"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
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Monday May 4, 2009 at 4:01pm
It's interesting that even in the anecdote Brooks gives there is credit given to the girl initially having, "slightly above average" verbal ability. So just where did that "slightly above average" come from? Even to the author it's not some kind of tabula rasa - give anyone the opportunity and allow them to work and "genius" will result. Instead, there is some kind of gift already working ahead of the inspiration and hard work. ;)
I also wonder where the "Tiger Woods" thing came from? Is there some claim that he has no special ability beyond his hard effort? If so, I'm surprised.
But I would suggest that talent matters utterly. My opinion is that a person with talent in an area functions more competently with less effort than the average, and for an equal amount of effort excels to a higher degree. And maximum effort coupled with innate talent is where one has a chance at reaching the pinnacles of a discipline. Still, without some talent one will never get to the pinnacle. And, yes, with some effort everyone improves to some degree. But how is that "provable?" (Or how can the opposite be proven or disproven?)
I just find it hard to conceptualize that anyone could be Kasparov or Fischer with enough effort. Or, statistics aside, that an infinite number of monkeys could give us Hamlet if they only had enough RAM and CPUs to go around.
(As an aside, though, I also think it's interesting that ten thousand hours figured at two hours a day yields thirteen years... the rough neighborhood of a Roman Talent (economic unit) in value, and at three hours a days 10000 hours becomes about 9 years, or roughly the Attic Talent. -Though such comparisons are never completely accurate or correct. And it's way too easy to make too much soup out of that oyster. Yet I can't help but think there's some measure of collective unconscious at work in the word talent's etymology.)
I almost commented on the example of the girl who becomes a writer, but a second thought dissuaded me. It's not given that the girl has any special talent, only that her ability at the time she's noticed is above average. That could be for any number of reasons - previous motivation, especially articulate parents, better teachers in earlier years, etc. So I don't think that his example is self-defeating.
'Instinctive behavior patterns' is the label used to explain how animals can be born with knowledge. For example, a spider is born with the knowledge of how to spin an intricate web. Is it such a leap to say that geniuses are humans who have instinctive behavior patterns in their field?
The writer of the article says "What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had — the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills". Either I'm missing something, or that can be re-written as "What Mozart had was a natural talent for focussing for a long time..." Maybe this is the result of bad journalism, and David Brooks is just misrepresenting the researchers.
He says that "modern research pierces hocus-pocus" as if the idea that people have innate differences is hocus-pocus, which is a bizarre attitude. Sometimes modern research appears to promote hocus-pocus.
You make an excellent point. What do the talent-is-overrated people have to say about all the other kids that go to tennis camp, the little chess players that spent thousands of hours at Pioneer Palaces, who didn't become a GM, the wanna-be pro golfer who practiced for 10,000 hours but couldn't make the tour? These people are forgotten. Nobody has ever taken 100 kids, exposed them to 10,000 hours of practice, and saw what happened. OK, maybe the Polgars. Even there, Judit naturally had the most talent, and became a GM. Sophie peaked at about 2450, or so. There does seem to be a talent gap. Perhaps it does not prevent one from becoming a "master" in their field, but it probably prevents one from becoming World Champ. --Howard Goldowsky
Howard: Thanks.
I mean even if we accept there is a high degree of 'genetic' talent at what point does this end and require a helping hand of '10,000 - X' hours of practice/experience.
I believe this can be reframed (again) to a famous psychology/philosophy question. Nurture or nature? Is a person prone to hardwork and effort because of genetics or can these traits (and others) be gleaned from the enviroment.
For the record (or Howard), there is an old Russian that lives in Skokie who is rated 1800 but spent quite a bit of his life in the pioneer palace.
I personally believe at some level you are slaying your own demons psychologically to continue to improve. I also believe that one must practice hard to succeed... talent can be present but it is not innate and never enough alone.
Not for the opposite... I see my chess friends (whom I consider to have 'equal' natural talent') have a bad tournament. They throw the games away. Withdraw from the tournament. Complain for an hour and go home miserable. They don't play chess again for 3-6 months. It is not they don't have talent... it is how they react to the scenario. You are fighting yourself to improve. No one else can help you if you aren't ready. It is always going to be a tough path no matter how much talent you have.
I am shocked by the number of people who either do not examine their games or just let the computer do it for them as though the mere of playing the game will cause instant improvement.
My point is this: No one can be a winner all the time. It is how your attitude is when losing that will determine alot of your progress. I think people just assume if they aren't winning all the time then they have no capacity for talent.
If by "incontrovertible" you require mathematical certainly, then proof will be lacking here, as practically everywhere else. But it's far from being the case that good arguments don't exist or are unattainable - one could do twin studies, for instance, to help prise out the degree to which one's native endowments play a role as opposed to those which can be fostered. At any rate, my point was not to offer a generalized chicken-and-egg skepticism, but only to point out that the factors mentioned by several commentators were not yet decisive in themselves.
Wrt your last comment, I'm very much in agreement, except perhaps with your last sentence. I'm not so sure that they assume they lack talent - though they might. Rather, my suspicion is that it's just a way to avoid taking responsibility for their results. It's easier, in the way taking drugs or getting drunk is easier, than facing the fact that the other guy was better than you that day. The best approach, at least if it's something you care about, is the one you suggest and that I've endorsed since I started this blog: work!