(I have a friend that thinks otherwise and I tell him: "Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have become Nobel Prize winners in Physics given the right nurturing conditions?". According to the author of this book, almost all of them)
Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective?
With that said, there is a guy, Dan, who is testing this theory with golf. We still have a few more years to see if it works.
"Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have become Nobel Prize winners in Physics given the right nurturing conditions?". According to the author of this book, almost all of them
I haven't read the book, but have read articles. I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level. There's a pretty big gap between being a Chem expert and winning the Nobel prize in it.
:) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.)
>>there is a guy, Dan...
Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other.
>>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level.
Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" with great coaching. The author doesn't make any distinction between expert level and super high achievers.
Regarding how good can one get -- the term used by the research is expert. But, at least in the papers I read, they don't make it clear what expert is. For example read:
But in my own personal theory... you become Michael Jordan by doing the 10,000 hours+ and having innate gifts. You get a basketball scholarship (D1-D3) by doing the 10,000 hours.
My own personal theory is similar to yours: among the genetically very tall males, there is a lot of people with the innate abilities of Michael Jordan (let's make it 40% of the original set). From that subset, those that put the 10,000 hours with great teachers plus other things will become the likes of Michael Jordan.
Several recent books are doing that. But I think the common claim is that people who have become great have done so through training, and the effect of innate talent seems to be secondary at best.
They don't claim the opposite - that with the right training anyone will be great. Only that greatness is primarily due to the right training. It implies that a person of normal natural abilities has a shot at becoming world-class, but it's not a guarantee.
The key lies in the definition of normal. Does it mean no less than 1 standard deviation below average? Does it mean above average? Above 1 standard deviation and less than 2? See, people in all those ranges are normal, and just by reducing a little the scope of "normal" a lot of people are filtered out.
My conjecture is that at least above average innate abilities are required, which by definition leaves out half the population.