"Genius" = Hard Work(?)
In what has now become cliche, here's yet another article ("Genius: The Modern View" by David Brooks) presenting the infamous "10,000 hour" rule in support of the "genius is earned, not made" thesis. To the extent that it encourages people to work hard, promoting the idea is altogether worthwhile. But I have yet to see the argument presented in a way that looks like a proof of its thesis. In other words, it doesn't follow from
(1) All world-class achievers in a given field put in tremendous amounts of work
and even
(2) All such achievers had special opportunities to develop those gifts
that
(3) There's no such thing as natural talent (whether "God-given" or explained by some other means).
Maybe such research exists to discount the thesis, but I haven't seen it, and popularizing essays like the one referred to here don't make that case. Brooks mentions Mozart, noting that while he was composing at an early age, his compositions were nothing special. Yes, but he composing at an early age! Brooks' response: "he would not stand out among today’s top child-performers." In other words, we should infer from the fact that in a time when many millions of kids take music lessons and have far more resources than Wolfy had, the fact that the (very young) Mozart would not outstrip the small and elite group of today's very best young musicians means that talent is a myth. Riiiiight.
On the other hand, talent doesn't matter to most of us. For those of us whose natural gifts place us in the meaty part of the bell curve, hard, smart work continued for many years will lead to genuine success, even if not to a Kasparov-like stature.
HT: Charles Sullivan
(1) All world-class achievers in a given field put in tremendous amounts of work
and even
(2) All such achievers had special opportunities to develop those gifts
that
(3) There's no such thing as natural talent (whether "God-given" or explained by some other means).
Maybe such research exists to discount the thesis, but I haven't seen it, and popularizing essays like the one referred to here don't make that case. Brooks mentions Mozart, noting that while he was composing at an early age, his compositions were nothing special. Yes, but he composing at an early age! Brooks' response: "he would not stand out among today’s top child-performers." In other words, we should infer from the fact that in a time when many millions of kids take music lessons and have far more resources than Wolfy had, the fact that the (very young) Mozart would not outstrip the small and elite group of today's very best young musicians means that talent is a myth. Riiiiight.
On the other hand, talent doesn't matter to most of us. For those of us whose natural gifts place us in the meaty part of the bell curve, hard, smart work continued for many years will lead to genuine success, even if not to a Kasparov-like stature.
HT: Charles Sullivan