There is obviously inherited factors for all basic cognitive abilities. Humans varies.
But cultural factors, bias, training is what start to have impact at birth, what we can leverage. The scientific consensus seems to be that culture/education/context/opportunity is the major factor when concerned with two standard persons (average cognitive abilities at birth).
I didn't personally read any cognitive science studies that validated the existence of some people having superior cognitive powers. It appears to be quite grouped at the center, with outliers with very specific talents ("savants").
So let's use the Ockham razor and go for the most likely explanation when learners struggle with any subject: they are not given the right learning process.
It has most probably nothing to do with how their brain is wired, because statically, it is most probably very similar to any other brain picked randomly. (As is our genetic code apparently. Two random humans on earth have a very closely similar genetic code, more than was expected at first).
For example I have a deplorable sequential memory: I can't really well memorize songs or karate katas. I blame my total lack of musical and dance education. I never really trained for memorizing sequences… Of course I could point to some innate genetic flaw, but this seems like a less likely explanation given what we know about the brain plasticity.
>So let's use the Ockham razor and go for the most likely explanation when learners struggle with any subject: they are not given the right learning process.
Strange, I came to the conclusion that people not interested in a subject won't retain information about that subject because they don't care about the subject.
I can think of several topics off-hand that no matter how someone tried to teach me, how many resources they gave me, or what the "learning process" was designed as: I wouldn't care to learn a thing. Zilch. I'm not interested, kindly buzz off and let me do things I'm actually interested in.
Actually - that's exactly why I dropped out of school in freshman year and became an autodidact. I was sick of others telling me what to learn about and thought my time would be better spent teaching myself about things I actually care about.
I 'lucked out' and got a job I enjoy doing things I enjoy because I did things I enjoyed instead of things I didn't enjoy. I'm puzzled how other people could reason to themselves that the reason I didn't become a doctor or a lawyer was because of the learning process and not because of my complete lack of interest.
How come the learning process is only relevant to STEM fields? Especially "tech"?
I didn't get much musical training either, but I used to keep myself entertained by replaying entire albums in my head while walking to school. (Probably not very accurately - but still.)
So I think this is very much about how the brain is wired. There's a level beyond which it absolutely isn't learned, either in ability or - more critically - of interest.
Compare with dance, where I had similar problems with memorising moves until I did an extended weekend immersion and broke my brain for a few days. It got easier after that, but I'm still at the slower end of any class.
I'd guess a lot of people on HN have always had a deep fascination with technology. If you have that kind of draw to a subject, you're not going to be stopped by parental disapproval or negative messages from teachers.
Negative messages will make it harder, and lack of resources will certainly kill you more than anything else will.
But the interest has to be there in the first place - not in a "I guess that might be kind of interesting" way, but in the "If I don't do this I'm going to be really fucking unhappy" way.
But if two people are subjected to the same learning, and one struggles and the other one is not, then that is an indication of ... what? bad luck?
Sure, you can enhance and boost your memorizing skill, but there is a limit how far anyone can go - and that limit is based on your physics. Which is always heretical with varying amount of randomness in the process.
>For example I have a deplorable sequential memory: I can't really well memorize songs or karate katas. I blame my total lack of musical and dance education. I never really trained for memorizing sequences… Of course I could point to some innate genetic flaw, but this seems like a less likely explanation given what we know about the brain plasticity. //
I trained at piano for about 7 years and played for my own enjoyment for about 4 more (then moved from having a piano to play). I still can't keep a rhythm, still struggle immensely with recognising note progression.
My son has been in a choir for 2 years (he has a musical mother) - from the outset he could find the right pitch, match rhythms, keep tune with others, etc..
Other son, started with choir - he has no ability for tunes, lacks rhythm, etc..
They have a very similar upbringing, very similar schooling, we dance with them, sing, play tunes, have instruments for them to mess around with. One of the children resembles me in their musical ability; the other my wife. My mother had the same problems with musicality, her sister became a music teacher and played many instruments, my mother like me can't keep a tune or continue a beat.
Now I don't doubt that the second son can improve their ability, just as I have; but like me I expect them to be unable to shake off the lack of natural ability. Ultimately they're unlikely to make a career in music - but I do and will encourage them in it as it's been and continues to be an important part of my life.
This is just an example, I suspect it works in other fields too; certainly in other creative arts it seems to.
I consider that it matters very little in these instances whether the ability is entirely innate or whether it's down to certain brain areas being reserved, pathways being fixed to a certain task at an early age.
Aside: Occam's razor is a useful philosophical tool but it lacks any ability to demonstrate the truth in a situation. Much in the world works with more complexity than it appears to need. Look at physics which often progresses by discounting simpler explanations in favour of more complex ones (of course this hinges on the element of "necessary entities" in the razor which actually make the razor useless as one is required to answer as to the necessity of an entity; if you know an entity is unnecessary to establish a proper explanation then you don't need the razor to suggest it).
But cultural factors, bias, training is what start to have impact at birth, what we can leverage. The scientific consensus seems to be that culture/education/context/opportunity is the major factor when concerned with two standard persons (average cognitive abilities at birth).
I didn't personally read any cognitive science studies that validated the existence of some people having superior cognitive powers. It appears to be quite grouped at the center, with outliers with very specific talents ("savants").
So let's use the Ockham razor and go for the most likely explanation when learners struggle with any subject: they are not given the right learning process.
It has most probably nothing to do with how their brain is wired, because statically, it is most probably very similar to any other brain picked randomly. (As is our genetic code apparently. Two random humans on earth have a very closely similar genetic code, more than was expected at first).
For example I have a deplorable sequential memory: I can't really well memorize songs or karate katas. I blame my total lack of musical and dance education. I never really trained for memorizing sequences… Of course I could point to some innate genetic flaw, but this seems like a less likely explanation given what we know about the brain plasticity.