[hellion (OP)]

could someone pls explain to me how talents are passed on from one generation to another, and why and how its different between siblings?
thank you

[chris]

Interesting question.

one of the first people to suggest that talents - or in fact occupations - were hereditary (i.e. rooted in genetics) was the famous eugeneticist, and cousin of Charles Darwin, Francis Galton.

Galton suggested that what you did for a living was an inherited trait. To a certain extent he was right because things that make you employable in a certain role include sex, aptitude, intelligence, size and strength. However, as we all know, social pressure and background often exert a much stronger influence over what we eventually become.

Galton was also the first to compile a 'beauty map' of the UK for the same reason. He arrived at the conclusion that the most attractive women were to be found in London, and the ugliest were in Aberdeen !

In terms of talents, I don't think you can view talent per se as a heritable characteristic. It's more the underlying characteristics of the individual that give them 'talent' in a certain direction. I'd be hopeless at World's Strongest Man, for instance, but then the 50 stone Swede who usually wins probably wouldn't be that good at my job either ! But it's a fair bet that the winner of "World's Strongest Man" will have children (assuming that he hasn't destroyed his fertility through the use of anabolic steroids) who are pretty muscular themselves and hence will inherit some of their father's 'talent' for lifting heavy things.

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx

[rosy]

The thing is it's very hard to tell with abilities that don't depend on obvious physical characteristics.... for example, very musical parents may pass on some of that ability to their children genetically... but if that is the case it's probably masked by the environmental factors. Children of musical parents will also be brought up in an environment in which a lot of music is being played and so will get a feel for it at an early age, and also there will be an assumption, probably entirely tacit, that playing an instrument is the sort of thing normal people do. Plus of course the parents can provide guidance for how best to practice in the early stages which gives the child another head start.
I'm absolutely sure this applies to many abilities... I was good at maths at school because my dad is a physics graduate and there was an assumption that maths was a thing people could do (as opposed to some families I knew whose parents couldn't do maths and tended to say "don't worry if you don't understand it dear, I never did").
Differences between siblings? No two children, except maybe twins and even then it's questionable, grow up in the same environment. Parents have more or less time to spend with them at different points in their developement, they have different positions relative to their siblings...

[qazibasit]

well talents are not transffered genetically the behaviours are genetic character of an individual and that talents are the intrest of a child which is later on becomes visible in an adult.

[hellion (OP)]

I'am an artist and come from a long line of unsucessfull but very talented artists, my mother her father and her fathers mother. My youngest son is 12 now and is showing signs of being quit talented in the arts. thanks for your posts

[qazibasit]

well it was because when your son see you doing any painting he watches you and this is the thing which is influencing him to show his intrest in art coz you know the psycology of human which resembles to that of a  monkey and he trys to copy the one he see and for children their parents are the only ones.

[Ultima]

I agree with both rosy and qazibasit.
The main reason im interested (and good at) computing is because we had a ZX Spectrum personal computer in my bedroom when I was < 5 and my Dad used to program on it. I watched him from my bed in the evening. I started to mess around with it when I was 7 onwards. Plus my primary school had those turtle robots that draw pictures on giant bits of paper. Then my Dad got a voice synthesiser for our spectrum from then onwards I was hooked at making computers move things and speak to me []. Hence I naturally progressed to where I am now, doing artificial intelligence at university. Computers were never a mystery to me and I knew that they were just doing maths but quickly to make cool things happen. So I never felt wow that’s hard I can't imagine how that can be done. It's the same with everyone at the top of what they do, they think their subject is easy and natural to do; everyone else thinks you are masterful and uber clever.
I think with the arts and probably all professions there must be genetic traits that make you better able to perform, such as with music hearing is important (no derr) and steady hands for art and surgery etc. Something like computing imagination is really important; you have to relate to something that’s not very intuitive to how you think day to day. I would guess it’s the same for mathematics and physics. But it’s most definitely time effort and perseverance that make you talented, although this doesn’t account for child prodigies but they are just spooky [].


wOw the world spins?

[DoctorBeaver]

I think interest may also be worth mentioning. If one's parent(s), older siblings or significant others are interested in something they tend to enthuse about it & that, in its turn, can pique a child's interest.
Think of subjects at school. Most schoolchildren do better at subjects the teacher makes interesting. If the teacher makes the subject seems boring, the child takes less notice & hence learns less.
That environment can be at least as important as genetics (nature v nurture) is illustrated by studies of not just twins but also of adopted children. If adoptive parents have musical ability, quite often an adopted child will grow up to be an accomplished musician even if his/her own parents had no musical talent.

[johndiver]

Hmmm ... interesting topic.
I read a great book called TWINS. It was about the twin study done at the university of Michigan a few years back. They located a hundred twins who had been separated at birth and raised separately. These people were flown to Michigan and underwent psychological, medical, sociological testing for a week.
What happened?
First of all, the debate over how much of our intelligence and/or personality was due to genes and how much came from upbringing was settled: Genes account for 75% of one's personality. In other words, you become your parents whether or not they are around.
Here's one case that I recall. In the 1930s, in Trinidad, a German husband and his Jewish wife went their separate ways after she bore a set of twins. Each parent took one child with them. He returned to Germany, she to the Dead Sea area. One son joined the Hitler youth, the other worked on a kibbutz. They met once, briefly, around 1960, but didn't have much to say to each other. When they were re-united in Michigan, one man's wife was interviewed after a few days. She was very annoyed at the fact that her husband's twin brother had the exact same annoying habits/ sense of bad humour.
I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't give the author's name or the publisher. Nevertheless, it is titled TWINS and well worth a read.

[johndiver]

Another note from my memory....
I don't recall if the originator of this idea was Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, or another researcher, but it does offer a reason for the transmission of talent and genius thru the bloodline.
It is a given that genes and training are responsible for differences in individual's senses, alertness, introversion/extraversion, muscular skills, and so on. What I mean by this is that you can train a person to live by the sea, or you can simply find a person who favours the smell of methyl iodide, the taste of fish, the feel of damp air, and has large feet for better swimming.
If an individual has particular traits that make him more successful in an environment, then the odds of him meeting and marrying a woman who is also happy in that environment are also greater. And their children will not only carry more copies of those genes for the environment, but the mother will apparently contribute some "cytoplasmic influence" as well.
I believe the cytoplasmic influence is the result of diet and stresses a mother experiences while carrying her unborn child.
This phenomenom was noticed in Holland in the 1940s. During the withdrawal of German troops from that country, the Dutch suffered much starvation. women who were pregnant during the food shortage gave birth to children who consumed less food that those born during times of plenty. They were also smaller in stature.

[realmswalker]

actually musical talent can be passed on genetically as it is linked to a specific portion of the brain, and if that portin of the brain is larger due to genetics it will = beter musical ability...

[DoctorBeaver]

quote:actually musical talent can be passed on genetically as it is linked to a specific portion of the brain, and if that portin of the brain is larger due to genetics it will = beter musical ability...

I'm quite aware of that. I merely wished to point out that factors other than genetics can be involved

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
(Georg Hegel)

[Monox D. I-Fly]

Galton was also the first to compile a 'beauty map' of the UK for the same reason. He arrived at the conclusion that the most attractive women were to be found in London, and the ugliest were in Aberdeen !

Huh? How did he can even conclude that?

[syhprum]

My father was an accounts clerk who recorded cash transaction in copperplate hand writing, I am still obsessed with recording my finances to the nearest penny !.