|
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.
|
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.
|
The fuel for genius is a tough or traumatic youth. Children that undergo adversity, like having a parent die, will have a ton more motivation to suceed compared to a someone that had a normal childhood. But the bottom line is dedication and pratice. A musician is no more a "genius" than a doctor. A musician spends years practicing, the doctor spends year in school. There still someone magicial about someone with talent though, someone that science will never able to pin point. I think thats whats so captivation about them and why we are drawn to them.
|
Another very important element in the composition of a genius is knowing how to practice. I would argue it takes a lot of natural talent in being able to extract the most improvement possible. Maximized practice time is very easily eclipsed by practising smarter. And I think for successful geniuses, knowing the best way to improve themselves comes instinctually and feels intuitively natural.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 05 2009 09:07 thez wrote:
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.
While god-given talent allows one to learn more quickly to do things than someone who doesn't have talent, MOST of what is achievable can be achieved either way. One has to reach close to the limit of ability in order to reach where god-given talent makes a difference. Below that level, its not really apparent how natural ability could cap you. To use the Starcraft analogy, most people play at a fairly low level. Large amounts of practice can see visible improvement, and you can easily outstrip someone who might be more "talented" than you. However, you can't extrapolate this to all levels. Even though natural talent doesn't play that much into low-level Starcraft, you can't know how much this might affect the highest level of play. For all we know, natural talent (and luck, of course), might be the ONLY things separating the very top tier of progamers from one another.
This applies to other things as well. With hard work and practice, someone without talent could become a good musician and make a living off of it, and maybe become famous. But there's still a huge gap between being "good" or "famous" and being known in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
