What do we mean by being 'talented' or 'gifted'? The most obvious way is to look at the work someone does and if they are capable of significant success, label them as talented. The purely quantitative route -- 'percentage definition' - looks not at individuals, but at simple percentages, such as the top five per cent of the population, and labels them -- by definition -- as gifted. This definition has fallen from favor, eclipsed by the advent of IQ tests, favored by luminaries such as Professor Hans Eysenck, where a series of written or verbal tests of general intelligence leads to a score of intelligence. The IQ test has been eclipsed in turn. Most people studying intelligence and creativity in the new millennium now prefer a broader definition, using a multifaceted approach where talents in many areas are recognized rather than purely concentrating on academic achievement. If we are therefore assuming that talented, creative or gifted individuals may need to be assessed across a range of abilities, does this mean intelligence can run in families as a genetic or inherited tendency? Mental dysfunction such as schizophrenia(精神分裂症)-- can, so is an efficient mental capacity passed on from parent to child? Animal experiments throw some light on this question, and 'on the whole area of whether it is genetics, the environment or a combination of the two that allows for intelligence and creative ability. Different strains of rats show great differences in intelligence or 'rat reasoning'. If these are brought up in normal Conditions and then run through a maze to reach a food goal, the 'bright' strain make far fewer wrong turns that the 'dull' ones. But if the environment is made dull and boring the number of errors becomes equal. Return the rats to an exciting maze and the discrepancy returns as before -- but is much smaller. In other words, a dull rat in a stimulating environment will almost do as well as a bright rat who is bored in a normal one. This principle applies to humans too -- someone may be born with inborn intelligence, but their environment probably has the final say over whether they become creative or even a genius. Evidence now exists that most young children, if given enough opportunities and encouragement, are able to achieve significant and sustainable levels of ~academic or sporting prowess. Bright or creative children are often physically very active at the same time, and so may receive more parental attention as a result almost by default -- in order to ensure their safety. They may also talk earlier, and this, in turn, breeds parental interest. This can sometimes cause problems with other siblings(兄弟姊妹)who may feel jealous even though they themselves may be bright. Their creative talents may be undervalued and so never come to fruition(实现). Two themes seem to run through famously creative families as a result. The first is that' the parents were able to identify the talents of each child, and nurture and encourage these accordingly but in an even-handed manner. Individual differences were encouraged, and friendly sibling rivalry was not seen as a particular problem. If the father is, say, a famous actor, there is no undue pressure for his children to follow him onto the boards, but instead their chosen interests are encouraged. There need not even by any obvious talent in such a family since there always needs to be someone who sets the family career in motion, as in the case of the Sheen acting dynasty. Martin Sheen was the seventh of ten children born to a Spanish immigrant father and an Irish mother. Despite intense parental disapproval he turned his back on entrance exams to university and borrowed cash from a local priest to start a fledgling(乳臭小儿)acting career. His acting successes in films such as Badlands and Apocalypse Now made him one of the most highly-regarded actors of the 1970S. Three sons -- Emilio Estevez,' Ramon Estevez a