|
My physics teacher posted this on his website not long ago. It got me thinking:
Genius: The Modern View
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 30, 2009
Some people live in romantic ages. They tend to believe that genius is the product of a divine spark. They believe that there have been, throughout the ages, certain paragons of greatness — Dante, Mozart, Einstein — whose talents far exceeded normal comprehension, who had an otherworldly access to transcendent truth, and who are best approached with reverential awe.
We, of course, live in a scientific age, and modern research pierces hocus-pocus. In the view that is now dominant, even Mozart’s early abilities were not the product of some innate spiritual gift. His early compositions were nothing special. They were pastiches of other people’s work. Mozart was a good musician at an early age, but he would not stand out among today’s top childperformers.
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. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there.
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
The recent research has been conducted by people like K. Anders Ericsson, the late Benjamin Bloom and others. It’s been summarized in two enjoyable new books: “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle; and “Talent Is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin.
If you wanted to picture how a typical genius might develop, you’d take a girl who possessed a slightly above average verbal ability. It wouldn’t have to be a big talent, just enough so that she might gain some sense of distinction. Then you would want her to meet, say, a novelist, who coincidentally shared some similar biographical traits. Maybe the writer was from the same town, had the same ethnic background, or, shared the same birthday — anything to create a sense of affinity.
This contact would give the girl a vision of her future self. It would, Coyle emphasizes, give her a glimpse of an enchanted circle she might someday join. It would also help if one of her parents died when she was 12, infusing her with a profound sense of insecurity and fueling a desperate need for success.
Armed with this ambition, she would read novels and literary biographies without end. This would give her a core knowledge of her field. She’d be able to chunk Victorian novelists into one group, Magical Realists in another group and Renaissance poets into another. This ability to place information into patterns, or chunks, vastly improves memory skills. She’d be able to see new writing in deeper ways and quickly perceive its inner workings.
Then she would practice writing. Her practice would be slow, painstaking and error-focused. According to Colvin, Ben Franklin would take essays from The Spectator magazine and translate them into verse. Then he’d translate his verse back into prose and examine, sentence by sentence, where his essay was inferior to The Spectator’s original.
Coyle describes a tennis academy in Russia where they enact rallies without a ball. The aim is to focus meticulously on technique. (Try to slow down your golf swing so it takes 90 seconds to finish. See how many errors you detect.)
By practicing in this way, performers delay the automatizing process. The mind wants to turn deliberate, newly learned skills into unconscious, automatically performed skills. But the mind is sloppy and will settle for good enough. By practicing slowly, by breaking skills down into tiny parts and repeating, the strenuous student forces the brain to internalize a better pattern of performance.
Then our young writer would find a mentor who would provide a constant stream of feedback, viewing her performance from the outside, correcting the smallest errors, pushing her to take on tougher challenges. By now she is redoing problems — how do I get characters into a room — dozens and dozens of times. She is ingraining habits of thought she can call upon in order to understand or solve future problems.
The primary trait she possesses is not some mysterious genius. It’s the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous and boring practice routine.
Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this process. This research takes some of the magic out of great achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do. And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. As Coyle observes, it’s not who you are, it’s what you do.
Discuss!
 
|
Is there a tl;dr? Too lazy to read atm, and the title is intriguing. =[
|
reminds me of that father with three genius chess playing daughters!
|
The tl;dr version is that 'genius' abilities are the result of tireless repetition and practice, and less based on genetics; furthermore, although abilities are limited by biology, people should commit themselves to a 'strenuous and boring practice routine' in order to develop their skills, as opposed to falling victim to the notion that geniuses have an insurmountable genetic advantage.
|
Reminds me of that book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. I think it and this both underestimate the importance of talent, but I'm no expert. I mean, I've played a lot of BW and I'm still D+ D:
|
I think this is true, to some extent. However, I don't think with meticulous hard work alone can you be Mozart. To be part of history's cream of the crop, you do need geniune talent, along with the right opportunity + environment as well as all the factors you mentioned above.
Also, I'm pretty sure IQ had a huge correlation with Einstein's success 
|
...whoa...I'm stupid...explain the what tl;dr means...
|
On May 04 2009 14:09 ~OpZ~ wrote:
...whoa...I'm stupid...explain the what tl;dr means...
An emergent reaction born of the new generation's fleeting attention spans and poor reading skills - it means: "too long, didn't read".
|
Yeah I read this in the NYT yesterday. I gotta say, this makes a lot of sense.
|
Interesting read...
Saying "practice makes perfect" about Tiger Woods is one thing... saying "practice makes perfect" about Mozart's musical genius is the biggest oversimplifcation I've ever heard.
This just reads like another one of these 21st century American idealistic views where "anyone can achieve anything, you're special!"
|
On May 04 2009 14:24 Phoned wrote:
Interesting read...
Saying "practice makes perfect" about Tiger Woods is one thing... saying "practice makes perfect" about Mozart's musical genius is the biggest oversimplifcation I've ever heard.
This just reads like another one of these 21st century American idealistic views where "anyone can achieve anything, you're special!"
I think you're oversimplifying the article. It's saying that great things come, not from some mystical divine inspiration, but from a lifetime of practice and a combination of other favorable circumstances. Not to say that anybody can be Mozart, but to understand what made Mozart, Mozart.
|
BoxeR is a Starcraft genius, gamers such as ForGG are mechanics. Both work incredibly hard yes, but there's still a spark that makes a difference; if BoxeR practiced less undoubtedly his ingenuity would show less, but brilliance
To be able to think of something new in a completely different way is genius. That's something that can never come of rigorous drilling (although it can come with practice in dealing with unorthodox problems; but that should not be surprising).
|
fundamentally though, i don't think the ability to focus for unrivaled periods of time with unfaltering determination is really a skill that is always learned, we see young children every day not having this 'talent' and yet we hear it is essentially the proper basis for any genius.
|
this is basically what Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" talks about
|
United States1865 Posts
On May 04 2009 14:38 SerpentFlame wrote:
BoxeR is a Starcraft genius, gamers such as ForGG are mechanics. Both work incredibly hard yes, but there's still a spark that makes a difference; if BoxeR practiced less undoubtedly his ingenuity would show less, but brilliance
To be able to think of something new in a completely different way is genius. That's something that can never come of rigorous drilling (although it can come with practice in dealing with unorthodox problems; but that should not be surprising).
Boxer's "genius" came at a time period where he had insane nonstop practice schedules late into the night - the man has enormous dedication and the ability to do boring practice sessions over and over and over and over again until his "genius" builds work. This article applies perfelcty to BoxeR He himself has said that the only way to return to his bonjwa-esque status would be serious knuckling down to hard practice sessions.
Another example from RTS is Moon, the most successful War3 player who also has interviews where he talks about practicing all night without sleep just playing and playing until he got better and able to pull off all the innovative stuff he is known for.
|
On a level of personal achievement, sure. On a competetive level, no amount of practice will overcomes an opponent who practices just as much, but is far superior genetically to you. Essentially, you can get good enough at something to impress some people, but you'll never be the best if it isn't in your blood.
If you want to learn a trade, this sort of mentality is fine. You can be an excellent plumber, or mason, or chef... All these things can be learned and mastered thru practice... But if you suppose these occupations had the same level of importance in being the best as perhaps sports do... This mentality will waste a lot of years in your life and get you no where. Not everyone can be an NHL player no matter how much time they spend on the ice. Not everyone can swim in the Olympics. Good enough for you is not the same as being the best, and sometimes, being the best is really important.
I mean, think about all the hopeful Koreans who practice 10 hours a day and aren't even on a team. Lots of people put in the work and still fail. Necessarily, some people have to fail in an environment that is competetive.
|
On May 04 2009 14:52 Atrioc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2009 14:38 SerpentFlame wrote:
BoxeR is a Starcraft genius, gamers such as ForGG are mechanics. Both work incredibly hard yes, but there's still a spark that makes a difference; if BoxeR practiced less undoubtedly his ingenuity would show less, but brilliance
To be able to think of something new in a completely different way is genius. That's something that can never come of rigorous drilling (although it can come with practice in dealing with unorthodox problems; but that should not be surprising). Boxer's "genius" came at a time period where he had insane nonstop practice schedules late into the night - the man has enormous dedication and the ability to do boring practice sessions over and over and over and over again until his "genius" builds work. This article applies perfelcty to BoxeR He himself has said that the only way to return to his bonjwa-esque status would be serious knuckling down to hard practice sessions. Another example from RTS is Moon, the most successful War3 player who also has interviews where he talks about practicing all night without sleep just playing and playing until he got better and able to pull off all the innovative stuff he is known for.
i have to agree, but there is that line that separates a talented player from the average, no matter how many hours are put into the practice.
its like 90% practice and 10% skill.
Jaedong is a great example, he practices his ass off and that is what makes him a great player.
|
On May 04 2009 13:57 huameng wrote:
Reminds me of that book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. I think it and this both underestimate the importance of talent, but I'm no expert. I mean, I've played a lot of BW and I'm still D+ D:
how much have you really played? do you mean a lot of games over a few years, or lots of games each day? do you always play on iccup or with relatively high level players? do you concentrate on improving your mechanics and game sense?
i think bw players are a great example of what this essay was saying, through methodical and disciplined practice i think anyone can make big improvements in their play through practicing mechanics, and at higher levels analyzing strategy and builds/timings. even progamers have shaky mechanics at times, though that may be due to nerves :x
you're probably just underestimating how much work you need to do
edit: the real talent/genius is in these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
|
Well MJ didn't make his high school basketball team in his freshmen year and now he's considered the greatest player. But few people are willing to achieve that greatness because they're lazy and/or time consumption.
This is actually giving me motivation to study more
|
I don't agree with the article, especially on the point about Mozart.
A topic like music not only has very tangible things you can measure, like in sports [ points ] but it also has intangibles like mood, ambiance, etc... There's time signatures and chords and all sorts of technical things that can be achieved but there are also non-technical things.
The way I see it, there's a reason there hasn't been someone close to a 2nd Mozart in recent times, and its not because pianists lack or don't practice. There are plenty of those people who put in dedication. Is your physics prof really going to argue that through diligent practice one can achieve a creative mind to compose Mozart-caliber songs? I know that the article argues that many of Mozart's early works are easy or copied ideas from other composers but it mentions nothing about Mozart's individuality in later works. He and ONLY he could have written those pieces.
' It’s the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous and boring practice routine. '
That's the line I can't accept basically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
