still something wrong with the way we advance in rating

[ysbadadden]

So my question for Jason, as the key advocate of this theory (since I doubt I care enough to try to interview the researchers) is this:

As one who played no organized sports outside of gym class until middle school how does one explain the phenomenon wherein I often found myself able to out rebound kids almost an entire foot taller than myself? I certainly didn't practice jumping deliberately nor did I do so more deliberately than many of my peers who had played rec leagues, JCC leagues, etc. Or did I manage to gain this practice from some unknown source?

Ericsson wasn't writing about kids in middle school -- he was writing about people at the very top of their fields -- for example, outstanding scientists, engineers, and medical researchers, who didn't differ significantly on aptitude tests from run-of-the-mill scientists, engineers, and medical researchers. Notice that [I'd guess] the whole group would have done much better on the aptitude tests in their field than the general population. That is, in ordinary parlance, they were all highly talented. The problem was that the highest achievers among them didn't score higher on the "talent" tests than the rest of the bunch, but they were much more highly motivated and hard-working. Thus the concept of talent doesn't predict success at the highest level. The world's best basketball players may not have the greatest vertical leap.

Ericsson concedes that there are factors that predispose to success in many fields, and that some of them are hereditary. Actually, he thinks that the disposition for deliberate practice has a hereditary component. To a great extent, his argument would make more sense if we substituted "genius" for "talent." Then we're back with Edison: genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

[Inquartata]

I feel that your interpretation of the paper is a little incorrect.

I read the entire paper on the flight home from Dallas, and apparently Jason's interpretation is incorrect, too. The authors do NOT assert that "there is no such thing as talent", nor do they opine that their data "suggests" such a conclusion. In fact they say otherwise several times. They just think that DP is much more important in the development of expertise, and that innate predispositions are unimportant...which is not quite the same thing as imaginary.

Generally it seems that the paper is addressing the upper end of the performance spectrum.

It seems to me to address two levels: experts, and pioneer/record-setter types. Obviously the latter is a subset of the former, so it makes sense that they are going to assert the primacy of DP in both cases.

Additionally I don't think that you can take bouting to necessarily fall outside the realm of deliberate practice. It really depends on what you do during the bout. If you focus and try to get better at something while you're bouting, then I think that meets the papers definition of "Deliberate practice".

That's why I specified that I don't bout that way.

Note, though, that he's talking about "talent" as predicting exceptional performance, not just expert performance -- world champions as opposed to national "A's".

It appears to me to be addressing both. The main study, of the violinists, included both already-developed experts and still-developing ones.

As one who played no organized sports outside of gym class until middle school how does one explain the phenomenon wherein I often found myself able to out rebound kids almost an entire foot taller than myself? Or did I manage to gain this practice from some unknown source?

The study does admit to a number of physiological differences in individuals, such as the proportions of fast- and slow-twitch muscles fiber. But then they add that these are not fixed, but can be changed to some extent by DP. IOW, even talents, if they exist, can be increased by DP, and deficiencies remedied by it...

Actually, he thinks that the disposition for deliberate practice has a hereditary component.

Which makes it all sound sort of circular, doesn't it?

[Jason]

The authors do NOT assert that "there is no such thing as talent", nor do they opine that their data "suggests" such a conclusion. In fact they say otherwise several times.

You've either misread the paper or misread my statements. Here are some key quotes:

"Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years. "

"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent."

(Emphasis mine.)

[Superscribe]

So my question for Jason, as the key advocate of this theory (since I doubt I care enough to try to interview the researchers) is this:

As one who played no organized sports outside of gym class until middle school how does one explain the phenomenon wherein I often found myself able to out rebound kids almost an entire foot taller than myself? I certainly didn't practice jumping deliberately nor did I do so more deliberately than many of my peers who had played rec leagues, JCC leagues, etc. Or did I manage to gain this practice from some unknown source?

you played basketball with a bunch of scrubs?

you hit puberty before they did?

your mom bought you the nike air pumps?

[bigdawg2121]

You've either misread the paper or misread my statements. Here are some key quotes:

"Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years. "

"We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent."

Emphasis mine. Basically it seems that the researchers have taken to contradicting themselves. Most importantly however is that they acknowledge that there are characteristics and abilities which put some people out of the range of normal adults. This is their direct acknowledgement that some people are naturally better (i.e. talented). It's fine that they deny
those differences to be immutable (at least within certain ranges of talent) but the fact that talent can be compensated for or rendered irrelevant by deliberate practice doesn't change that even the researchers seem to believe that you have to be outside of the normal range of adults before this matters. I'm dissappointed that this thread has finally come to a resolution which had been posed pages ago and virulently argued down (i.e. talent does exist but within a certain range can be readily trivialized by hard work*).

you played basketball with a bunch of scrubs?

you hit puberty before they did?

your mom bought you the nike air pumps?

These, for anyone that knows me, are all hilariously funny. Thank you.


* I'll even concede that the wide range of skills required for success in fencing make talent even more of a moot point for this sport than for most.

[Jason]

Emphasis mine. Basically it seems that the researchers have taken to contradicting themselves.

No contradiction. Top performers are different than normal people. Why would anyone deny that? The point is that those differences are not "due to innate talent."

This is their direct acknowledgement that some people are naturally better (i.e. talented).

"Talented" means better? If we're going to define it that loosely then, as I said before, every top fencer is talented, because every top fencer is good at what he does.

I'll even concede that the wide range of skills required for success in fencing make talent even more of a moot point for this sport than for most.

Which was really where this whole thing started, anyway.

[Inquartata]

You've either misread the paper or misread my statements.

Heh. Duelling quotes:

"It is of course possible that non-acquired factors, such as innate talent, might influence performance directly. A performance advantage resulting from such factors can allow individuals, essentially by definition, to complete the same activities ( including deliberate practice ) for longer times with the same amount of effort."

"Although we are reluctant to accept individual differences in innate abilities ( talent ) and any important role of these differences in determining expert performances, we do not rule out the importance of individual differences in general. In fact, within our framework we would expect that several 'personality' factors, such as individual differences in activity levels and emotionality may differentially predispose individuals toward deliberate practice as well as allow these individuals to sustain very high levels of it for extended periods."

"Once individuals have started deliberate practice, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the role of natural; ability ( innate talent ) from that of acquired characteristics and skill in their current level of perfoprmance."

"If there is such a thing as a general talent..."

"...we conclude that individuals acquire virtually all of the distinguishing characteristics of expert performers through relevant activities ( deliberate practice )."

"In the normal case..., the child enjoys the activities in the domain and is superior in these activities to other children of the same age in the same neighborhood. Whether enjoyment precedes superior performance or vice versa is not known."

"...we reject any important role for innate ability. It is quite plausible, however, that heritable individual differences might influence processes related to motivation and the original enjoyment of the activities in the domain and, even more important, affect the inevitable differences in the capacity to engage in hard work ( deliberate practice )."

Nowhere do they say anything so unequivocal as "the evidence suggests that there is no such thing as talent", much less make droll fantastical comparisons of it to wholly imaginary magical substances...

[Jason]

Heh. Duelling quotes:

That's fair. And I think it brings us back to what we mean by talent. Defining talent to mean something like "exceptionally motivated" is, as I said before, the sort of thing that would be hard to counter. Ericsson's exceptions generally seem to be of this nature. Additionally, he is also keeping open the reasonable possibility that new evidence will allow for new conclusions. I don't think I've suggested anything different.

However, the way "talent" is generally used (particularly in fencing)--and has been used by several different people in this thread, is along the lines of (paraphrasing), "If you take a bunch of kids, somehow give them equal training and development conditions (as well as other resources), certain kids will grow up to be champions, other kids no so much. The best kids are the ones who were talented." Similarly, a common use of "talent" is to the effect of: "anyone can be good, but only the most talented can be the best."

These specific notions of talent are what Ericsson is arguing against and what I have been specifically talking about. If you understand "talent" to mean something within the range of what Ericsson's offering then I don't think you and I have a disagreement.

[Peach]

It's an interesting discussion, and the article suggests a more balanced approach to the method of developing athletes, but epistemologically it has the old "nature versus nurture" debate underlying it, and therefore has relatively small practical utility aside from encouraging people to practice more, and practice more effectively.

[keith]

..."nature versus nurture" debate....

It also has the old, "I'm not crap they're just talented" debate, running through it.

[oso97]

It's an interesting discussion, and the article suggests a more balanced approach to the method of developing athletes, but epistemologically it has the old "nature versus nurture" debate underlying it, and therefore has relatively small practical utility aside from encouraging people to practice more, and practice more effectively.

I think I mentioned this about, oh, 6 pages ago...

[Peach]

It also has the old, "I'm not crap they're just talented" debate, running through it.

Or its opposite extreme, "I got here because I work way harder than they do" claim.

[Allen Evans]

....and pieces of the "Hey, I would have been a contender if it wasn't for those Canadians!" complaint.


...hmmm, or is that a different thread?

[bigdawg2121]

While we're rejecting the existence of physical aptitudes are we rejecting the existence of intellectual, psychological or mental aptitudes as well?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Depends on whether you think Canadians are overly-imbued with talent.

[keith]

Or its opposite extreme, "I got here because I work way harder than they do" claim.

Don't get carried away.

Next you'll be suggesting there's some sort of a difference between working, working efficiently and just looking busy. Sheesh.

[ysbadadden]

A thought experiment (so far):
Let's say there is a birth-month selection bias in a given sport: athletes born in the early months of the year are more likely to show up on national junior teams because the year-of-birth cutoff for age-group competitions means that they are going to be older & therefore tend to be developmentally more advanced than kids ten months younger -- and therefore they tend to have earlier success, get more encouragement from coaches, and thus develop greater motivation. (I don't know if this is true in fencing; it certainly seems true in team sports programs in other nations.)
Now suppose we reduced this selection bias by basing age-group cutoffs on birth date rather than birth year? The motivation, support, and encouragement would go to a different group of young athletes -- wouldn't it? -- but would the performance level of the sport improve -- for example, would the average (or top) 50m. times of Y10 sprinters improve if the basis for Y10 was changed from "born no earlier than 12/31/00" to "under 11 as of the date of the race?" (Don't get on me if I've figured the dates wrong; it's late.)

[Inquartata]

However, the way "talent" is generally used (particularly in fencing)--and has been used by several different people in this thread, is along the lines of (paraphrasing), "If you take a bunch of kids, somehow give them equal training and development conditions (as well as other resources), certain kids will grow up to be champions, other kids no so much. The best kids are the ones who were talented."

Well...that sort of retrospective definition process is hard to justify, yeah. Especially since there are factors outside the control of those who are giving those kids "equal training and development". In fencing, as in violin, a coach can't know that one kid isn't doing extra practice at home that the others aren't, that he isn't watching WC videos, working on his general conditioning, and so on.

I look at the "talent" concept the other way around---the way Ericsson et al do not like: It's something which, like pornography, is hard to define but which you recognize when it's in front of you. It's what enables one kid to outstrip his peers not after training and development, but from the beginning. The study thinks this is entirely a matter of perceptual illusion on the part of those doing the judging, eg parents and coaches. I'm not sure they have actually proved this, though. They have just said that since it cannot be proven that the perception of talent is accurate, we must reject its existence altogether. That's a pretty harsh standard, and I wonder what, say, theoretical physicists would think of applying it to their domain...

I'll offer one more example of what I think clearly shows that there is such a thing as talent: Call it the Susan Boyle phenomenon.

Some people just have beautiful singing voices. Others do NOT. No amount of deliberate practice is going to permit a Tone Loc or a Harvey Fierstein---or a me ---to compete with a Pavarotti. I suspect that the first three could practice for 10,000 hours with great coaches and still never approach the latter's ability, and given four kids with the same voices, I think that the one would probably outstrip the other three with much less work, at all levels...