Stigma wrote on 10/17/09 at 19:44:21:


Very good post by Stigma.

Hardware issues are negligible, just think a laptop on Rybka could beat Deep Blue.

Efficiency is everything.

Maybe I was a bit too harsh when I stated that people suck in math because they don't have talent. Of course, with hard work you can achieve a lot. But everybody's got his limitations, because of "hardware"-issues. It is too easy to say that talent is everything, I agree, but to say that talent doesn't exist is silly. Maybe that explains my bold statement. If you've got talent but you don't practice, then it's (virtually) worthless. If you don't have talent but practice a lot, that's a waste of time . On a serious note, you will obtain a reasonable level, but the more talent you've got, the more "reasonable" this will be.

You cannot deny the brilliancy of, say, Mozart. Of course, he spent his whole life composing music, eating music and breathing music. However, this is a consequence of his talent, not the other way round.

I am not sure my point of view is according to popular opinion. At least not in the Netherlands is my impression.

Uruk wrote on 10/16/09 at 12:13:40:


Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote on 10/16/09 at 13:35:37:


The main difference here is: While the second statement fits with popular opinion, the first has a lot more scientific support. Note that the real question is not whether someone can have too weak intellectual abilities to become a good chess player; that is trivially true (consider organic psychiatric disorders). The question is whether you need special, unusually high abilities to become a world-class performer. 

In "expertise" research, the need for huge amounts of deliberate practice (in the technical definition) is not in doubt; the existence of natural talent apart from motivation and practice has much weaker support. The myth of the genius who succeeds without effort IS a myth, and that's an important message. While I have not read the Colvin book, his title "Talent is Overrated" fits with this, and he probably builds on the same research I have been reading. 

Check out this summary by two well-known expertise researchers:

http://dspace.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1475/1/Gobet-Charness-CUP-chess+expert...

pp. 23-25 are most relevant for this discussion.

Now the "chess expertise" researchers have been wrong on some points, like the frequent claim that depth of search (calculation) explains almost none of the difference between world-class and amateur players. So they could be wrong on this too.

Whatever the truth, there is an obvious reason for emphasising deliberate practice, motivation and quality of instruction over talent: The former three you can actually do something about. Inborn talent is by definition unchangeable, so no use obsessing about it!

Uruk wrote on 10/16/09 at 12:13:40:


Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote on 10/16/09 at 13:35:37:


The whole hard work vs. talent antithesis is artificial and way too simple to offer a decent explanation for the question why some people excell and others not.
I deliberately isolated these quotes from their contexts. Formulated as here they are both nonsense; with a few modifications both are correct.
@Uruk: try to turn somebody with an IQ of 80 into a mathematical or chess genius, will you?
@Beeblebrox: in my math class I have had a guy who sucked exactly because he was ill-motivated and refused to study. Recently I saw him on the street, trying to sell cheap stuff.

Uruk, 

Colvin does make a good argument that talent is not sufficient for success.   He points out that 10,000 hours of play is not really directed study. In order to be successful, you must be driven to study for 10,000 hours.   

He does not propose a straw-man argument that simply playing for 10,000 hours is equivalent to serious study.

In the case of Tiger Woods, that would mean an insanely rigorous schedule of playing, practicing and lifting weights every day.

There is quantity of work and there is quality of work.
You know, somedays you go and work eight hours, and do nothing.

I'm convinced that anyone willing to give what it takes, quantity & quality wise, will manage.
But you've got to want it really bad.

People suck at math just because they don't like it. They weren't made to like it, rather.
There are no geniuses. The best mathematicians I know are the hardest-working ones. They love it.
And think Carlsen has spent more hours studying chess than most of us will in our entire life.

Antillian has cited Geoff Colvin's work.  Colvin interpreted a famous study in a very unusual way.  The study showed that every great performer in virtually every field has one thing in common: at least 10,000 hours of directed study.

Colvin then made the conclusion that talent isn't as important as this driven, directed study.  I don't know.  But, I do know that even Colvin admits that a person can undergo the same 10,000 hours of directed study and not become a great player/performer.  If that's true, whatever we call the missing ingredient is critical.

Some critics point out that Colvin doesn't focus enough attention on the role of family and culture in determining how well a person succeeds.  Others, including some who made comments here, have pointed out that the missing ingredient could indeed be called talent.

Still others have suggested that a crucial missing ingredient is world-class instruction/coaching!   

Again, I don't know what the missing ingredients are.  I do know that while intensive, directed study (apparently at least 10,000 hours) is an essential ingredient for success, it is not a sufficient ingredient by itself.