In the Argument, one example that David Shenk uses multiple
times to illustrate his point is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In response to
Mozart’s young genius, Shenk claims that “his early achievements – while very
impressive, to be sure – actually make good sense considering his extraordinary
upbringing” (61). He brings up the fact that his father was an “intensely
ambitious Austrian musician, composer, and teacher who had gained wide acclaim
with the publication of the instruction book” (61) and that his sister,
Nannerl, was also “a dazzling pianist and violinist – for her age” (62). Basically, Shenk attributes Mozart’s genius to
his upbringing, because Mozart was surrounded by talented musicians at a young
age. However, Emily Bear, a girl from Rockford, Illinois, has been called the
next Mozart. Her musical talent emerged at the age of only two, and began study
with Emilio del Rosario at the Music Institute of Chicago. At the age of three,
she began composing. She has won awards for her compositions, some pitting her
against people up to the age of eighteen. At the age of six, she even played at
the White House. Although her grandmother was a concert pianist, and her elder
siblings play guitar, harp, and piano, there are other children who are exposed
to similar conditions. Emily Bear does not have a particular leg up compared to
other children living in moderately musical households. How could one explain
this phenomenon? Emily Bear grew up in a less advantaged environment than Yo Yo
Ma and Mozart; with support from Shenk, how could Emily Bear have reached
similar heights of genius? Although Shenk brings up the fact that Mozart’s
“early work was far from extraordinary” (71), how does this compare with Emily
Bear winning composition contests against those much older than her? Can the
success of these prodigies be explained through imprinting? At the same time,
if humans do learn through imprinting, then how come there are not that many
music prodigies in the world? Do humans need to undergo certain conditions for
imprinting to be effective? Do you think prodigal abilities actually a
traceable gene, and that the gene can be handed down through meiosis? Could
prodigal humans actually be the next stage of human evolution, as evolution is
to give a greater advantage in the environment that the organism is living in? Discuss
with regards to Chapter Three, especially with Shenk’s focus on Mozart, and
Chapters 14-15 and Chapters 22-23 in the book on Inheritance and Evolution,
respectively. Relate to Evolution and/or Heredity.
Annie Lee (xxannie.leexx@yahoo.com)
Emily Bear is a genius in her musical talent, but her genius can still be attributed the interactions between the environment and genes rather than assuming there is a “musical prodigy” gene located somewhere in her DNA. While it may be true that Emily Bear grew up in an average house when it came to musical talent, that does not mean that her environment has not shaped her to be a very talented musician and composer. It is not only an inspiration of music that is necessary to create a genius and for Emily this is probably the case. Both Mozart and Yo-Yo Ma were lucky to be brought up in families where music played a very important role in everyday life, but just like all other people who have been great in their fields, they needed more than just an early introduction to music. David Shenk discusses this idea more in depth when talking about the great basketball player Michael Jordan. David Shenk quotes Ellen Winner when he talks about “the rage to master” that exists in all those who are to be great. Ellen Winner describes how “Gifted children have a deep intrinsic motivation to master the domain in which they have high ability, and are almost manic in their energy levels” (qtd. in Shenk 292). When kids find they are able to do something they are easily motivated to improve. Emily Bear in this case may have found some talent in playing piano or composing and because of this she was motivated to improve. The way in which she was raised inspired her to be the best that she could be and it is because of this that she has been able to achieve so much at such a young age. It is not that she was born with a gene making her a prodigy, but that the way she was raised inspired her to be one. Many hours of practice must be put in to be great at something; which is undoubtedly true in Emily’s case. She did not just wake up one day great, but has had to work hard, even if this hard work came to her at a younger age than most. But an advantage to her starting at such a young age is that children are easily inspired. As Ellen Winner said they have “deep intrinsic motivation” (qtd. in Shenk 292). Kids want to achieve greatness and believe they can so they will work at reaching this point as hard as, or in some cases harder than, any adult . Kevin Davies for NOVA say how only “Time will tell whether there is a "perfect pitch" gene, but it seems reasonable to think that many personality and behavioral traits will not be exclusively the province of nature or nurture, but rather an inextricable combination of both” (Davies from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/nature-versus-nurture-revisited.html) but this only furthers the idea that it is not a gene leading Emily to greatness and that there has to be some environmental stimulus to help her achieve greatness. David Shenk uses the idea that Kevin Davies proposes and even takes it one step further in the belief that it may have been mostly the environment leading this young girl to her many accomplishments as she explores what her true potential is.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of imprinting though may have some merit, as it was at such a young age that Emily was inspired to take these leaps into music. Since imprinting can only happen during a set period of time early in an individual’s life this would align nicely with the fact that Emily was young when she started showing off her musical talents. Emily was also exposed to music, as you said, by her grandmother and siblings, since her grandmother was a concert pianist. Also, the fact that her grandmother was a concert pianist and all the other instruments she was exposed to by her siblings as a child does account for something. It is not every child who has this much musical talent surrounding them and it would no doubt aid in inspiring younger children to take a path in music if they were indeed to have musicians close to the,. More support for this theory comes from Campbell when he stated “the young… learn the basic behaviors of their species [through imprinting]” (Campbell 1126). Music may not be the most simple human behavior, but does have deep roots in human society and therefore would fall under a basic behavior of our species. But the reason that Emily has been so gifted while others in similar situations have not is for the simple fact that they lived in similar situations. They did not grow up in the exact same environment at Emily even if many features may have been the same. It is due to the small details in Emily’s life that she has been inspired to achieve greatness at such a young age and has taken the steps to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Emily Bear relates to the theme of evolution, but also with the theme of interdependence in nature. Since genes only code for proteins and proteins by themselves do not produce talent in people, this is not directly evolution in a biological sense, but does relate as through the evolution of culture we may be better at making talented people. While we may not find a gene that causes prodigies we have started to evolve our society into better shaping these people as we further push kids to explore the world and what they enjoy to do. We push kids in new and better ways to be the best they can and under the right circumstances, this push can lead the way in developing a very talented individual. But this example has a deep relationship to the interdependence in nature because it is the environment that has allowed Emily to unlock her true skills. We may not be evolving genes to make us great, but because we are changing our environment and by the new ways we approach learning, we have the ability to make many more prodigies. The deep impact that the environment has on us shows how we are truly dependent upon it to form many of our characteristics. It is this that has helped us become great and because we have to ability to change our environment, we can theoretically encourage many more to become great by exposing them to an environment that will help them to be inspired to do so.
-Kyle Nelson (kynels21@gmail.com)