On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:10:44 -0800, Christopher D. Green wrote: >In recent years, it has been widely reported that it's 10,000 hours of >practice that makes perfect. The idea of inborn talent has been on the >decline. But here's another view. Is good old IQ making a comeback?
I think that it is critical to note that, according to the NYT article, the "talented" folks make up a tiny percentage of the total population -- on the order of less than 1%. If the authors of the NYT article, Hambrick and Meinz, want to say that "talent" -- however defined -- is important even if it applies to a miniscule part of the population, then perhaps they have a point. The more important point is that most people can achieve high levels of skill and expertise through dedicated practice even if they start with ordinary levels of ability. For this view, consider another article in the NY Times that is a report by a guy who became a world class "memory athlete"; see: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?emc=eta1 I think that Hambrick & Meinz might want to say that people with "talent" are some how better than people who achieve high levels of skill and knowledge through their own work. If so, this is a most peculiar point. > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?_r=1 > > >Snippet: "compared with the participants who were 'only' in the 99.1 >percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the >99.9 percentile --- the profoundly gifted --- were between /three and >five times/ more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, >publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work." Gee, I hope that people actually go to the NYT article and don't just respond to this snippet. Get the original research articles they refer to (Malcolm "Mr. Igon Value" Gladwell and conservative David Brooks secondary sources don't count). Their "Exhibit A" is, I believe, the following article: Camilla Persson Benbow, David Lubinski, Daniel L. Shea, and Hossain Eftekhari-Sanjani Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability at Age 13: Their Status 20 Years Later Psychological Science November 2000 11: 474-480, doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00291 It is described as a "landmark study" but the reasons why are unclear. This article can be accessed on the Sage website along with other information such as the number of articles citing it (Web of Science says there are 61 citations which, if Hambrick & Meinz are relying on citations as an indicator of "landmarkedness", then I am co-author on a few landmark articles myself; see: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/11/6/474.short#cited-by ) I don't know which specific study H&M are referring to but the following might be a good starting point: Elizabeth J. Meinz and David Z. Hambrick Deliberate Practice Is Necessary but Not Sufficient to Explain Individual Differences in Piano Sight-Reading Skill: The Role of Working Memory Capacity Psychological Science July 2010 21: 914-919, first published on June 9, 2010 doi:10.1177/0956797610373933 I do think it curious that they use working memory as a proxy for "talent". Perhaps they assume that working memory is something that can't be altered and is genetically determined. In any event, I believe that a more "satisfying" definition of "talent" needs to be produced. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14298 or send a blank email to leave-14298-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
