@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.

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

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.

“Should “box gene” be “hox genes”

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

Fingers that are unusually long in comparison to the palm.

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).

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.)

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

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

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

“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.