Innate talents: Reality or myth?

Michael J. A. Howe, Jane W. Davidson, John A. Sloboda
1998 Behavioral and Brain Sciences  
Talents that selectively facilitate the acquisition of high levels of skill are said to be present in some children but not others. The evidence for this includes biological correlates of specific abilities, certain rare abilities in autistic savants, and the seemingly spontaneous emergence of exceptional abilities in young children, but there is also contrary evidence indicating an absence of early precursors of high skill levels. An analysis of positive and negative evidence and arguments
more » ... ests that differences in early experiences, preferences, opportunities, habits, training, and practice are the real determinants of excellence. Abstract: Clear evidence of large individual differences in children's performance in talent areas can be explained either in terms of innate gifts (the "talent account") or in terms of early exposure (the "no talent account" proposed by Howe et al.). At this point, there is no conclusive support for either account, and it is doubtful that talent could be explained exclusively by only one of them. Abstract: Howe and colleagues demonstrate that deliberate practice is necessary for proficient levels of competence, a fact that is uncontroversial. They fail, however, to demonstrate the role of biology in talent, because the studies they cite are almost all irrelevant to the issue. The approach of Howe and his colleagues is like that proverbial man who loses his key in the dark but keeps vainly searching for it near the lamp-post because the light is better there. Howe et al. invite us to join them at the lamp-post. They are looking in the wrong place; the key is not to be found there. Howe et al. make two main points. The first is uncontroversial, the second, unsupported by their evidence or arguments. Abstract: Deliberate practice and experience may suffice as predictors of expertise, but they cannot account for spectacular achievements. Highly Abstract: This Response addresses eight issues raised in the commentaries: (1) the question of how innate talents should be defined; (2) relationships between the talent account and broader views concerning genetic variability; (3) the quality of the empiri-
doi:10.1017/s0140525x9800123x fatcat:rimrrdizznbefndrudn4yaynsy