Is musical ability genetic?

[X1Lo]

If our genetics don't make a difference in musical ability, then explain child prodigies.  Or people who suffer a traumatic head injury and wake up savants.  It is all about the brain baby, and the make up of the brain is determined by our genetics.  Now having potential and skill are two different things, but skill cannot be achieved without the latter.

[avasopht]

If our genetics don't make a difference in musical ability, then explain child prodigies.  Or people who suffer a traumatic head injury and wake up savants.  It is all about the brain baby, and the make up of the brain is determined by our genetics.  Now having potential and skill are two different things, but skill cannot be achieved without the latter.

Child prodigies still had to be nurtured and everyone may have the potential to be a savant. We just don't know. I mentioned myself, being able to add 4 digits in my head in under a second at the age of 4. That was mostly down to the fact that I started early. Had I started later chances are I would have been just like everyone else.

I've tutored people in maths and in just a few lessons I've cured maths phobias (where they would have nightmares) and turned the kid into an aficionado. In 6 weeks I brought a girl from a D grade to a B just by helping her change her approach to maths. My grandfather had a similar skill in bringing out dormant abilities in people, particularly his children who he taught to read at the age of 3 (or 2, need to double check with my mum).

The make up of the brain isn't entirely determined by genetics as neurology has proven that it changes neuroplasticity, even during adulthood, according to stimulation.

So if you do lots of logic puzzles, your brain will develop stronger connections supporting that task.

On the other hand we do have information encoded in our DNA that produces shared memories (collective unconscious). It is why animals know instinctively which animals to kill and which ones to be scared of. What is not known is what exactly is encoded and how much potential ability differs between individuals based on their genetics.

In today's society we only use a fraction of our potential. Thousands of years ago memory was worshipped and for that reason it was standard for everyone to develop a strong memory. An improved memory will increase your intellectual ability as it allow you to learn much more quickly and rely on far more stored information when working.

So the jury really is still out on this one. Thus far, nobody has been able to prove either way.

[tt_lab]

I think Paulov or Makarenko would say something about this.
For me prodigy children are only the reflex of the ansia and obsesions of the parent(s).
Mozart's father put an instrument in his hands before he even knew how to talk
Children from 0-4 have more ability to learn almost anything if you know how to reach them.
So, no family genetics but yes to human genetics. AT last we were just 1500-2000 families back 30-40 thousand years ago(there is a studie about that with the mitocondrial DNA that proved that)
Would you say that a thiefs family has the crime in the genes. So we can just put all the family in jail and don't let them procreate.
Music is the same. We as animals and humans have certain abilities, the more related to this topic to be the capacity to learn, and often to forget too.
It seems impossible to people over 16 to think they could learn more when they were just 5. and time let us forget how we were (in any of our life aspects). It's not the same to try to learn a language with 0-4yo than with 30-40-50yo.
So if you are obsesed with your child to be mozart you can do it but starting from before (s)he is born.
I prefer the children to be just that...children and let them be, usually the children that are told to be geniuses lack of childhood.

[orthodox]

If our genetics don't make a difference in musical ability, then explain child prodigies.  Or people who suffer a traumatic head injury and wake up savants.  It is all about the brain baby, and the make up of the brain is determined by our genetics.  Now having potential and skill are two different things, but skill cannot be achieved without the latter.

Robots are coming...
You cannot prove the brain depends on genetics. There can be no experiment that would show that. You can only choose to believe in Lego bricks.

In today's society we only use a fraction of our potential.

Another popular and unprovable statement. A good story for a movie (watched "Lucy" recently), just like alien invasion.
Nobody ever seen our potential. There may be no such thing at all.

[orthodox]

Percents of what?

Some people just believe that if you have a cage, big and nice one, then inevitably a big and beautiful bird will choose to come and live in it.

[avasopht]

The fact most people have not invested in learning various learning aids is evidence enough.

It's a probable claim. Can most people improve their memory with training? YES. Therefore most people are NOT using their full potential.

[avasopht]

About the percentage thing, percentage usage of the brain is different to usage of prudential. Potential is difficult to measure, so the percentage of usage is the easiest to conceptualise.

We know that neglect and abuse stunt brain development (and intelligence), and on the other end of the spectrum we know that the right activity at the right time yields optimum learning.

And given most people have their entire lives devoted to their jobs, few ever do have the opportunity to reach anywhere near their potentialpotential.

[Janvier]

Examples of abilities of relatives do not necessarily point to genetics. This may be a result of common environment or influence. There are many counter examples as well. Even if genetics matter, I think it's of the lowest degree.

I think Im a good example of this ! 

My father don't play music and have some difficulties to understand the meaning of music, so its not a big listener. But he does wood-turning to make unique work of art. But he really don't understand music, he can't get a rythm nor sing few notes to make a simple melodies... Music isn't his talent, but it is a really creative man.

On the other hand, my mother is a real music lover, she listen to almost everything, she loves to see shows and so on, but she don,t play music at all. She have a sense of art, but she didn't practice something seriously. She try different thing for the fun of it.

While my half-sister is a real artist, was mostly in the visual arts some years ago, but now into music making. She have an awesome creativity. Her father is more like a motorcyclist and don,t seems to be attracted by any kind of art at all lol. She also left home at the age of 14 (punk movement was still a big part of the picture at that time), but I think she met a lot of creative people when she left. 

Finally on both side of my family there is only 2 person which are making music, me and my sister (half-sister). So, to make it short, yes I think its only a matter of environment. While the creative personnality will be more genetic. 

[orthodox]

The fact most people have not invested in learning various learning aids is evidence enough. It's a probable claim. Can most people improve their memory with training? YES. Therefore most people are NOT using their full potential.

People can improve their memory, but that's only a specific, vulgar sort of memory, something that the society considers useful for their life. What if that progress is achieved at the cost of decrease in some other memory that is critical for our lives?
To go beyond those "5%" is a political cause, I think, like a party popularizing their idea about where to devote common resources or how to deprive us of air in the name of progress.

[Janvier]

If our genetics don't make a difference in musical ability, then explain child prodigies.

It is already known that the first years of your life your brain makes tons of connection. Overtime the brain will be more selective and turn off the switch which are not usefull for your everyday life. So, mainly if you were in an environment without music, if you didn't play music. There is a tremendous chance that your brain will disconnect synaspis which make the necessary configuration for music talent. 

Also, the few prodigies in the world have a lack somewhere. For example, asperger syndrome. They have talent in structured domain (math, science, music)

Or people who suffer a traumatic head injury and wake up savants.  It is all about the brain baby, and the make up of the brain is determined by our genetics.  Now having potential and skill are two different things, but skill cannot be achieved without the latter.

For this one, I don't think its really related to genetic. It's pure speculation, since scientist don't understand yet what is happening after a brain injury.

[Janvier]

Cool story Janveir, but I wonder how would you describe understanding of music (apart or feeling a rythm & knowing how to put notes together) because music has no meaning really, there's nothing to understand, you either like it or not!

Obviously the meaning of a particular track will differ from one person to another. But music is often associated in your memory with a particular event of your life. So it will probably trigger a particular feeling for you because the first time you hear that song you were at that place doing this. 

Actually, commercial radio is using this technic to make hits. The more a song play, the more chance people might finally love the track even if its shit lol. Overtime, it is almost certain that people will hear the track in a cool event of there life or a sad one (depend on the track). So, everytime the track will play after this, this will trigger the memory associated with that event. 

Brain is a wonderful computer.

[CharlyCharlzz]

No and yes

[Janvier]

No and yes

Thanks for sharing this ! I already that bird but didn't remember the name. 
This one is just crazy.  :s0230:

[avasopht]

What if that progress is achieved at the cost of decrease in some other memory that is critical for our lives?

But it's not Your question is essentially saying, is there something we don't know about that shows no signs that should cause us to ignore our potential for development at the expense of potentially having more development provided by doing what we are already doing. Let's just say that would undoubtedly be a weak study tactic and likely fail to develop intellectual ability.

[orthodox]

Your question is essentially saying, is there something we don't know about that shows no signs that should cause us to ignore our potential for development at the expense of potentially having more development provided by doing what we are already doing.

There are similar cases, like industry vs environment.

Okay, there may nothing wrong in developing skills as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
But it can be done without regarding the efficiency of brain seen as some sort of thinking/memorizing machine.
This concept does not add value and it is just like promoting sponsors.

[Flandersh]

Be mindful of the dates.

In what way? To understand the classification of Asperger syndrome one has to understand it's history. The classification used today is the one that Lorna Wing made the foundation for and which was released in the beginning of the 90's. This work of Lorna Wing was based upon Hans Asperger's autistic personality disorder, but she changed quite a bit of it for different reasons. What's more interesting when talking about dates is that the beta-version of ICD-11 still classify it as a mental and behavioral disorder, and do not classify it together with example congenital disorders like Down Syndrome. So a change toward classifying Asperger syndrome based upon genetic features would be unlikely in ICD-11 as it stands now, and it would not be useful for research neither because of the problem of parallelism. And when it comes to the system of classification in itself is it still based upon the work of Kraepelin and Jaspers, meaning it take into account the problem of parallellism.

But like I said, putting them into a genetic database, isolating cases with minimal influence (and yes I'm well aware of the dangers you forewarned), we may be able to determine generic variance. Neuroplasticity is what complicates this, especially when multiplied by the complexitiescomplexities involved in trying to isolate behavioural development. Be mindful of those dates

I agree that it is fully possible, but I believe such a solution would be more in the way of RDoC than the way of ICD or DSM, which imply that a classification such as Asperger syndrome will not be used, but the symptoms as a direct result of the genetic variance will be noted and make the foundation for treatment.

[avasopht]

Your question is essentially saying, is there something we don't know about that shows no signs that should cause us to ignore our potential for development at the expense of potentially having more development provided by doing what we are already doing.

There are similar cases, like industry vs environment. Okay, there may nothing wrong in developing skills as long as it does not hurt anyone else. But it can be done without regarding the efficiency of brain seen as some sort of thinking/memorizing machine. This concept does not add value and it is just like promoting sponsors.

It's not about just seeing the brain as a "thinking/memorizing" machine. If the task of memorisation is slowing you down then you sure as hell could benefit from proven techniques to improve that skill Now I brought that up in relation to my statement that we are not using our potential anywhere near as much as we did thousands of years ago when memory was held in high regard.

We know that memory is stored and retrieved in many different ways, and that each  person has a different level of efficiency for each type. Some people are dominant experiential learners, quicker at gaining intuition than remembering static data.

I do find that a lot of people complain about any insistence on an area they are weak on. Left brained guys complain that intuitive humour and wit is celebrated, while right brained creatives complain that left brained procedural processing is favoured in education. And then there are those who acknowledge their weakness and invest a little time in patching it as much as possible and necessary to give themselves a nice and balanced skill set.

[avasopht]

In what way? To understand the classification of Asperger syndrome one has to understand it's history. The classification used today is the one that Lorna Wing made the foundation for and which was released in the beginning of the 90's. This work of Lorna Wing was based upon Hans Asperger's autistic personality disorder, but she changed quite a bit of it for different reasons.

Knowing the history of a subject is great, but even greater is conduciveness to the actual subject at hand, which is the relationship between intellectual/musical ability and genetics.

No doubt, genes are a factor in intelligence, it's why we generally have it and the other animals don't. Is it just down to cranial size in relation to the rest of the body? Is it more down to organisation of the brain's function?

But going back to the genetics, there is a classification of Asperger's syndrome that is believed / accepted to have a genetic factor. As I understand it, that same classification of Asperger's syndrome has been linked with on average, statistically higher intelligence. That's all I was getting at with regards to Asperger's, so the history seems only relevant as an anecdote more than information to add as what I am really saying is:

1# X has a genetic factor.
2# X has statistically higher intelligence.

Providing the classification of X results in statistically representative data points (i.e. low IQ persons with Asperger's are not failing to be identified as Asperger's) then #2 is quite significant.

One thing is certain, even if not statistically higher in intelligence, they most certainly do display the disproportionate examples of high intelligence. Great examples are Alan Turing and Isaac Newton, who apparently both showed classic signs of Asperger's.

[Flandersh]

But going back to the genetics, there is a classification of Asperger's syndrome that is believed / accepted to have a genetic factor.

Belief is not really useful for neither scientifical research nor professional classifications, but it is true that it is believed, and it exist possible reasons for the belief..

As I understand it, that same classification of Asperger's syndrome has been linked with on average, statistically higher intelligence.

I would like to see studies coming to that conclusion. When I did research on pervasive developmental disorders in the past my experience was that it was common to find a higher verbal IQ score and a lower perfomance IQ score, with a full-scale score of average IQ according to WAIS/WISC.

Great examples are Alan Turing and Isaac Newton, who apparently both showed classic signs of Asperger's.

And earlier, before Asperger syndrome was invented, many a great example was thought to show classical signs on different disorders (Lombroso, 1891). It is anyway impossible to classify the past for numerous reasons.

Bibliography:
Lombroso, C. (1891). The Man of Genius. London: Walter Scott.

[3rd Floor Sound]

I read this entire thread, but the below passage on math makes me most curious about your method for quick addition. I wonder if it's something I could learn. I have a strong memory for numbers and can calculate in my head easily, but nowhere near as fast.
I was a very early reader, and also share the ability to recall things clear back to being in diapers (no I was out of them by my 20's ). The memory thing can creep people out I've found, heh.

Both me, my grandfather and so his children had exceptional natural mathematic ability. Like, I pretty much taught myself to add up in my head by the age of 4 (like 4 digits in under a second). My mum and all her siblings were taught to read at the age of 3 (or was it 2), and I mean actually read. I never learned to read that young because I was not taught, but I know my maths was highly influenced by the fact my mother taught me to count early combined with my easily obsession with trying to identify the rules/algorithms behind patterns as an infant. All of us including my grandmother today remember clearly right back to infancy, where people sat in school and many details often forgotten.