

Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters - wallflower
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?hpw

======
tokenadult
One logical flaw in their argument, one I've seen frequently made by
professors of psychology who focus on individual differences, is that they
don't know whether or not the difference among participants in the Study of
Exceptional Talent (a group of young people who score high on the SAT at a
young age, a group that includes an immediate relative of mine) is from what
they call "talent" or from practice. Nothing about the way the Study of
Exceptional Talent gathers its rather limited data about study participants
allow distinguishing one possibility from the other. There is no basis from
the data-gathering done in that study to conclude that there is ANY difference
between the "99.1 percentile" and the "99.9 percentile," especially given the
error bands around SAT scores.

One of the really amazing things about the export performance literature by
Ericsson, Charness, and others

[http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-
Handbo...](http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-
Psychology/dp/0521600812/)

is that it comes out of a tradition in psychology--individual differences
psychology--that very readily defaults to genetic explanations and very
readily ignores possible environmental explanations of the same individual
differences. Ericsson's experimental results in training digit span (which is
part of the item content of same IQ test batteries) were completely surprising
when published in peer-reviewed journals--no one ever imagined that digit span

[http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kantor/t/MLIS/551/public_dump/m...](http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kantor/t/MLIS/551/public_dump/morris_a_11.html)

was such a malleable ability.

But digit span, which is malleable (trainable), is closely related to the
"working memory capacity" that the authors are implicitly claiming is not
malleable. That is not at all clear, and much experimental work suggests that
working memory capacity is more malleable than the authors acknowledge in this
opinion piece.

Also on-point here is pg's comment from his essay "What You'll Wish You'd
Known"

<http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html>

"I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to
choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the
other one is probably right."

~~~
bitsoda
Reading this article bummed me out until I was reminded of my own experiences
with increasing working/short-term memory through the use of N-Back games. In
my own n = 1 study, I struggled through dual 2 back initially, but with a few
weeks of practice, I gradually was able to climb up to the dual 4 back level,
and stopped there out of sheer laziness.

Anyways, for anyone interested in N-Back games, check out the Brain Workshop
software and website.

<http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/>

~~~
Fliko
Did you feel there was actually any benefit between your day to day life? I'd
suppose that the benefit would be different person to person due to what they
do in their average day but am still curious.

~~~
bitsoda
Honestly, I haven't noticed any dramatic improvements. However, as strange as
it may sound, I _feel_ better about myself knowing that I was able to increase
my short-term memory within that specific N-Back game since I was almost
positive I would never make progress in it. I'm unsure if it has translated
into other activities, but overall I feel sharper for what it's worth.

~~~
Fliko
Totally makes sense, part of the reason why I play musical instruments so
much.

I think I'm gonna try doing it for a few minutes every day and see what
happens. When I was younger I used to be able to remember everything vividly
very effortlessly and I envy that again.

------
Gaussian
I have a quibble with the piece's core scrap of evidence: "The remarkable
finding of their study is that, 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. A high level of
intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage."

Most of those achievements--earning a doctorate, publishing a journal article
or a literary work or even securing a patent--all seem to be items that favor
dogged effort rather than pure smarts. Moreover, I would bet it's also the
case that the kids in the 99.9 percentile spent more time drilling, practicing
and studying for their early-age SATs than did the 99.1 percentile group,
although I'm fairly certain the time both groups spent studying standardized
test questions--at the age of 12--would frighten me.

That said, it only figures that the 99.9 group would continue through life
outworking most people they go up against, hence the improved rates of adult
"achievement," a word I employ loosely.

~~~
juandopazo
Totally agreed.

> Nor is it to say that it's impossible for a person with an average I.Q. to,
> say, earn a Ph.D. in physics

I know few physics PhDs that are above average. Earning a degree has a lot
more to do with grit than talent. Making real breakthroughs in science...
that's a different thing.

------
JabavuAdams
> In fact, the total amount of practice the pianists had accumulated in their
> piano careers accounted for nearly half of the performance differences
> across participants. But working memory capacity made a statistically
> significant contribution as well (about 7 percent, a medium-size effect).

... except not nearly as much as practice ...

~~~
cageface
But if you assume that all the top competitors are practicing with equal
diligence then that 7% can easily be decisive.

~~~
Fliko
Only if you want to be the best, if you want to be really good at something
that 7% is irrelevant, and a lot of the top results aren't just created by the
best.

------
cageface
_In our own recent research, we have discovered that “working memory
capacity,” a core component of intellectual ability, predicts success in a
wide variety of complex activities._

I feel like this is the limiting factor in my own coding work. The more I can
keep in my head at one time the faster I can work and the more coherent my
codebase becomes.

------
alexwolfe
Not sure if this is really breakthrough stuff. Gladwell finds that a minimum
IQ and hours practiced is what translates to becoming good, great, etc.

This article states that once you have achieved that level than talent starts
to matter. Uh, yah. I think we are all aware from simply watching professional
sports that at a certain point the practice can only help so much. To be a
Lebron James you not only need practice but a unique level of god given
talent. Natural talent is why we have legends in every field of professionals.
This is not really a breakthrough or news to most of us.

------
teyc
I wonder if the boundaries between nature and nature are as distinct as talent
and industry. For one, the ability to practice requires an ability to
concentrate on the task at hand. Is this ability innate or can it be forged
through practice. Perhaps, it is similar to our experience with premature
babies - babies who are born earlier will never catch up in terms of stature
or development. Perhaps those who don't have the initial ability to do
focussed work never truly catch up either.

