| Author |
Topic: So, practice makes the talent, after all.... |
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
|
|
 |
Charlie McDonald
From:
out of the blue
|
Posted 8 May 2006 3:43 am |
|
A convincing argument, particularly about the selection of soccer players.
But does this mean I have to practice?
What a drag. |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 8 May 2006 3:45 am
|
|
So soccer mad european dad's will be forcing their wives into summer pregnancies,
in the hopes of raising a soccer legend...
The mind boggles.  |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 8 May 2006 7:38 am
|
|
| I've seen some players practice their heart out, never to become really proficient. Others, in the meantime, seem to have pretty well mastered the instrument in much less time, so there must be something innate that allowed them that more rapid proficiency. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 8 May 2006 6:16 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... so there must be something innate that allowed them that more rapid proficiency ... |
That may be true, but it's not the only possible explanation. The article talks about "right practice" and rapid, accurate feedback as being essential. I have seen people practice many things the "wrong" way and never get good feedback correction because they don't have good mentoring - learning math, languages, piano, baseball, guitar, system design - whatever. I believe that is usually the bigger issue, although it's possible that there is an "innate" level of ability in some things. Obviously, his Michael Jordan example points out the extreme advantage (in fact, necessity) for a basketball player to be tall. But I agree completely with these researchers that in many situations, innate talent is way overrated.
I also agree with their "love what you do" approach - effective learning and developing expertise is not passive. Of course, this idea is hardly new, but one must face frustration and failure and still have it together to diagnose problems and figure out how to get better. This can require enormous dedication and love of what is being done.
I have been preaching this to academicians for a long time - I think a lot of failure is just a self-fulfilling prophecy when people are told and believe (which is the cart and which is the horse?) they are "innately just not up to the mark". Naysayers insist on decades of "scientific" study, but I think there's been lots of organized anectodal evidence to this effect for a long time. Still, it's good to see someone try to attack this issue in an organized way. |
|
|
|
Gary Lee Gimble
From:
Fredericksburg, VA.
|
Posted 8 May 2006 11:14 pm
|
|
Donny, are you practicing up for Chuck's show?
|
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 9 May 2006 12:24 am
|
|
The "monkey-paw" theory of great guitar playing would seem to be borne out by people like John McLaughlin, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix and such, who all had huge hands (Eddie Van Halen could hammer notes on the 12th fret with his little finger with his index on the 5th fret). However, there are plenty of great guitarists with entirely normal size hands who get by O.K.; Eric Johnson, Steve Morse, Keith Richards? There are certain strokes in tennis and certain types of guitar licks that are easier for physically-"gifted" people physiologically, but not-so-gifted people who persevere (the perseverers) seem to find ways to play to their strengths. Doug Flutie?
P.S. (b0b, I tried & tried to shrink the link with the "url, not-url" doohickie, but it just wouldn't take for some reason.) |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 9 May 2006 6:12 am
|
|
| I don't buy the "monkey paw" theory. The best counterexample I know is Danny Gatton, who I believe had quite short, stubby fingers. Large and small hands each have their respective advantages and disadvantages, but I don't see either as really limiting for someone who is really dedicated, unless we're talking an extreme example. Of course, Django Reinhardt is another good example of doing more with less. |
|
|
|
Mat Rhodes
From:
Lexington, KY, USA
|
Posted 9 May 2006 6:20 am
|
|
| Herby Wallace doesn't have large hands and he's a total monster on that steel thing. [This message was edited by Matt Rhodes on 09 May 2006 at 07:22 AM.] |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 9 May 2006 6:20 am
|
|
thank god, all I have to do is practice and I can bypass that talent thing all together..
Talents over rated anyway...
whew..glad thats resolved... |
|
|
|
Gary Anwyl
From:
Palo Alto, CA
|
Posted 9 May 2006 9:49 am
|
|
If you follow the links you'll get to this very long academic paper by the researcher in the article. [url=http://www.freakonomics.com/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf]Deliberate Practice[/url]
He trys to make the case for the importance of deliberate practice over innate talent. It's a serious paper so he backs up his claims with concrete studies. I've only browsed it, but I found it very interesting - it talks about how long to practice, compares the practice regimen of average players with exceptional players, the use of sleep, etc.
I think a lot of us are always wondering how to become better musicians. This paper presents a lot of ideas about how to approach it.
|
|
|
|
Barry Blackwood
|
Posted 9 May 2006 12:49 pm
|
|
| I believe it's the only way to get to Carnegie Hall ..... |
|
|
|
