4 ms·

I highly doubt anybody can make such a study, because nobody can get such an experiment? What did they do? Measured talent in infants, forbade them to practice

I highly doubt anybody can make such a study, because nobody can get such an experiment? What did they do? Measured talent in infants, forbade them to practice and compared to practiced individuals? Heh :) Don't be ridiculous. The studies you supposedly read are junk.

bildung 11y ago
> Don't be ridiculous. The studies you supposedly read are junk. Pretty harsh words for somebody who obviously has no background in psychological research :) Of course it would be impossible to construct such an experiment. OTOH its not that hard to design robust field studies for topics like this one. And that has been done, many times. In general, you don't have to measure talent in infants, you just have to be able to correctly predict future perfomance without talent as a variable. Try to get this book from a library near you for an overview of the current state of expertise research: http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052184097X http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052...
- blumkvist 11y ago
  You most certainly cannot dissever talent from the rest of the variables. Field studies? Pp-lee-ase. Take that voodoo science somewhere else. Field studies' purpose is not to give answers but to definite more concrete questions. To serve as a starting point for a controlled experiment and that might be impossible, like in this case. Just because some professor says something, that doesn't mean he is correct. There is more falsification in psychology than in nutrition and medicine and that certainly says something. A lot, if not the overwhelming majority of psychology researchers do not understand p-values and simple theory-hypothesis construction, let a alone the structural equation modeling menu dialogues in SPSS they click on. All they have is theories. No, not like gravity. More like Jesus and Muhammad - unsubstantiated theories. I read a metric ton of psychographic research because of my job, which is in quantitative marketing research.

bildung 11y ago

> Don't be ridiculous. The studies you supposedly read are junk. Pretty harsh words for somebody who obviously has no background in psychological research :) Of course it would be impossible to construct such an experiment. OTOH its not that hard to design robust field studies for topics like this one. And that has been done, many times. In general, you don't have to measure talent in infants, you just have to be able to correctly predict future perfomance without talent as a variable. Try to get this book from a library near you for an overview of the current state of expertise research: http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052184097X http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052...

blumkvist 11y ago
You most certainly cannot dissever talent from the rest of the variables. Field studies? Pp-lee-ase. Take that voodoo science somewhere else. Field studies' purpose is not to give answers but to definite more concrete questions. To serve as a starting point for a controlled experiment and that might be impossible, like in this case. Just because some professor says something, that doesn't mean he is correct. There is more falsification in psychology than in nutrition and medicine and that certainly says something. A lot, if not the overwhelming majority of psychology researchers do not understand p-values and simple theory-hypothesis construction, let a alone the structural equation modeling menu dialogues in SPSS they click on. All they have is theories. No, not like gravity. More like Jesus and Muhammad - unsubstantiated theories. I read a metric ton of psychographic research because of my job, which is in quantitative marketing research.