|
On May 04 2009 14:40 ShinyGerbil wrote:
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.
I agree to a degree, as attention spans obviously vary and some people are naturally much more capable of focusing than others, so in this sense the ability to stay endlessly on task is truly an inherent skill; but conversely, perhaps those who seem to lack such focus on the surface are not lacking it due to biological differences, but due to environmental ones of which other factors have stripped it from them. In this case, the difference isn't so much due to inherent differences, but due to external ones. Of course, one could perhaps still say that resistivity would then be the trait they are lacking.
|
[2postup]^ That line wasn't directed at Mozart though.
Anyways, I don't think anyone is here to make the claim that Mozart is only a genius because he practiced a lot.
|
a profound sense of insecurity and a desperate need for success.
Sounds pretty accurate.
|
I... don't know about this.
I think some people are genuinely gifted with higher mental abilities, starcrafting playing abilities, music making abilities, and etc. I don't think any amount of truly hard work will ever allow me to play a guitar like Hendrix could even though i'm above average at it, I just don't have that sort of talent.
I dunno, I just don't subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as an exceptional person so to speak.
|
On May 04 2009 13:47 paper wrote:
reminds me of that father with three genius chess playing daughters!
yeah its the Polgar sisters
cant really believe until we're able to interview two of them personally O_O
|
I believe that when you are truly intrested in something you have the motivation to learn and give time to it, but you also learn much faster. So interest is the most important thing. Some say that kids learn faster than adults but thats BS. Adults just can´t focus as much as children.
That´s what the swedish guy says too and he success in almost everything 
Ernst Billgren that is.
|
In my school of martial arts we have four essential pillars required to achieve mastery. They're pretty transcendental, in my opinion, in that they apply equally to all things.
1) Discipline - the effort you put in to practice your skill.
2) Wisdom - the combination of teachings and guidance that ensure your hard practice is done in the correct way.
3) Let Go - an ability to be critical of yourself and to recognise your own shortcomings while, at the same time, not letting that realization dampen your spirit.
4) Unconditional Love - the passion to maintain your discipline and to keep pushing yourself.
If you don't love what you're doing, you'll never put in the same effort as someone who does. If you don't let go you'll never be able to see your flaws and you'll be blind to the things you need to improve. If you don't have wisdom, all the practice in the world will get you nowhere - you'll be running in circles. If you don't have discipline, you don't have anything.
I think the people we generally think of as "genius" are the people who have all of the above, but find their wisdom from the world around them - who develop the wisdom and take it to another level. With an excellent teacher you can achieve the same greatness with the other three pillars, but I think the "genius" is the one who creates new wisdom, learning from his teachers and from the world around him (or from the game at his fingertips).
|
imo, and i certainly don't feel like arguing it. This article is dead on. I think people are underestimating the difference between just putting in hours and slow meticulous conscience practice for hours.
Sure, the article may be a slight oversimplification in some minor points, but overall it speaks the truth. Does anyone really think that the top 200 Korean SC players are genuinely genetically superior on average than the top 200 foreigners in the world? Does anyone really think that if a slightly improved mona lisa equivalent painting was painted tomorrow that it would get any attention? Standards have raised, and like the article said Mozart wouldn't be anything special among todays composers -- many of which are very intelligent, creative, and put in a lot of hours. The problem is obviously the culture on this count, because as a whole of consumers we consume bullshit.
I also think people are underestimating what he is saying by dedication... He says that Mozart put in 10,000 hours of practice in his early lifetime. How true that statement is, i have no idea, and find it fairly irrelevant. The point here is the number 10,000. If you played 2games of SC a day averaging 30 minutes it would take you something like 27 years to put in that much time... There are no shortcuts... Just cold hard obsession, time, and enough intelligence to not be genetically outclassed... Because obviously a very smart person will only need 8000 hours compared to the average intelligence person needing 10k to get to the same place. It is however within both of their reaches to achieve greatness at their passion
|
There exist people who have insane natural abilities who do not nurture them. There exist people who practice incessantly, but do not have the innate abilities required to excel. Talent and practice are both necessary to produce a 'genius', but, in almost every case, neither is individually sufficient.
It's not fair to tell people that "you can achieve anything." You can't. No matter how hard one practices, a 4'6'' person will not be the next Michael Jordan. A person with a 90 IQ will not be the next Gauss, no matter who much he studies. However, if you are fortunate enough to 'win the generic lottery', you can do amazing things... provided you have the work ethic to back it up.
|
exactly what i was looking for, thanks
|
No doubt practice has a lot to do with it, but the bottom line is certain people can't grasp certain concepts, do certain things, and there's not much you can do about it. Think about those kids who always kill it in class, get straight a's with minimal effort, while others have to bust their ass, do every homework and study for hours on end.
I mean, a combination of the two is going to be ideal, but largely, if you've got the natural skills, and you put the same amount of effort, you're always gonna be better.
|
United States17042 Posts
On May 04 2009 22:56 ninjafetus wrote:
There exist people who have insane natural abilities who do not nurture them. There exist people who practice incessantly, but do not have the innate abilities required to excel. Talent and practice are both necessary to produce a 'genius', but, in almost every case, neither is individually sufficient.
It's not fair to tell people that "you can achieve anything." You can't. No matter how hard one practices, a 4'6'' person will not be the next Michael Jordan. A person with a 90 IQ will not be the next Gauss, no matter who much he studies. However, if you are fortunate enough to 'win the generic lottery', you can do amazing things... provided you have the work ethic to back it up.
I think to accept the premise of this paper, you need to assume 2 things.
1. That we're considering people who have a "good enough" IQ. Taken straight out of malcom gladwell's book, "outliers" (which btw is very similar to the op), once you reach an iq level that is good enough, it comes down more to other traits that determine your success, not yoour intellegence.
2. We're not looking at physical activities/traits. Which makes it really really hard to look at sports, or anything that requires physical ability (the genetic kind, not the learned kind). The real problem that cutting all of this out is that there are very few activities that don't involve physical ability to at least some extent.
The major problem that I have with the op is that it's not helpful to most people right now. I'm 20, and these kinds of papers are basically telling me to "work hard". Which is great, and I know that I need to (all successful people practice and work hard). However, the paper isn't telling me how to work smarter, or earn more money, or change things that I have the ability to change easily.
|
On May 05 2009 01:42 Hawk wrote:
No doubt practice has a lot to do with it, but the bottom line is certain people can't grasp certain concepts, do certain things, and there's not much you can do about it. Think about those kids who always kill it in class, get straight a's with minimal effort, while others have to bust their ass, do every homework and study for hours on end.
I mean, a combination of the two is going to be ideal, but largely, if you've got the natural skills, and you put the same amount of effort, you're always gonna be better.
your basically restating what the article already assumes and clearly states, ie: "no doubt genes put a leash on our capacities". the article was not denying that genetics did not play a factor, that fact is more or less obvious--why are you restating it? it just seems to buy into a particular kind of attitude which the article actually tries to address. namely the attitude which adopts a defeatist mentality, which supports the notion that our "destiny was determined at birth". this idea is disheartening for many people, and what the article attempts to do is to challenge the truth of that statement with reasonable evidence.
the only important point to be had was that hard work plays a significant part in genius and a much larger part then is most often assumed, perhaps even significantly more than natural genetics do. (somewhere i read that natural genetics only play a role of about 10% extra).
anyways, the point the article brings is important because it is something people need to realize, you don't need to intensify the notion that undermines the value of hard work. too often people who are fully capable of reaching a certain potential will give up on something because they buy into the defeatist attitude and don't think they are smart or capable enough. or in other cases, people won't really put hard work into something because they don't realize the significance of it.
|
On May 05 2009 03:15 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2009 22:56 ninjafetus wrote:
There exist people who have insane natural abilities who do not nurture them. There exist people who practice incessantly, but do not have the innate abilities required to excel. Talent and practice are both necessary to produce a 'genius', but, in almost every case, neither is individually sufficient.
It's not fair to tell people that "you can achieve anything." You can't. No matter how hard one practices, a 4'6'' person will not be the next Michael Jordan. A person with a 90 IQ will not be the next Gauss, no matter who much he studies. However, if you are fortunate enough to 'win the generic lottery', you can do amazing things... provided you have the work ethic to back it up. I think to accept the premise of this paper, you need to assume 2 things. 1. That we're considering people who have a "good enough" IQ. Taken straight out of malcom gladwell's book, "outliers" (which btw is very similar to the op), once you reach an iq level that is good enough, it comes down more to other traits that determine your success, not yoour intellegence. 2. We're not looking at physical activities/traits. Which makes it really really hard to look at sports, or anything that requires physical ability (the genetic kind, not the learned kind). The real problem that cutting all of this out is that there are very few activities that don't involve physical ability to at least some extent. The major problem that I have with the op is that it's not helpful to most people right now. I'm 20, and these kinds of papers are basically telling me to "work hard". Which is great, and I know that I need to (all successful people practice and work hard). However, the paper isn't telling me how to work smarter, or earn more money, or change things that I have the ability to change easily.
hmm yeah it's true the article doesn't tell you how to do it specifically, but i don't think the intention ever was to do that. it does give some broad outlines, but did you expect for a one page article to give anything more than that?
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 04 2009 19:23 Motiva wrote:
Sure, the article may be a slight oversimplification in some minor points, but overall it speaks the truth. Does anyone really think that the top 200 Korean SC players are genuinely genetically superior on average than the top 200 foreigners in the world?
No, but its pretty logical to assume that the top (Bisu, Jaedong, Flash, etc.) have some edge over the middle- and bottom-tier progamers. They're all in the same progaming teams, seeing similar practice schedules and have had pretty similar amounts of experience. SOMETHING those 3 have make them stand out.
On May 04 2009 19:23 Motiva wrote:
Does anyone really think that if a slightly improved mona lisa equivalent painting was painted tomorrow that it would get any attention? Standards have raised, and like the article said Mozart wouldn't be anything special among todays composers -- many of which are very intelligent, creative, and put in a lot of hours. The problem is obviously the culture on this count, because as a whole of consumers we consume bullshit.
This is a pretty poor analogy though, because the Mona Lisa and Mozart are part of what MADE modern art and composing. To use the Starcraft analogy, just because Boxer doesn't stack up against modern progamers doesn't make him less of a great figure, because while many of today's progamers are smart and fast, they're building off an existing framework. There's no guarantee that they'd ever have had the creativity to build a metagame from the ground up the way Boxer did. Similarly, even though Mozart might be lackluster among today's composers, its easy to forget that he wasn't building off a large framework of existing composing theory the way we do today.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Green
Guys like this person is quite hard to explain using anything but the term "natural genius". He just had maths as a hobby, did barely have any education and didn't think that what he did was anything special.
Also most of that the article in the OP is talking about is based on chess geniuses, which have very little to do with creative geniuses.
|
On May 05 2009 03:35 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2009 19:23 Motiva wrote:
Sure, the article may be a slight oversimplification in some minor points, but overall it speaks the truth. Does anyone really think that the top 200 Korean SC players are genuinely genetically superior on average than the top 200 foreigners in the world? No, but its pretty logical to assume that the top (Bisu, Jaedong, Flash, etc.) have some edge over the middle- and bottom-tier progamers. They're all in the same progaming teams, seeing similar practice schedules and have had pretty similar amounts of experience. SOMETHING those 3 have make them stand out. Show nested quote +On May 04 2009 19:23 Motiva wrote:
Does anyone really think that if a slightly improved mona lisa equivalent painting was painted tomorrow that it would get any attention? Standards have raised, and like the article said Mozart wouldn't be anything special among todays composers -- many of which are very intelligent, creative, and put in a lot of hours. The problem is obviously the culture on this count, because as a whole of consumers we consume bullshit. This is a pretty poor analogy though, because the Mona Lisa and Mozart are part of what MADE modern art and composing. To use the Starcraft analogy, just because Boxer doesn't stack up against modern progamers doesn't make him less of a great figure, because while many of today's progamers are smart and fast, they're building off an existing framework. There's no guarantee that they'd ever have had the creativity to build a metagame from the ground up the way Boxer did. Similarly, even though Mozart might be lackluster among today's composers, its easy to forget that he wasn't building off a large framework of existing composing theory the way we do today.
Yea, I agree with your points. Obviously both play some role.
|
On May 04 2009 14:46 shavingcream66 wrote:
this is basically what Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" talks about
this is exactly what I was going to say
recommended read btw
|
On May 05 2009 05:01 anderoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2009 14:46 shavingcream66 wrote:
this is basically what Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" talks about this is exactly what I was going to say recommended read btw
All of these discussions are based on his works, and it obviously sells well to tell people that everyone can become a genius if they just work focused enough...
But to me it seems like he hand-picks the subjects to be those which are less about talent, doesn't mean that what he says isn't true just that it isn't a universal truth. But focused work always helps of course and if you are looking at the top guys in any field they will have with a ton of focus of course. However you can't really neglect all of those who are working really hard, throwing their lives away for a subject and still doesn't get anywhere at all.
|
BRILLIANT ! This describes the learning process that i experienced when i made my greatest leap in skill in Starcraft more clearly than anything else i have ever read.
This article explains the genius in correct practice, motivation, determination, placing information into patterns or chunks, and taking examples and breaking them down and reconstructing them. I think the possibilities are limitless with enough time. There is god given talent and there is practiced talent. They both lead to the same place. The difference between them is that god given talent is the talent that has been passed down to you in your genes from ancestors who developed those skills, and practiced talent is the talent that you accumulate from scratch. We all have a god given talent to accomplish practiced talent because we're human and have these capabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
