly increased amount of parental care given to offspring.
As to sophisticated behaviors, more evidence lies in the support that these behaviors are learned by the young from the teachings of parents and other adults of the same species, except in cases where an individual does rise to the status of genius where then there is no one to continue teaching sophisticated behaviors as no one has ever taken part in the new invention. As discussed in Campbell most naturally sophisticated behaviors in animals are perpetuated through generations by developing learned behaviors. Chimpanzees have handed down the leaned behavior of cracking oil palm nuts by using rocks by having young chimpanzees observe this behavior first and then mimicking it (Campbell 1128). But in order to develop a behavior like this there must be one who initiates this behavior and this individual must learn and develop this behavior alone as no others of its species have been able to before him. This is the individual going beyond the norm of a species though into what may be considered a genius of a species; so for most sophisticated behaviors that are present throughout most of a species, the young were most likely taught the behavior.
ReplyDelete-Kyle Nelson (kynels21@gmail.com)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNurture produces more geniuses than nature because nature may cause high levels of stress since an individual must live up to the environmental demands and may “crack” under the extensive pressure. Nurture surrounds an individual in a certain field; Mozart achieved success because he was “bathed in music from well before his birth” (61). Nurture produces more success than nature because nature produces failure more often than success because there were millions of individuals that were in the same situation as Michael Jordan, but only he could handle the high demands of his environment; millions failed and one succeeded. Jordan emulated R- selected species, where survival is not a given, let alone success. K-selected species have high survival rates and the parents must invest quite a bit of time after birth, but some R-selected species die upon giving birth because their high number of offspring. According to science.howstuffworks.com, octopuses die upon giving birth because the number of offspring being born per gestation period is so high (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/marine-life/octopus5.htm). Since one parent dies, the other is left to be responsible for too many offsprings or the offspring’s must survive on their own. About 100,000 octopuses are born per female; only a few of them survive. Similar to Jordan's situation, millions of people are born in poverty and only a few achieve success.
ReplyDeleteAs Kyle mentioned, K-selected species still some have competition, but K-selected and r- selected species are the 2 extremes; humans are more K-selected, but aren’t purely K-selected. The reason humans have developed so well is because we are not entirely K-selected, thus we have a good balance between survival and competition. As Campbell reads, “The framework of K- and r- selection, [is] grounded in the idea of carrying capacity” (1185). In order for an organism to acquire success, the organism must have abundant resources, such as parental care and food. Due to their high population density, r-selected species do not have enough resources where a significant percentage of the population can succeed.
Humans learn more sophisticated behaviors from other humans; students that go to school will learn more than less fortunate children in the world who do not have mentors. An organism cannot survive and reproduce very well without the help of others; that’s why interdependence in nature is a theme of biology. According to Mr. Brachmann of plosbiology.com, "about 80% of land plant species benefit from a fungus’s ability to extract nutrients, mainly phosphorus, from the soil and in exchange and about 20% of all carbon that has been fixed via photosynthesis might be delivered to the fungal partner" (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040239). Without the help of others during the critical period of ducks, they cannot develop certain behaviors that are essential to their survival. Parental support is vital to developing success; in the case of Mozart, Leopold, his father put “off his official duties in order to build an even more promising career for his son” and “openly giving preferred attention to Wolfgang over his daughter” (63). There lies the reason Wolfgang became a world-renowned composer and Nannerl failed. As a child, she had just as much promise as Wolfgang, but Wolfgang was able to gain more motivation and thus more success because of the disproportionate amount of attention paid to him, allowing him the massive amounts of practice necessary to develop “extraordinary talent”. Organisms cannot survive and reproduce efficiently and successfully without the help of others.