In providing an overview for this new blog's approach, I've so far touched on genetics and intelligence; now it's onto studies of talent and expertise that provide the third key puzzle piece. Taken together, they suggest -- to me at least -- a whole new way to think about high achievement.
Many of you have already read about some of the key research -- the famous 10,000-hours-to-greatness observation of Anders Ericsson and others, described in several recent smart books, including Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated, Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code.*
These studies are important, not because they put a specific hour-number on what it takes to be a champion, but because of the big idea behind that number. The breathtaking insight that comes through in the work of Ericsson and colleagues is this: talent is not a thing, but a process -- a very slow, largely invisible process that, up till now, has been nearly impossible to document and therefore very easy to misread. As long as this slow accretion of skills went unseen and unarticulated, the mature skills themselves seemed almost magic. For many centuries, greatness appeared to be god-given; later, in the 20th century, it was understood as gene-given. All along, these ideas were reinforced by astounding child prodigy stories that seemed to be explainable only by unusual innate "gifts."**
Now, Ericsson and colleagues -- there are many, with hundreds of studies already published -- are making the invisible visible.*** They are showing how all abilities are based in process. They are exploding the myth of "giftedness."
Their work also dovetails with genetic-environment interaction, and with research showing how extraordinarily plastic the human brain is -- how we constantly change its structure with our moment-to-moment actions.
A new understanding thus emerges: the limits we think we see in ourselves and our kids are really more like obstacles, difficult but not impossible to overcome. What appear to be innate/genetic brick walls are actually just very steep hills to climb. According to this view, the real marvel of genetics is how their dynamic properties allow us to expand and expand and expand our abilities -- if we push hard enough and have the right resources. (These are big ifs.)
Which brings us back to the public fixation with innateness. Given what we've all been told about genes, it's perfectly understandable when we look at a clumsy 8 year-old boy and surmise: "He's got no athletic talent. He just doesn't have the genes for it." But the new science of talent suggests a very different conclusion:
• His clumsiness was developed, not inborn. He became clumsy over time in response to many gene-environment interactions.
• His development continues, and nothing is set in stone. While the odds are of course against him, no can say for certain whether this clumsy boy has professional sports in his future.
We simply don't know his ultimate potential, and neither will he until he marshals all of his resources to get there.
Genes will play a huge role, of course, and will ultimately limit him in some way. But we don't know precisely how.
Discovering our own potential is part of the marvel of being alive.
* I began writing (and blogging) about this stuff in 2007, long before any of these books were published. My book will come late behind these books, and will probably be dismissed by some as Johnny-come-lately. But I think mine has much to add, and hope it will be seen as a complement to them. The reality is, all of these books (including mine) were written concurrently; I, for one, did not read any of them before finishing mine.
** I'll tackle the issue of child prodigies in future posts, and in my book.
*** Here's a tiny sampling of the studies from Ericsson and colleagues:
Salthouse, T. A. EFFECTS OF AGE AND SKILL IN TYPING. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1984.
Abernethy, B., et al. VISUAL-PERCEPTUAL AND COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERT, INTERMEDIATE, AND NOVICE SNOOKER PLAYERS. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1994.
Krampe, R. Th., et al. MAINTAINING EXCELLENCE: DELIBERATE PRACTICE AND ELITE PERFORMANCE IN YOUNG AND OLDER PIANISTS. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1996.
Higbee, K. L. NOVICES, APPRENTICES, AND MNEMONISTS: ACQUIRING EXPERTISE WITH THE PHONETIC MNEMONIC. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1997.
Nevett, M. E., et al. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPORT-SPECIFIC PLANNING, REHEARSAL, AND UPDATING OF PLANS DURING DEFENSIVE YOUTH BASEBALL GAME PERFORMANCE. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1997.
Gabrielsson, A. THE PERFORMANCE OF MUSIC. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music, 1999.
Helson, W. F., et al. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO SKILLED PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE IN SPORT. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1999.
Helgerud, J., et al. AEROBIC ENDURANCE TRAINING IMPROVES SOCCER PERFORMANCE. Medicine and science in Sports and Exercise, 2001.
Goldspink, G. GENE EXPRESSION IN MUSCLE IN RESPONSE TO EXERCISE. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 2003.
McPherson, S., et al. TACTICS, THE NEGLECTED ATTRIBUTE OF EXPERTISE: PROBLEM REPRESENTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE SKILLS IN TENNIS, 2003.
Pantev, C. et al. MUSIC AND LEARNING-INDUCED CORTICAL PLASTICITY. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2003.
Duffy, L. J., et al. DART PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF FACETS OF PRACTICE AMONGST PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR MEN AND WOMEN PLAYERS. Int'l Journal of Sport Psychology, 2004.
Ericsson, K. A. DELIBERATE PRACTICE AND THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXPERT PERFORMANCE IN MEDICINE AND RELATED DOMAINS. Academic Medicine, 2004.
(Photo credit for the picture of the brain: http://www.flickr.com/photos/17657816@N05/1971827663)
19 Kids and Counting built its reputation on preaching family values, but the mass-media platforms that made the family famous might also be their undoing.
On Thursday, news broke that Josh Duggar, the oldest son of the Duggar family's 19 children, had, as a teenager, allegedly molested five underage girls. Four of them, allegedly, were his sisters.
The information came to light because, in 2006—two years before 17 Kids and Counting first aired on TLC, and thus two years before the Duggars became reality-TV celebrities—the family recorded an appearance on TheOprah Winfrey Show. Before the taping, an anonymous source sent an email to Harpo warning the production company Josh’s alleged molestation. Harpo forwarded the email to authorities, triggering a police investigation (the Oprah appearance never aired). The news was reported this week by In Touch Weekly—after the magazine filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the police report on the case—and then confirmed by the Duggars in a statement posted on Facebook.
New research confirms what they say about nice guys.
Smile at the customer. Bake cookies for your colleagues. Sing your subordinates’ praises. Share credit. Listen. Empathize. Don’t drive the last dollar out of a deal. Leave the last doughnut for someone else.
Sneer at the customer. Keep your colleagues on edge. Claim credit. Speak first. Put your feet on the table. Withhold approval. Instill fear. Interrupt. Ask for more. And by all means, take that last doughnut. You deserve it.
Follow one of those paths, the success literature tells us, and you’ll go far. Follow the other, and you’ll die powerless and broke. The only question is, which is which?
Of all the issues that preoccupy the modern mind—Nature or nurture? Is there life in outer space? Why can’t America field a decent soccer team?—it’s hard to think of one that has attracted so much water-cooler philosophizing yet so little scientific inquiry. Does it pay to be nice? Or is there an advantage to being a jerk?
In an interview, the U.S. president ties his legacy to a pact with Tehran, argues ISIS is not winning, warns Saudi Arabia not to pursue a nuclear-weapons program, and anguishes about Israel.
On Tuesday afternoon, as President Obama was bringing an occasionally contentious but often illuminating hour-long conversation about the Middle East to an end, I brought up a persistent worry. “A majority of American Jews want to support the Iran deal,” I said, “but a lot of people are anxiety-ridden about this, as am I.” Like many Jews—and also, by the way, many non-Jews—I believe that it is prudent to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of anti-Semitic regimes. Obama, who earlier in the discussion had explicitly labeled the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an anti-Semite, responded with an argument I had not heard him make before.
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
In any case, people have probably heard the phrase in reference to something gone awry at work or in life. In either setting, when the shit does hit the fan, people will tend to look to the most competent person in the room to take over.
And too bad for that person. A new paper by a team of researchers from Duke University, University of Georgia, and University of Colorado looks at not only how extremely competent people are treated by their co-workers and peers, but how those people feel when, at crucial moments, everyone turns to them. They find that responsible employees are not terribly pleased about this dynamic either.
Why agriculture may someday take place in towers, not fields
A couple of Octobers ago, I found myself standing on a 5,000-acre cotton crop in the outskirts of Lubbock, Texas, shoulder-to-shoulder with a third-generation cotton farmer. He swept his arm across the flat, brown horizon of his field, which was at that moment being plowed by an industrial-sized picker—a toothy machine as tall as a house and operated by one man. The picker’s yields were being dropped into a giant pod to be delivered late that night to the local gin. And far beneath our feet, the Ogallala aquifer dwindled away at its frighteningly swift pace. When asked about this, the farmer spoke of reverse osmosis—the process of desalinating water—which he seemed to put his faith in, and which kept him unafraid of famine and permanent drought.
Singapore’s mind-bending logical riddles are so last month. Enter: Vietnam, the latest country to be swept up in what could easily be known as “the viral-math epidemic of 2015.”
This one might even trump its Singaporean predecessor, which became a global legend earlier this year. That quandary, for those who aren’t familiar with it, asked fifth-graders to figure out the birthday of a certain “Cheryl,” who gave two of her friends—“Albert” and “Bernard”—a list of 10 possible dates. She then privately told Albert the month, and Bernard the day. (“Albert: I don’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know that Bernard does not know too. Bernard: At first I don’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I now know. Albert: Then I also know when Cheryl’s birthday is.”)
A scholar’s analysis of American culture presumes too much.
Last week, Gawkerinterviewed Robin DiAngelo, a professor of multicultural education at Westfield State University. She discussed aspects of her thinking on whiteness, which are set forth at length in her book, What Does it Mean to be White? I’ve ordered the book.
Meanwhile, her remarks on police brutality piqued my interest. Some of what Professor DiAngelo said is grounded in solid empirical evidence: blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately victimized by misbehaving police officers; there are neighborhoods where police help maintain racial and class boundaries. And if our culture, which she calls “the water we swim in,” contained fewer parts racism per million, I suspect that police brutality would be less common.
The former secretary of state jettisons sweeping rhetoric, and focuses on specific policies.
Hillary Clinton has been an official candidate for president for five weeks, and she still hasn’t done the thing most candidates do on day one: given a speech laying out her vision for America. Nor is she planning on doing so anytime soon. Politicoreports that Hillary’s “why I’m running for president,” speech, initially scheduled for May, has now been delayed until June, or even later.
There’s a reason for that: The speech is unlikely to be very good. Soaring rhetoric and grand themes have never been Hillary’s strengths. That’s one reason so many liberals found her so much less inspirational than Barack Obama in 2008. And it’s a problem with deep roots. In his biography, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein describes Hillary, then in law school, struggling to articulate her generation’s perspective in an address to the League of Women Voters. “If she was speaking about a clearly defined subject,” Bernstein writes, “her thoughts would be well organized, finely articulated, and delivered in almost perfect outline form. But before the League audience, she again and again lapsed into sweeping abstractions.”