I don't like the way the article presents hard work: "the very best rise because they take great pains to maximise that gift". Pain? That way, no one's going to try. The part in which they say "that's a task not everyone's up to" is particularly discouraging. So, informative as an article, lame as an advice.
Also, I think that they left out the inner spark (curiosity in the case of smart guys). What drives you to practise? It ain't discipline, or at least you don't consider it like that. You are not forcing yourself to pratise/read/study/train, you truly want to do it. Granted, you sometimes trick yourself into doing it, that could be considered discipline, but not the bulk of it.
I had read it somewhere before: it's known that genius is in the hard discipline, but it's not known where the genius takes such a great motivation to involve in that kind of discipline.
One thing that's missing from the article is that there isn't just one kind of hard work. Some people work very hard and very inefficiently. They never analyse how they do things and how they could do them better.
You tend to find that 'hard work == discipline == genius' is the illusory conclusion made by those on the outside looking in. When we are truly inspired, in the 'flow' if you like, doesn't that feel like the easiest, most natural state you have ever experienced?
Ptn nails it in his comment - "they left out the inner spark". Absolutely. Genius is simply the release of the inner spark and that process is not something that could be characterised by effort.
"Genius is simply the release of the inner spark."
Good remark. I think you still need effort, but that's the kind of removing obstacles between the spark and the outcome, rather than the kind of blindly digging here and there hoping you'll find a gem. I guess that's the reason of the importance of the mentor mentioned in the article.
And yes, it's simple, yet so difficult to achieve for even a slight bit of ego, lazyness or even over-eagerness get in the way... (from my experience of >20yrs of practicing instruments and acting; yet there's long way to go).
You are quite right Shiro.. it does take effort, but only as long as we believe that it takes effort ;-)
The central thesis of 'The little book of Flow' I linked to above is that those sublime moments when we get in touch with our inner spark, where inspiration gushes, answers flow from us before the questions, and we have all-on just keeping up... are simply the moments we, per chance, relax into our true nature, our natural (though perhaps forgotten) state. Notice that these moments invariably occur when we are happy and relaxed and the mind lets slip it's incessant control over of our life.,, and we suddenly feel more alive and connected to everything. If this is true (and it's not difficult to test this for ourselves) then what preparation or effort or understanding could be needed to know our own nature?
Of course, the ego doesn't want us to hear this - as our 'self-concept' it's under threat as once our mind expands to a greater awareness of reality it's impossible to shrink back again. So it's the nature of the ego (the human condition if you like) to believe that we must strive, practice, seek answers. But that doesn't make it either necessary or true.
At end of the day it can, if we wish, come down to a simple choice: - Shall I be true the truth as I find it - 'the spark', or true to the latest idea about what is still needed?
What I am long-windedly trying to say here Shiro, is that from my experience the problem is not the 'obstacles between the spark and the outcome' but the belief that there are obstacles between the spark and the outcome that need to be overcome. Does that make sense?
Yeah that makes sense. Whether the obstacles are there or just a phamtom created by our ego, my point is that the "effort" here is more like a round-trip journey, which can be quite enjoyable even if you'll eventually come back to the same place. Do we need that? I don't know, maybe not. Is it fun? I bet it is.
How fun can it be to make hundrends of sit ups everyday for a long period? Yet, strong abdominals might be a must in order to be top in some fields (let's say to be a soccer player in Chelsea) or to be the actor that plays Leonidas in 300. Building strong abdominals IS painful and boring and it takes a lot of motivation to do it.
Not necesarily boring. What if your dream is to become the best body-builder? "Fun" and "boring" are relative. Some consider fun to go out every Saturday to hit a disco, but I don't really like them (way too noisy). On the other hand, I consider programming fun, but there's a lot of guys that think that me coding in my free time is weird.
My wife once asked me how I could practice the same piano piece over and over and over, for hours, without being bored. It seemed to her that I was making a great effort. To me, every time I play, I discover something new, about music, about myself, about the instrument.... Even the least interesting basic exercise piece like Hanon (which roughly corresponds to the sit-up or squatting to build your body), if I concentrate on how every parts of my body works to interact with the piano, it's an unlimited source of discovery. I wish I'd known that when I was younger and taking lessons---I discover how to enjoy practicing long after I stop taking lessons.
Shiro, you are definitely one of the lucky ones. Very few know what it is to do something solely for the joy of doing the thing itself... and the great paradox is that when that is our only motivation, the 'success' that we would have wanted had we been goal (instead of process) orientated comes easy and naturally.
This is how to let the inner spark shine -- allow whatever we choose to do to be it's own reward with no preconditions or ulterior motives. What flows from that is always perfect. And what's more, somehow serendipity starts kicking in.
All great works are created from a sense of joy, not pain. If there is a 'secret' to genius, then surely this is it. Does this help answer your question tyn?
Well, it's certainly inspiring, just a little remark to add: some things are entertaining by nature (e.g. playing soccer) while for other things you need to make an effort (oops, here it is again) to discover the joy in them (e.g. for the procedure of building the right body to play better soccer). Most people will certainly devote more time to the first category of activities (what I've called entertaining by nature).
You are speaking based on a gut feeling, and the article cites what appears to be pretty thorough research and investigation into actual, real life geniuses and what they had in common.
Okay, thanks. Actually, we already knew that--you know, the purpose of research is to discover how to reduce the amount of effort required for a given result. That is, "How do you move a boulder?" can be answered with "Work hard" or "Invent a bulldozer." ONE of those answers didn't require much hard work to conceive.
The problem is that the result that we're talking about -- becoming recognized as the top person in your field -- is a moving target. It's relative.
In an absolute sense, research has very much reduced the amount of effort required to listen to world-class classical music in your home -- you used to have to practice until you could play like Mozart, but now you just buy an iPod and download high-quality recordings of the world's best musicians for a couple bucks.
Researchers can also help you effortlessly beat the world chess champion -- they invented Deep Blue. (Soon to be available in laptop size at your local Best Buy.)
We've even built decent simulations of the experience of playing a world-class rock guitar solo in front of thousands of fans (Guitar Hero II), coordinating an attack on a medieval fortress (World of Warcraft) and, yes, beating Tiger Woods at golf ("EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour '07").
But, of course, it's hard to be proud of these things. Our society still finds ways to respect the people who put in the hard work to actually be Tiger Woods, and who resist the temptation to just play golf on the Playstation like the rest of us.
Ericsson's research is very informative, but it is fallacious to use it to discount the role of genetics.
To illustrate, basic perception of quantity is an innate skill that develops as the brain matures; it generally solidifies when a child reaches something like 5-7 years of age (don't quote me; I'll dig sources if need be). Now when a kid learns calculus at age 10, it is impossible to explain it simply by hard work. And unlike the article, I would put Mozart into this category.
What is deducible from the research is simply that P( successful | no hard work) = 0, but P( successful | work hard) > 0.
Not to discount the role of genetics, but how many parents ever prepare their children to learn Calculus at age 10 in the first place? If it were tried with all children and only a few succeeded, the genetic argument would be stronger; as it is, it is rarely tried but anecdotally it seems like when it IS tried, it is successful. This may have more to do with children's incredible mental elasticity than anything else.
And IMO calculus isn't really "hard"; e.g. the concept of infinity is no more difficult to teach a child than an adult. Actually I'd say it's a lot easier to learn it at 10 than at 18 anyway, just like a foreign language or musical instrument or computer programming.
The limiting factor with children in my experience is adults. Adults abrogate children's learning opportunities with regimented lessons that are merely someone's mistaken concept of what is "appropriate" for an "average" child of that "grade level", i.e. age.
"Readers"? Why not keep the shelf stocked with the best sci-fi, fantasy, and non-fiction and let them read what they want? Math in particular is going to undergo major changes because kids are going to grow up now with 3D worlds and coordinate systems that they play with. Kids are generally under-stimulated intellectually with what they're interested in, and over-worked on things they don't have interest in. Our potential is so much more than what we are permitted to grow into in these restrictive environments.
You points are valid, and I don't take a hard stance on this debate, but I highly disagree with how it's called the "nature vs nuture debate," as if it's one or the other.
Learning calculus at age 10 is no small feat; it's one of many examples there are, but you are right, I can't say it can't be taught. However, research evidence will say it's very difficult.
I don't remember the name of the experiment, but this is fairly well-tested, as follows. Take n beads and lay them in a line in front of a 5-year-old. Take the same number of beads and make another line, but space them apart wider. Ask which line has more beads. Usually the kid will say the more widely-spaced line has more. This is caused by an immature perception of quantity. After a few years, this error "magically" disappears. Logically, if you don't understand descrete quantities you won't be handling high-level math.
The other example is reading. Most kids begin recalling episodic memories from age 3; reading starts later than that. Sho Yano was reading the New York Times at age 2. He played Chopin from memory at 3, with no training at all (the story goes, as his mother says, that she was in the kicthen and he just climbed up on the chair and started playing). There is simply no case to be made about it being a taught skill.
Again I'm not discounting the importance of rearing, but there are cases where innate genius is the primary factor in skill development, and again, I believe Mozart falls into the genius category. Beethoven, maybe the hard work category.
I suspect that the researchers cited in the article might point out people who demonstrated aptitude like Yano's and yet did not achieve as much as someone who had less aptitude but worked harder. There is some baseline of innate aptitude required for excellence, but among people surpassing that baseline hard work is what distinguishes them; that is the hypothesis proffered in the article.
As for Mozart, the point was that even he had to put in over 10 years of work before producing his best work. But, because he started at 3 he got there at a really early age.
That hypothesis is clear, and I agree with it. I am a fan of Ericcson's work, but I disagree with certain examples that are often cited in articles like these. There are many reasons, the first of which I mentioned above.
The rules of aptitude assessment are much different for children and adults; the returns per year is not simply accumulative. First, the curve isn't linear. Second, the curve looks different during different ages. Forgive me if this is obvious, but the reporters never seem like they know. The ten years from age 3 to 13 is a different ten years from age 23 to 33. If you learned a language in the former interval, you'd be a native speaker; in the latter, no matter how hard you work, you won't be. The "early" brain is a completely different creature from the "late" brain (which is why I think youth education is far more important than teen+ education). It is also early in life when particular natural affinities develop. If there were two TigerWoods, let one start golf at 2, trains until 18, and deprive them for 8 years. The other starts at 10, trains until 26, and bring them together to compete after a refresher for the early start, I would bet on the early starter.
"Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities."
This is an interesting topic and yet the author does it a disservice by simplifying it. Mozart was prolific, it's true, but he could write a symphony in one go. Literally, he would just sit down and write out a symphony. That's not the hard work the author hints at. Then there are others, such as Beethoven, who was great despite not producing many works. Melville wrote few novels, but one was "Moby Dick". Even the work that was done was most likely a labor of love, so that 99% perspiration most likely wasn't noticed by the one sweating.
Further, I'm dismayed that the author attempts to dilute the intellectual capacity as an ingredient in formulating "genius". Name a true genius and I will name you someone who knew their field intimately. It's simply not the only ingredient.
Instead, I would credit perspective. Alan Kay's "point of view". A genius has a way of going down a path where no one else has ventured before, and does so for personal motives. Most geniuses don't try to be geniuses, as much as chase a star only seen by them.
When Beethoven found he was losing his hearing, he wrote a letter to his brothers called the Heiligenstadt Testament, and said, "... but little more and I would have put an end to my life - only art it was that withheld me, ah it seemed impossible to leave the world until I had produced all that I felt called upon me to produce"
I think the article is pretty accurate though. Mozart could create a symphony in one go but the author does say that he started at age 3. His father encouraged him and then Haydn was also his tutor.
The way I read the article is that intelligence is necessary but is not sufficient in of itself.
I think the article is silly. One, there's nothing close to a scientific method used -- and this from NewScientist (how embarrassing). He should try to correlate "work" with "results". I'm assuming he started to, realized there was no correlation, and wrote the article anyway. Eating food and breathing are also necessary but not sufficient. Actually those at least correlate. All geniuses did do those two things. I'm not sure all of them worked that hard.
About Mozart, I only used him to try to show that "work" sometimes isn't work. Rimbaud is yet another contradictory example. He started writing in his late teens and finished abruptly at 20. In those few years he produced works of genius.
No, I think another commenter was right. The author is clearly someone on the outside looking in and who is making attempts -- in vain -- to understand.
To tell you the truth..isn't it unfair? some kidz are already expose to an musical background so they turn out to be awesome and great when they become older..like some musical legends..they started at 10 then being taught by guitar teachers..so, they became guitar legends..how about us? people who are passionate learning the guitar. who are in love with music and play it like an art...we practice almost 7 hours a day. we are good because we are PERSEVERE...we are not guitar genius or born to play guitar...we are just passionate to play it...So, a passionate guitarist can beat a guitar genius..so play with passion and love for music!! "MUSIC IS FROM THE HEART, DON"T JUST PLAY IT.....LOVE IT!!" (:
38 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 84.8 ms ] threadAlso, I think that they left out the inner spark (curiosity in the case of smart guys). What drives you to practise? It ain't discipline, or at least you don't consider it like that. You are not forcing yourself to pratise/read/study/train, you truly want to do it. Granted, you sometimes trick yourself into doing it, that could be considered discipline, but not the bulk of it.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...
Ptn nails it in his comment - "they left out the inner spark". Absolutely. Genius is simply the release of the inner spark and that process is not something that could be characterised by effort.
Here's an alternative perspective - http://www.life2point0.com/2007/02/learning_to_fly.html and http://www.life2point0.com/2006/06/the_little_book.html
Good remark. I think you still need effort, but that's the kind of removing obstacles between the spark and the outcome, rather than the kind of blindly digging here and there hoping you'll find a gem. I guess that's the reason of the importance of the mentor mentioned in the article.
And yes, it's simple, yet so difficult to achieve for even a slight bit of ego, lazyness or even over-eagerness get in the way... (from my experience of >20yrs of practicing instruments and acting; yet there's long way to go).
The central thesis of 'The little book of Flow' I linked to above is that those sublime moments when we get in touch with our inner spark, where inspiration gushes, answers flow from us before the questions, and we have all-on just keeping up... are simply the moments we, per chance, relax into our true nature, our natural (though perhaps forgotten) state. Notice that these moments invariably occur when we are happy and relaxed and the mind lets slip it's incessant control over of our life.,, and we suddenly feel more alive and connected to everything. If this is true (and it's not difficult to test this for ourselves) then what preparation or effort or understanding could be needed to know our own nature?
Of course, the ego doesn't want us to hear this - as our 'self-concept' it's under threat as once our mind expands to a greater awareness of reality it's impossible to shrink back again. So it's the nature of the ego (the human condition if you like) to believe that we must strive, practice, seek answers. But that doesn't make it either necessary or true.
At end of the day it can, if we wish, come down to a simple choice: - Shall I be true the truth as I find it - 'the spark', or true to the latest idea about what is still needed?
What I am long-windedly trying to say here Shiro, is that from my experience the problem is not the 'obstacles between the spark and the outcome' but the belief that there are obstacles between the spark and the outcome that need to be overcome. Does that make sense?
I'm with you Shiro... I'll take fun any day.
This is how to let the inner spark shine -- allow whatever we choose to do to be it's own reward with no preconditions or ulterior motives. What flows from that is always perfect. And what's more, somehow serendipity starts kicking in.
All great works are created from a sense of joy, not pain. If there is a 'secret' to genius, then surely this is it. Does this help answer your question tyn?
I know which I'm going to put more stock in.
Okay, thanks. Actually, we already knew that--you know, the purpose of research is to discover how to reduce the amount of effort required for a given result. That is, "How do you move a boulder?" can be answered with "Work hard" or "Invent a bulldozer." ONE of those answers didn't require much hard work to conceive.
In an absolute sense, research has very much reduced the amount of effort required to listen to world-class classical music in your home -- you used to have to practice until you could play like Mozart, but now you just buy an iPod and download high-quality recordings of the world's best musicians for a couple bucks.
Researchers can also help you effortlessly beat the world chess champion -- they invented Deep Blue. (Soon to be available in laptop size at your local Best Buy.)
We've even built decent simulations of the experience of playing a world-class rock guitar solo in front of thousands of fans (Guitar Hero II), coordinating an attack on a medieval fortress (World of Warcraft) and, yes, beating Tiger Woods at golf ("EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour '07").
But, of course, it's hard to be proud of these things. Our society still finds ways to respect the people who put in the hard work to actually be Tiger Woods, and who resist the temptation to just play golf on the Playstation like the rest of us.
I'm sure reading news.ycombinator.com on Saturday afternoons will make me 5-15x more productive.
To illustrate, basic perception of quantity is an innate skill that develops as the brain matures; it generally solidifies when a child reaches something like 5-7 years of age (don't quote me; I'll dig sources if need be). Now when a kid learns calculus at age 10, it is impossible to explain it simply by hard work. And unlike the article, I would put Mozart into this category.
What is deducible from the research is simply that P( successful | no hard work) = 0, but P( successful | work hard) > 0.
And IMO calculus isn't really "hard"; e.g. the concept of infinity is no more difficult to teach a child than an adult. Actually I'd say it's a lot easier to learn it at 10 than at 18 anyway, just like a foreign language or musical instrument or computer programming.
The limiting factor with children in my experience is adults. Adults abrogate children's learning opportunities with regimented lessons that are merely someone's mistaken concept of what is "appropriate" for an "average" child of that "grade level", i.e. age.
"Readers"? Why not keep the shelf stocked with the best sci-fi, fantasy, and non-fiction and let them read what they want? Math in particular is going to undergo major changes because kids are going to grow up now with 3D worlds and coordinate systems that they play with. Kids are generally under-stimulated intellectually with what they're interested in, and over-worked on things they don't have interest in. Our potential is so much more than what we are permitted to grow into in these restrictive environments.
Learning calculus at age 10 is no small feat; it's one of many examples there are, but you are right, I can't say it can't be taught. However, research evidence will say it's very difficult.
I don't remember the name of the experiment, but this is fairly well-tested, as follows. Take n beads and lay them in a line in front of a 5-year-old. Take the same number of beads and make another line, but space them apart wider. Ask which line has more beads. Usually the kid will say the more widely-spaced line has more. This is caused by an immature perception of quantity. After a few years, this error "magically" disappears. Logically, if you don't understand descrete quantities you won't be handling high-level math.
The other example is reading. Most kids begin recalling episodic memories from age 3; reading starts later than that. Sho Yano was reading the New York Times at age 2. He played Chopin from memory at 3, with no training at all (the story goes, as his mother says, that she was in the kicthen and he just climbed up on the chair and started playing). There is simply no case to be made about it being a taught skill.
Again I'm not discounting the importance of rearing, but there are cases where innate genius is the primary factor in skill development, and again, I believe Mozart falls into the genius category. Beethoven, maybe the hard work category.
As for Mozart, the point was that even he had to put in over 10 years of work before producing his best work. But, because he started at 3 he got there at a really early age.
The rules of aptitude assessment are much different for children and adults; the returns per year is not simply accumulative. First, the curve isn't linear. Second, the curve looks different during different ages. Forgive me if this is obvious, but the reporters never seem like they know. The ten years from age 3 to 13 is a different ten years from age 23 to 33. If you learned a language in the former interval, you'd be a native speaker; in the latter, no matter how hard you work, you won't be. The "early" brain is a completely different creature from the "late" brain (which is why I think youth education is far more important than teen+ education). It is also early in life when particular natural affinities develop. If there were two TigerWoods, let one start golf at 2, trains until 18, and deprive them for 8 years. The other starts at 10, trains until 26, and bring them together to compete after a refresher for the early start, I would bet on the early starter.
"Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities."
For example.
http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart-is...
Wow, these are all in the same unit?
Further, I'm dismayed that the author attempts to dilute the intellectual capacity as an ingredient in formulating "genius". Name a true genius and I will name you someone who knew their field intimately. It's simply not the only ingredient.
Instead, I would credit perspective. Alan Kay's "point of view". A genius has a way of going down a path where no one else has ventured before, and does so for personal motives. Most geniuses don't try to be geniuses, as much as chase a star only seen by them.
When Beethoven found he was losing his hearing, he wrote a letter to his brothers called the Heiligenstadt Testament, and said, "... but little more and I would have put an end to my life - only art it was that withheld me, ah it seemed impossible to leave the world until I had produced all that I felt called upon me to produce"
The way I read the article is that intelligence is necessary but is not sufficient in of itself.
About Mozart, I only used him to try to show that "work" sometimes isn't work. Rimbaud is yet another contradictory example. He started writing in his late teens and finished abruptly at 20. In those few years he produced works of genius.
No, I think another commenter was right. The author is clearly someone on the outside looking in and who is making attempts -- in vain -- to understand.