Jump to content

talent or work? Case closed!


Bajazz

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

An interesting article about the benefit of practice. BUT

 

The most contentious claim made by Dr. Ericsson is that practice alone, not natural talent, makes for a record-breaking performance. "Innate capacities have very little to do with becoming a champion," said his colleague, Dr. Charness. "What's key is motivation and temperament [] It's unlikely you can get just any child to apply themselves this rigorously for so long."

 

this is a humorous self-contradiction. What it says is you don't need inate capacities, just inate temperament ". What's that if it's not an inate capacity :freak:

 

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An interesting article about the benefit of practice. BUT


this is a humorous self-contradiction. What it says is you don't need inate capacities, just inate temperament ". What's that if it's not an inate capacity
:freak:
GaJ

It simply means that the capacity comes from temperament. That is what I've always said: work = skill = talent. This means there is no talent to start with that you are born with. The talent, or skill is developed. The ability to put in the work is what is the real talent here. And that is one thing you can learn to do. That is if you don't believe in those talent myths which will put on the brakes for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe that the roots of talents can be found in physical predispositions. For example, someone is born with longer fingers and stretchy joints, so he is more likely to be a good piano player than someone who has short fingers. That's IMO a pretty non-negotiable part - someone has better or worse physical predispositions for being a musician, athlete, or whatever.

 

By chance, the kid with longer fingers and stretchy joints has good ear, likes music and takes interest in the piano, possibly at an early age, and this is where work begins. Maybe with this he creates foundations which would later discern him from the other kids as "the talented one".

 

But I am more prone to believing that there is something more than meets the eye. For example, I was born in a family of engineers. Music was not really a factor there, although my folks did like it and did listen to it. My mom quit piano studies at 18, way before I was born (she started at the age of 6), and that's basically it. On the other hand, they enouraged me to do stuff that had to do with natural science - maths, physics and so on. I turned out to be pretty dumb for those, but I aced languages and was pretty good in music. So I guess there had to be something inside that just waited for its chance to develop :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This means there is no talent to start with that you are born with. The talent, or skill is developed.

 

I don't think the article supports this claim.

 

For me, "talent" is a measure of someone's _latent_ ability to do something.

 

If you want to define it differently, thats up to you. For example, you could say "no, the word talent means how much work someone put in". Well, sure, if you define it that way then that's what it means to you :)

 

I don't know why there is resistance to the idea that some people are naturally more able to pick up certain skills than other though. It's so frickin obvious, it's all around us. If you've had children, you will have experienced one of them pick something up right away and the other have to work at it. If you have ever tuaght beginners a skill, you will have found the same thing. Different people have different latent ability to pick up different skills. We use the word "talent" to describe that.

 

It does _not_ mean that people with a talent for something don't have to work at it. Sure they do. And it does _not_ mean that with enough work people with less natural apptitude (talent) can't still be great. Sure they can.

 

"Talent" is just a word for how easily a skill comes to a person in the first place. This article specifically didn't delve into that topic.

 

GaJ

 

(It's also worth noting that people wrongly say "she's talented" when they mean "she's skilled". Seeing a person do something well tells you nothing about how talented they are, only how much work they have put in. Only by looking at someone start to pick up something new can you see whether they have talent at it or not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think the article supports this claim.


For me, "talent" is a measure of someone's _latent_ ability to do something.


If you want to define it differently, thats up to you. For example, you could say "no, the word talent means how much work someone put in". Well, sure, if you define it that way then that's what it means to you
:)

I don't know why there is resistance to the idea that some people are naturally more able to pick up certain skills than other though. It's so frickin obvious, it's all around us. If you've had children, you will have experienced one of them pick something up right away and the other have to work at it. If you have ever tuaght beginners a skill, you will have found the same thing. Different people have different latent ability to pick up different skills. We use the word "talent" to describe that.


It does _not_ mean that people with a talent for something don't have to work at it. Sure they do. And it does _not_ mean that with enough work people with less natural apptitude (talent) can't still be great. Sure they can.


"Talent" is just a word for how easily a skill comes to a person in the first place. This article specifically didn't delve into that topic.


GaJ


(It's also worth noting that people wrongly say "she's talented" when they mean "she's skilled". Seeing a person do something well tells you nothing about how talented they are, only how much work they have put in. Only by looking at someone start to pick up something new can you see whether they have talent at it or not)

This.

 

--Aik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I believe that the roots of talents can be found in physical predispositions. For example, someone is born with longer fingers and stretchy joints, so he is more likely to be a good piano player than someone who has short fingers. That's IMO a pretty non-negotiable part - someone has better or worse physical predispositions for being a musician, athlete, or whatever.

It's quotes and beliefs like this that keeps the talent myths alive.

 

Think about it: Do you have any research behind this theory? Have you really done anything to support this? I bet if any did this, it would show absolutely no direct relationship.

 

Anybody seen Segovias fingers? I have discussed with hundreds of guys complaining that their fingers are too short. And all had longer fingers than me, and much longer than Segovias. I had no problems with any chord but they had cause they believed this false myth.

 

Please folks, don't just jump to conclusions and come with false truths. Please don't slam false myths in the face of eager souls trying to learn.

This is only making it worse for those who are convinced by you. You are simply destroying their chance to become great musicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
(It's also worth noting that people wrongly say "she's talented" when they mean "she's skilled". Seeing a person do something well tells you nothing about how talented they are, only how much work they have put in. Only by looking at someone start to pick up something new can you see whether they have talent at it or not)

I think you are confusing "talent" with how fast you learn. Remember this is a learned ability and not a mystical withborn magical ability....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's funny how people still deny with proof in their face. I've said it thousands times:

 

THERE IS NO MAGICAL TALENT YOU CAN BLAME FOR NOT BEING BETTER THAN YOU ARE. YOU NEED TO WORK! DAMMIT!! THOSE THAT ARE BETTER THAT YOU HAVE DONE THIS!!

 

If you still are in denial, please read the article a few times! Or step away from the computer and grab your instrument and practice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This article deals in mastery of things, not mere competence.

 

And I think operating on the dictionary definition of talent

(Merriam-Webster relevant definitions: 3: the natural endowments of a person 4a: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude 4b: general intelligence or mental power), your criticism of those who responded to your claims rings hollow.

 

Sure, it takes a really long time and a ton of practice to master things - and if anyone starts early enough and tries hard enough, they'll do it, if it's possible.

 

Some of us can pick things up more quickly than others. If you deny that, you're denying genetics and biology. They make no point in this article that there isn't such a thing as natural aptitude for something, only that it can almost always be overcome with work.

 

No one here is in denial. I know that no matter how naturally music comes to me, I'm never going to be good unless I practice. And I've known tons of people much less talented than I am who are now better musicians because they put in the time that I haven't.

 

I think you're reading something in the article that simply isn't there. I don't know if it's to promote some weird sense of "everyone is created equal" you have internalized. People aren't created equal. If your fingers are physically too large or too small to do something, there's no getting around that.

 

An extreme example: A dwarf cannot dunk a basketball without physical or mechanical assistance. Ever. They can never develop that skill, no matter how hard or long they practice.

 

No one's claimed any magic...just biology...

Brian V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also, from the article:

 

But many psychologists argue that the emphasis on practice alone ignores the place of talent in superb performance. "You can't assume that random people who practice a lot will rise to the top," said Dr. Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard University. Dr. Ericsson's theories "leave out the question of who selects themselves -- or are selected -- for intensive training," adding, "It also leaves out what we most value in star performance, like innovative genius in a chess player or emotional expressiveness in a concert musician."


Dr. Gardner said: "I taught piano for many years, and there's an enormous difference between those who practice dutifully and get a little better every week, and those students who break away from the pack. There's plenty of room for innate talent to make a difference over and above practice time. Mozart was not like you and me."

 

 

This contradicts you directly, and agrees with those who have criticized your comments.

Brian V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

An extreme example: A dwarf cannot dunk a basketball without physical or mechanical assistance. Ever. They can never develop that skill, no matter how hard or long they practice.

This was a weird example, you're mixing in handicaps here. A strange thing to do. But to follow you: Have you heard about scaled down instrument? They come in any sizes. I have very small hands, but a 3/4 guitar is much worse to play for me than a full sized.

 

About handicaps, do you think Ray Charles or Jeff Healey cared about that? I know guitarists who don't have fingers on their left hand. Have you heard about a guy named Django Reinhardt? Not even handicaps are a excuse to not work if you want something.

 

Talent is easy to explain. Many people want it to remain a mystical, magical, genetic or biological ability which you need to be born with. Many want it to be a thing given by god. I don't get this! Are we so addicted to have something mystical to believe in? I still don't get it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

We have no latent abilities of for example playing violin. We have non for singing. It is a ability that is learned. We have latent abilities to make sounds and cry for food, or move fingers. Etc...

 

 

This is simply not true.

 

If you think this, you have both

 

1) Not watched two young children approach the same task and immediately

(with no "work") have differing success

 

and

 

2) Never taught beginners at anything.

 

If you had done either of those things you would see for yourself that beginners start with different _latent_ abilities to pick things up.

 

HOWEVER I do agree with this:

 

 

My point is that you can't use lacking "talent" as excuse for not being better than you are at the moment.

 

 

Indeed, you can't blame a lack of talent for not achieving the things you could achieve with work.

 

I agree.

 

BUT

 

Just because this is true, isn't a reason to deny that some people have a different rate at which they pick up a skill - a different talent.

 

 

Because it does a lot of damage. I've seen a lot of (and experienced) childrens interests being destroyed by people who slam dangarous myths in the face of them.

 

 

This is a very extreme experience that you have had. I'm sorry about that.

 

However, denying the obvious won't help correct this. The thing you need to correct is the idea that you can blame "lack of talent" for lack of success. Denying that "talent" exists is silly because it manifestly does, so you will be doing your cause damage by losing credibility.

 

Focus on the right message:

 

 

My point is that you can't use lacking "talent" as excuse for not being better than you are at the moment.

 

 

This is an excellent message. It doesn't deny that talent is a factor, it correctly points out that talent (or lack of it) is not an excuse.

 

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Also, from the article:


This contradicts you directly, and agrees with those who have criticized your comments.

Brian V.

No, not at all, it complements my theory. Read the article again, and you'll see that it only mentions that "Many psychologists argue that the emphasis on practice alone ignores the place of talent in superb performance". It's not part of the research. I think it just shows how controversial this is.

 

But actually this thing is a completely other subject: What in the world makes people wanna spend 10 000 hours on one area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

However, denying the obvious won't help correct this. The thing you need to correct is the idea that you can blame "lack of talent" for lack of success. Denying that "talent" exists is silly because it manifestly does, so you will be doing your cause damage by losing credibility.

Anything a child hears from a grownup is perceived as the truth until he/she have strong proof that it is a lie. If a child hears that another child is talented without getting the acknowledge himself will assume that he is not talented. So will he not feel to be encouraged, thus not the "chosen" one. I've seen this a lot as a music teacher. It's just sad. So how will the obvious help here? Other than being a self-fulfilling prophecy? What if this child could have been a master in his field? I think this obvious is nothing for anyone to point out.

How in the world would you use this withborn talent theory to something good?

 

Research HAS PROVED that what matters in the long run is work, HARD WORK! There are no shortcuts. There is no talent thing that will help you skip the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This is simply not true.


If you think this, you have both


1) Not watched two young children approach the same task and immediately

(with no "work") have differing success


and


2) Never taught beginners at anything.


If you had done either of those things you would see for yourself that beginners start with different _latent_ abilities to pick things up.


HOWEVER I do agree with this:




Indeed, you can't blame a lack of talent for not achieving the things you could achieve with work.


I agree.


BUT


Just because this is true, isn't a reason to deny that some people have a different rate at which they pick up a skill - a different talent.




This is a very extreme experience that you have had. I'm sorry about that.


However, denying the obvious won't help correct this. The thing you need to correct is the idea that you can blame "lack of talent" for lack of success. Denying that "talent" exists is silly because it manifestly does, so you will be doing your cause damage by losing credibility.


Focus on the right message:




This is an excellent message. It doesn't deny that talent is a factor, it correctly points out that talent (or lack of it) is not an excuse.


GaJ

 

 

What he said.

Brian V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What he said.

Brian V.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion....:)

 

Still baffled why people won't accept that differences in learning speed CAN be explained. And still frustrated how people are obsessed of focusing on the difference in learning speed for the few first hours. A cross country runner doesn't care if he was a bit slow to learn to walk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A quote that I love from "The Incredibles":

 

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.

Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is.

 

 

And Bajazz, on a personal note, the more you angrily lecture and badger with your opinions on this subject, the less inclined I am to pay any attention to anything that you have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to refer to the claim that people's dreams have often been smashed by someone saying that they just aren't talented enough ->

Even if you're less talented for sth than someone else, doesn't mean you cannot enjoy your work, be it music, sports or something else. And talent is just one of the basis, not the factor that decides whether you will ever become good or not. Talent just makes a minor percentage of your success (or unsuccess). Of course, there are extreme cases, but they are not the issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenAsJade

- -

This is a very extreme experience that you have had. I'm sorry about that.

- -


It's not extreme and it happens all the time, every day. I see this all the time around me, and it makes me angry to see grownups stopping their own kids and others.

 

 

We all, of course, have different experiences in our lives.

 

Around me I don't see anyone supported in the idea that "they can't do something because they aren't talented". Neither do I see people telling others (especially children) that, nor do I see claims like that ("I can never do this, I'm not talented") supported.

 

I feel really thankful for that, and at the same time acknowledge that other people might not be so lucky. It's a big world, for sure I can believe there are places and times when that's happening all the time - someone's getting told they are "useless and not talented so don't bother". That's a real shame.

 

And I can only restate that the solution to this is not to deny that people have different learning speeds (different talent), but rather to focus on enabling everyone to work to succeed no matter what their initial speed of learning is.

 

To say that all babies have the same latent ability to do every activity we can think of is denying what the real world shows us. Sure, some external factors can affect what children are good at (like if everyone in the house sings, they may also pick up singing quickly), but there are real life examples where kids have just sat down at a piano and played the darn thing. You can't tell me that something magical in their experiences since birth gave them that ability. And certainly nothing in the quoted article said that this was due to prior learning. It's the way they were born. Just like some kids can run faster than others. Sure, maybe they had an active lifestyle up till then, but maybe, just maybe, their genes are different, their muscles are built different, their brains have formed differently, doncha think?

 

Otherwise all babies would be _exactly the same_ at birth, influenced only by their parents and environment. This isn't the case. People are different when they are born, different bodies, different genes, different abilities to learn different things.

 

It will be fascinating to read some science that refutes this, but I haven't seen such.

 

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And Bajazz, on a personal note, the more you angrily lecture and badger with your
opinions
on this subject, the less inclined I am to pay any attention to anything that you have to say.

 

1. Not angry (but a bit surprised)

2. It's not only my opinion. My opinion is also is supported by an article referring to research on the subject. The replies in this thread argue with my and the facts in the research, but don't support it with other research.

3. What you pay attention to is not my business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Work can make anyone "better" in anything they strive for. However, it does NOT make a tone deaf person able to sing on pitch consistently or in a manner that people want to hear. There are always exceptions, but humans are born with particular gifts. They can be nurtured or not. We're all different, and we all have talent, in different arenas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think you are confusing "talent" with how fast you learn. Remember this is a learned ability and not a mystical withborn magical ability....

 

 

I think that you are the one who is confused. Most people don't associate talent with some mystical ability that allows someone to pick up an instrument and play with no practice whatsoever (August Rush B.S.). Most people, in my experience, associate it with the ease and rapidity with which someone can learn a certain skill. Some people are able to learn certain things more quickly than others. I have seen children that are more gifted (learn more quickly) in math/science related areas than liberal or fine arts areas...and I think you might have meant inborn, rather than withborn.

 

Sometimes physical differences do matter. They can make a particular activity easier or harder. If you want to be on the line in HS football and you are 5'5'' and 120lbs, then you've got a problem.

 

On a different topic, you may not be aware of this, but your posts often come off as condescending and obnoxious.

 

-- Aik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bajazz,

 

Very unconvincing, regardless of what an article may say. Articles and studies say lots of things...

 

FWIW, I watched a few of your videos, and respectfully suggest that you might benefit musically from typing/arguing less, and practicing a lot more. Then again, you might not, depending on issues germane to this thread.

 

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...