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.
Annie Lee (xxannie.leexx@yahoo.com)
Emily Bear is a genius in the field of musical talent and skills 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 is 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 musical genius and for Emily this is probably the case. For Mozart and Yo-Yo Ma, both were lucky to be brought up in families where music played a very important role, but just like all other people who have been great in their fields, they needed more than just an early introduction with music. David Shenk discusses this idea more indebt 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 it as hard as, or in some cases, harder than any adult may. Kevin Daviesdoes 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 only a gene leading Emily to greatness.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of imprinting though may have some merit, as it was at such a young age that Emily was inspired to take this leap into music. Since imprinting can only happen during a set period of time early in an individual’s life this would also support the idea as 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, and her grandmother being a concert pianist and all the other instruments she was exposed to at a child does account for something. It is not in every family that you happen upon whom has this set musical talent and it would no doubt aid in inspiring younger children to take a path in music. 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 basic 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.
ReplyDeleteThis idea relates to the theme of evolution, but also has deep roots in the interdependence of 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. 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 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 the way 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 in the future inspire 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)