Science-Based Medicine

Oct 02 2012

Thumbthing Worth Reading

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Thumbthing Worth Reading”.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “Thumbthing Worth Reading”

1. # windrivenon 02 Oct 2012 at 8:18 am

   Amazon thanks you! For those who own e-readers, The Violinist’s Thumb is $12.99.

   “Our access to genetic information currently exceeds our understanding of what that information actually means.”

   One might argue that having that access will inevitably contribute to our eventual understanding.

2. # Artur Krolon 02 Oct 2012 at 9:37 am

   So are music academy students now all in possession of this same kind of gene Paganini had? Because what was virtuosity in his time is now standard fare for 2nd-3rd year violin students according to several university music teachers I’ve discussed the topic with.

   Research-wise, the genetic predisposition to mastery hypothesis just cannot be sustained at this point, unlike Ericsson’s “Deliberate Practice” mastery hypothesis. Which makes a lot of sense, when you come to think about it – the amount of effort, both cognitive and just pure time-based, required to become an expert is so large, that expertise couldn’t have had any serious influence of the natural selection during the time humanity was evolving. And while genetic makeup can influence the “novice level” effectiveness in various fields, the sheer time and effort needed to become an expert* makes the genetic advantage meaningless before reaching mastery. Now genetic disadvantage – like serious retardation – might obviously play a role, but we generally consider the possibility of a healthy person to become an expert.

   Genetics and heredity are fascinating subjects, but we must be careful to stick with quality research, and this research just does not support the inborn mastery potential hypothesis the Paganini anecdote suggests.

   *10.000 hours for most fields, but more for some, medicine was 12.000 hours of deliberate practice, for example

3. # Harriet Hallon 02 Oct 2012 at 11:54 am

   The book does not argue that Paganini had a genetic predisposition to mastery. It only argues that Paganini’s genes produced an unusual degree of flexibility in his thumb joint that increased his reach and facilitated his accomplishments. He was “double-jointed” (loose ligaments) and probably had Marfan’s syndrome. Rachmaninoff did too, and was able to play C–E-flat–G–C–G on the piano with his left hand. Some pianists are physically unable to play certain of his compositions.

4. # windrivenon 02 Oct 2012 at 1:45 pm

   For another take on Rachmaninoff’s incredible spread check this:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w

5. # gippgigon 02 Oct 2012 at 2:28 pm

   Should “box gene” be “hox genes”?

6. # Kultakutrion 02 Oct 2012 at 6:25 pm

   windriven, thanks for the link, I needed the good laugh.

7. # mousethatroaredon 02 Oct 2012 at 6:32 pm

   windriven – I’m sorry to ‘me too’ but that video is hilarious. Thanks

8. # windrivenon 02 Oct 2012 at 6:43 pm

   @Kultakutri and mouse

   I stumbled over that looking for a serious performance of the Rach 3. Pure serendipity.

9. # Janeton 02 Oct 2012 at 9:53 pm

   @windriven

   I loved it! Brilliant–and serendipitous indeed. I hear the music from Twilight Zone.

   @HH

   Thanks for passing this on. I love books like this, light-ish but worthwhile reading. I have “double jointed” thumbs which sadly, I never used to any purpose other than to amaze and kind of gross out my friends. (I can twist my thumbs all the way behind my knuckles and more.)

10. # Janeton 02 Oct 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Oh! I wanted to mention that I am on my way to LaCrosse, WI, to hear Brian Deer speak. ORAC posted it on his blog in case anyone hasn’t heard. As I’m in Wisconsin, I hitched the trailer up and headed out. I’ve stopped in Madison to see the grandkids, but will be there early on Thursday because….can you guess? Andrew Wakefield is going to make an appearance as well–a “press conference” apparently. Should be interesting.

11. # Chrison 03 Oct 2012 at 3:30 am

    Dr. Hall:
    

    The book does not argue that Paganini had a genetic predisposition to mastery.

    Le sigh. This is only a third hand account from daughter’s violin teacher. But the Paganini lore includes him being a showman. He apparently would break strings on the violin for a dramatic effect and then continue on! Especially long fingers could get him pressing a string very close to the bridge to create the high notes on another string of the missing E string (one that I often replaced on that violin… it is very thin).

    There is some genetics with hand size and finger strength with certain stringed instruments (and that actually includes piano, which with the hammers hitting the strings is a percussion instrument). And sometimes it has to do with age. When my younger son was eight years old his piano teacher helped him re-write some Star Wars music he wanted to play that included chords that exceeded his hand width (and yes, he could probably do them now as a college student if he wished, but work and school take up most of his time).

12. # BillyJoeon 03 Oct 2012 at 6:59 am

    Are the hands of all piano players spidery.
    My wife’s hands could send shivers up your spine.

13. # mousethatroaredon 03 Oct 2012 at 7:00 am

    BillyJoe – what is spidery?

14. # windrivenon 03 Oct 2012 at 7:12 am

    @mouse

    Fingers that are unusually long in comparison to the palm.

15. # Harriet Hallon 03 Oct 2012 at 4:27 pm

    @gippgig,

    “Should “box gene” be “hox genes”

    homeobox genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

16. # mousethatroaredon 03 Oct 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Windriven – oh, so the exact opposite of my hands. no piano playing for me.

17. # mousethatroaredon 03 Oct 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “Thumbs up to The Violinist’s Thumb.”. Hehe, some puns are so obvious, but still so gratifying.

    I’m going to check out this book. I’ve been looking for a way to learn about genetics, but haven’t found a presentation I found appealing enough for “entertainment” reading.

    In terms of genetics predisposition for mastery, I wonder. I don’t know if it’s confirmation bias or true, but within artist circles (my friends/previous coworkers) the high number of left handed people is often observed. But then I don’t know if that’s genetic.

    Sometimes it is the thing that makes a person different that lends itself to intriguing work. I went to school with a painter who had a color vision deficiet. He did these figurative expressionist pieces with an emphasis on value (black/white) and color schemes that were just jarring enough to be engaging. Likewise I also admire the work of an assemblage artist who has significant eyesight lose due to a genetic condition (I think) She uses photographs with a variation of focus that would probably not occur to a person with good vision.

    Sorry, I guess I wandered off-topic, but it’s interesting to think sometimes, about how what we are not makes us what we are.

18. # mousethatroaredon 03 Oct 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Warning Off-Topic

    Hey BillyJoe – I’m in the process of switching to my art brain, which often isn’t too focused on reading or commenting on SBM. I know you are only around intermittently. In case you are gone when I stick my head in again, I wanted to say how much I’ve enjoyed our chats. They help me clarify my thoughts on different issues.
    Cheers, MTR

19. # Artur Krolon 04 Oct 2012 at 9:12 am

    @Harriet – thanks for clarifying

    @Mousethatroared – try Coursera, I think they either already have courses in genetics, or will have shortly. They’re free and a lot of their courses are just brilliant.

20. # DugganSCon 10 Oct 2012 at 1:15 pm

    I’m very much enjoying this one. I hadn’t realized just how seedy early genetics was…