Dave
LifeExcursion

Gladwell’s opening chapter of Outliers is relevant, too. Slight variations in ability, or even perceptions of unusual ability, may lead teachers, coaches, or parents to award a child with special praise or attention, which motivates him to try harder at the activity, which leads to more success, which may get him access to better teachers, and begins a cycle that propels him toward mastery.

I just started Outliers so I haven’t read about the 10,000 hours yet, but will be interested to see if I agree with Kaizan. Does Gladwell’s 10,000 hour theory apply mainly to a broad, complex activity, such as “playing golf” or “mastering chess?” If so, I’d think the evidence I’ve seen supports it. If you’re going to attack something simple, like the video game Pong, you could probably achieve mastery in less time.

Bakari raises interesting questions. Where does passion for a skill set come from? Are we born with a passion for something that makes us work harder to improve our skills, or are we born with natural abilities in select areas, so that our early success motivates us to keep trying? Do we inherit our parents’ passion?

I’m reminded of an article I read about hypersensitivities in gifted children. http://bit.ly/3wi2b7 I do believe there is “neurodiversity” among human beings, that our abilities fall along a spectrum and some people are at the high end of the spectrum and stand out from the crowd. I personally related to Dabrowski’s classification of “Intellectual Intensity” defined below:

“This intensity is the one most recognized in gifted children. It is characterized by activities of the mind, thought and thinking about thinking. Children who lead with this intensity seem to be thinking all the time and want answers to deep thoughts. Sometimes their need for answers will get them in trouble in school when their questioning of the teacher can look like disrespectful challenging.”

Deep curiosity
Love of knowledge and learning
Love of problem solving
Avid reading
Asking of probing questions
Theoretical thinking
Analytical thinking
Independent thinking
Concentration, ability to maintain intellectual effort”

Is Dabrowski’s theory bunk, or is this really a type of giftedness? Did I just develop these characteristics because my parents were teachers and encouraged me to love learning and thinking? I always felt different from other kids growing up, but was it a result of adults telling me I was different and the belief then leading me to work harder intellectually? I also was given access to “talented and gifted” programs and more challenging coursework, which likely pushed whatever abilities I had even further. And in the end, I certainly would not say that my special “talented and gifted” status made me any likelier to succeed than if I’d just been an ordinary kid. My achievements to date are pretty ordinary. Many high achieving adults showed no outstanding abilities as children.

So are talented and gifted programs overrated, too? Or do they serve an important purpose in our educational system that should not be ignored? I grew up in the system, so I’m inclined to be in favor of them. I wonder what others think, and what the research shows.

I think it really depends on what niche you choose to dominate at. The smaller the niche, the less time required.

Please let me offer a fourth recommendation for Gladwell’s Outliers, although it wasn’t as revelatory for me as Colvin’s Talent Is Overrated.

Kris’s point is well-taken, but Chris, I think you might be backtracking too far in saying “There is no denying that natural giftedness and good luck give some people an edge in the quest for greatness.” Good luck, sure (although a lot of good luck is made), and Gladwell makes a great case for this in his book. But natural giftedness? Now we’re just getting back to that false idea of inborn talent! In the research on the subject, I know of only two exceptions to the idea that everyone has about the same innate capacity to be great in everything: range of intelligence and physical limitations. Where intelligence is concerned, apparently we’re each born with a potential range of intelligence (the IQ-related version) that we can maximize or minimize based on what we do with our brains. However, studies that have followed kids with genius level intelligence seem to show that they aren’t any more successful than kids who are just “smart.” The truth of the intelligence question seems to be that if you’re smart enough to get through grad school, then with enough deliberate practice you can be a world champion at anything intellectual. László Polgár believed this would be true, and raised his three daughters to all be world-class chess champions to prove it, despite not being a particularly exceptional chess player himself.

About physical limitations, some activities are going to require a larger or smaller frame, longer legs, or other characteristics that are genetic. And there are a few special abilities–like absolute pitch that a few musicians have–that seem to be genetic too.

Sorry to go on so long; this is a favorite subject. Enjoyed the post, and am looking forward to reading others.

Luc Reid
The Willpower Engine

Other categories of advantages exist as well. Geoff Colvin point out in “Talent is Overrated” that it’s unlikely Tiger Woods would be Tiger Woods if he didn’t have Earl Woods as a father, or that Mozart would be Mozart without his music teacher father. A parent’s passion for a sport or art form and skill at teaching their progeny can create genius when paired with decades of hard work and deliberate practice.

But what if instead of viewing these blessed superstars as unique among all humanity, we viewed them as the norm? What if we ALL are uniquely advantaged to be a genius at some endeavor, if we could discover our strengths and then apply ourselves to developing mastery in our chosen field?

And what if we pursued mastery at swimming, or golf, or music, not only for the sake of competition (though competition compels us to achieve more), but for the joy of practice and growth? I think we have to find the meaning in the work rather than the rewards or we’ll end up with the Salieri-effect - bitterness that God didn’t give us what Mozart got. Nobody wants to be that dude.

One obvious example: Michael Phelps. As many sports writers have noted, his body is uniquely suited for swimming well. Imagine Michael and a second swimmer with a body less suited for swimming. If both Michael and the second swimmer shared the same coach, practiced the same number of hours, ate the same food, slept the same amount of time, had the same attitude, which one do you think would be the more successful swimmer?

It seems clear that it would be Phelps.

Love Leo’s comment about creativity being strengthened with use. Just heard this referred to as “deliberate creativity” - a term that resonates with deliberate practice. Makes me want to seek out Twyla Tharp’s book on the creative process.