7 ms·

I would have thought it pretty obvious that some people have in intrinsic "gift" in certain areas. This is completely obvious in physical sports and I don't see

by gaelian 12y ago

I would have thought it pretty obvious that some people have in intrinsic "gift" in certain areas. This is completely obvious in physical sports and I don't see why - considering that our minds are underpinned by the physical structure of our brains - that this wouldn't also be the case when it comes to mental activites as well. Just because I may not have the intrinsic gift that allows me to become the best physicist or investor in the world doesn't mean that I couldn't get pretty damn good at it if I put the time in, though. It doesn't necessarily mean that I would enjoy what I was doing any less. I remember hearing about a study that I think was by Claudia Mueller and Carol Dweck[1] that basically found that praising kids for being smart (i.e. having an intrinsic gift) was far less effective than praising them for putting in a good effort (i.e. putting in the time and practice). While it is incontrovertable that some people do indeed have an intrinsic gift for certain activities, I think we should not lose sight of the apparent fact that just about anyone will do better when this view is at least not assigned greater importance than the need to put in a good effort. Lest we unintentionally start sending messages something like "Oh, well you're obviously not as gifted as Michael Jordan at Basketball, so you should probably not even bother learning the game at all." That's an intentionally exaggerated example to get my point across, but particularly when it comes to early childhood development I believe we should not underestimate the effect of even a stray word of encouragement/discouragement. I know that such words had a definite effect on me at an early age if they were from the right person - e.g. an authority figure - and often more of an effect than the authority figure assumed their words had at the time. 1. http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

xiaoma 12y ago
On the other hand not having Michael Jordan-like talent would be a good reason to discourage a teenager from practicing basketball for hours a day at the expense of their studies.
- gaelian 12y ago
  Potentially yes. But I would not agree in all cases. Does the teenager enjoy the activity? That could be reason enough for him to pursue it. And there's shades of grey here we're not addressing... OK so he doesn't have Jordan's innate talent, but does that necessarily mean he has no chance at all of pursuing a pro Basketball career? Of course not. There are many still valid and useful skill levels between the two extremes of "not fit for the NBA" and "Michael Jordan".
  - watwut 12y ago
    "not fit for the NBA" is not extreme, it is normal. Anyone who plays in NBA is highly skilled highly above average individual.
    - gaelian 12y ago
      Certainly. But if we're viewing the scope of the spectrum under discussion as covering the skill levels of the people who play in the NBA - which was pretty clearly my intent in that instance - then they are the two extremes. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret my statement as meaning that the group of elite athletes playing pro Basketball in the US are not exceptional. But if that needed clarification, fair enough.
- kenjackson 12y ago
  Jordan didn't have Jordan talent as a youth. He didn't make his varsity team as a sophomore. But I heard he was always the first one in and the last one out of the gym. The hard work seems to have paid off.
erikb 12y ago
Doing good for mankind always has been a heart's desire for me. The idea that I might just need a few years more practise is what keeps me working hard. If something innate is required to excel I simply don't have it, though. Therefore it would be really painful if the 10k hour rule doesn't apply. The logical conclusion for me therefore always has been to believe that more work will result in way better results. Maybe the "obvious" part is where your own confidence/talent comes into play.
- gaelian 12y ago
  I guess I just don't see it as this binary situation where you either have to be the absolute best in the world at what you do, or you're not contributing at all to mankind. And that's the feeling I often get when people discuss these kinds of topics (not that I'm implying I get that feeling from your response specifically, or if I do I'm probably overlaying it with other discussions I've had on this topic). I personally think one can excel from hard work alone. Maybe you can't excel to the degree of a Hawking or a Jordan in their relevant fields, but does that necessarily invalidate anything you have achieved? There's always going to be someone better at X than you are, for some value of X, at some particular time and place. I see an unfortunate possibility of unrealised potential if people - particularly young people - get it in their heads that if they can't be the absolute best at something then they may as well not even try. Additionally, even Hawking or Jordan don't operate in a vacuum. What about all the people that have supported them over their lives, all the people they learned from, who - in isolation - the world might consider to be "lesser" people. Would Hawking/Jordan have been able to do what they've done without all that support?
watwut 12y ago
There are things you can become damn good at it if you put the time in. Those are definitely worth doing professionally. But, there are also things you can get mediocre at best if you put in excessively lot of time. Those are not worth trying to do professionally, although hobby is another matter. On the other hand, I think that we underestimate childrens ability to get up again after failure or isolated stray word of discouragement. Telling children they sux one too many times will lower their self-esteem, sure. However, most of them will recover from hearing something slightly discouraging once in a while just fine.
- gaelian 12y ago
  > On the other hand, I think that we underestimate childrens ability to get up again after failure or isolated stray word of discouragement. Telling children they sux one too many times will lower their self-esteem, sure. However, most of them will recover from hearing something slightly discouraging once in a while just fine. For sure, I would even go so far as to say discouragement is a normal part of life and if one was to shelter a child from all forms of discouragement - assuming that's even possible - then that child would probably not be very well equipped for life generally. This is an interesting issue as well, but I think it's orthogonal to the main point I was trying to make.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  The point being made is about the danger of the wrong type of praise, not avoiding criticism. A child that is told repeatedly that they were born with a gift for mathmatics may gave up too early on music if they don't show immediate talent (or vice versa). The only criticism there is self-criticism, which is a lot harder to escape.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  > But, there are also things you can get mediocre at best if you put in excessively lot of time. Those are not worth trying to do professionally, although hobby is another matter. Or maybe not. Quite often, a mediocre competency on something (or several things) is necessary for applying your incredibly good competence in anotehr thing.
facepalm 12y ago
"completely obvious in physical sports" How so? Maybe some extreme cases, like being tall qualifies you for being a basketball player. But in general?
- watwut 12y ago
  Muscle type you possess is pretty much given and make difference between talented sprinter and talented weight lifter (speed vs strength). Possible body flexibility depends on muscles and joints too and you can influence it only up to the point. You can do only so much to make your attention span longer and better attention span is advantage in some sports too (say race driving). Whether your body can sustain extensive training or whether it will break depends partly on your genetics too. If you are low on red cells in blood, you will be at disadvantage too. Bigger hands are an advantage in swimming, longer hands in climbing. Some people learn technique easier then others although I do not know what is the difference there. Your sensitivity to pain is not only a question of will power, it depends on genetics too - lower pain sensibility is advantage too. There are plenty of individual variances that make difference between who can succeed in professional sport and who not.
  - watwut 12y ago
    Why was this downvoted?
  - marveller 12y ago
    Absolutely agree. Why was this downvoted again?

by gaelian 12y ago

xiaoma 12y ago

On the other hand not having Michael Jordan-like talent would be a good reason to discourage a teenager from practicing basketball for hours a day at the expense of their studies.

gaelian 12y ago
Potentially yes. But I would not agree in all cases. Does the teenager enjoy the activity? That could be reason enough for him to pursue it. And there's shades of grey here we're not addressing... OK so he doesn't have Jordan's innate talent, but does that necessarily mean he has no chance at all of pursuing a pro Basketball career? Of course not. There are many still valid and useful skill levels between the two extremes of "not fit for the NBA" and "Michael Jordan".
- watwut 12y ago
  "not fit for the NBA" is not extreme, it is normal. Anyone who plays in NBA is highly skilled highly above average individual.
  - gaelian 12y ago
    Certainly. But if we're viewing the scope of the spectrum under discussion as covering the skill levels of the people who play in the NBA - which was pretty clearly my intent in that instance - then they are the two extremes. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret my statement as meaning that the group of elite athletes playing pro Basketball in the US are not exceptional. But if that needed clarification, fair enough.
kenjackson 12y ago
Jordan didn't have Jordan talent as a youth. He didn't make his varsity team as a sophomore. But I heard he was always the first one in and the last one out of the gym. The hard work seems to have paid off.

erikb 12y ago

Doing good for mankind always has been a heart's desire for me. The idea that I might just need a few years more practise is what keeps me working hard. If something innate is required to excel I simply don't have it, though. Therefore it would be really painful if the 10k hour rule doesn't apply. The logical conclusion for me therefore always has been to believe that more work will result in way better results. Maybe the "obvious" part is where your own confidence/talent comes into play.

gaelian 12y ago
I guess I just don't see it as this binary situation where you either have to be the absolute best in the world at what you do, or you're not contributing at all to mankind. And that's the feeling I often get when people discuss these kinds of topics (not that I'm implying I get that feeling from your response specifically, or if I do I'm probably overlaying it with other discussions I've had on this topic). I personally think one can excel from hard work alone. Maybe you can't excel to the degree of a Hawking or a Jordan in their relevant fields, but does that necessarily invalidate anything you have achieved? There's always going to be someone better at X than you are, for some value of X, at some particular time and place. I see an unfortunate possibility of unrealised potential if people - particularly young people - get it in their heads that if they can't be the absolute best at something then they may as well not even try. Additionally, even Hawking or Jordan don't operate in a vacuum. What about all the people that have supported them over their lives, all the people they learned from, who - in isolation - the world might consider to be "lesser" people. Would Hawking/Jordan have been able to do what they've done without all that support?

watwut 12y ago

There are things you can become damn good at it if you put the time in. Those are definitely worth doing professionally. But, there are also things you can get mediocre at best if you put in excessively lot of time. Those are not worth trying to do professionally, although hobby is another matter. On the other hand, I think that we underestimate childrens ability to get up again after failure or isolated stray word of discouragement. Telling children they sux one too many times will lower their self-esteem, sure. However, most of them will recover from hearing something slightly discouraging once in a while just fine.

gaelian 12y ago
> On the other hand, I think that we underestimate childrens ability to get up again after failure or isolated stray word of discouragement. Telling children they sux one too many times will lower their self-esteem, sure. However, most of them will recover from hearing something slightly discouraging once in a while just fine. For sure, I would even go so far as to say discouragement is a normal part of life and if one was to shelter a child from all forms of discouragement - assuming that's even possible - then that child would probably not be very well equipped for life generally. This is an interesting issue as well, but I think it's orthogonal to the main point I was trying to make.
ZeroGravitas 12y ago
The point being made is about the danger of the wrong type of praise, not avoiding criticism. A child that is told repeatedly that they were born with a gift for mathmatics may gave up too early on music if they don't show immediate talent (or vice versa). The only criticism there is self-criticism, which is a lot harder to escape.
marcosdumay 12y ago
> But, there are also things you can get mediocre at best if you put in excessively lot of time. Those are not worth trying to do professionally, although hobby is another matter. Or maybe not. Quite often, a mediocre competency on something (or several things) is necessary for applying your incredibly good competence in anotehr thing.

facepalm 12y ago

"completely obvious in physical sports" How so? Maybe some extreme cases, like being tall qualifies you for being a basketball player. But in general?

watwut 12y ago
Muscle type you possess is pretty much given and make difference between talented sprinter and talented weight lifter (speed vs strength). Possible body flexibility depends on muscles and joints too and you can influence it only up to the point. You can do only so much to make your attention span longer and better attention span is advantage in some sports too (say race driving). Whether your body can sustain extensive training or whether it will break depends partly on your genetics too. If you are low on red cells in blood, you will be at disadvantage too. Bigger hands are an advantage in swimming, longer hands in climbing. Some people learn technique easier then others although I do not know what is the difference there. Your sensitivity to pain is not only a question of will power, it depends on genetics too - lower pain sensibility is advantage too. There are plenty of individual variances that make difference between who can succeed in professional sport and who not.
- watwut 12y ago
  Why was this downvoted?
- marveller 12y ago
  Absolutely agree. Why was this downvoted again?