kitchen table math, the sequel: how to be a genius

Monday, July 2, 2007

how to be a genius

"It's complicated explaining how genius or expertise is created and why it's so rare," says Anders Ericsson, the professor of psychology at Florida State University in Tallahassee who edited the handbook. "But it isn't magic, and it isn't born. It happens because some critical things line up so that a person of good intelligence can put in the sustained, focused effort it takes to achieve extraordinary mastery. These people don't necessarily have an especially high IQ, but they almost always have very supportive environments, and they almost always have important mentors. And the one thing they always have is this incredible investment of effort."

[snip]

"It's funny, really. On one hand it's encouraging: it makes me think that even the most ordinary among us should be careful about saying we can't do great things, because people have proven again and again that most people can do something extraordinary if they're willing to put in the exercise. On the other hand, it's a bit overwhelming to look at what these people have to do. They generally invest about five times as much time and effort to become great as an accomplished amateur does to become competent..."

[snip]

Take intelligence. No accepted measure of innate or basic intelligence, whether IQ or other metrics, reliably predicts that a person will develop extraordinary ability. In other words, the IQs of the great would not predict their level of accomplishments, nor would their accomplishments predict their IQs. 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."

[snip]

A sober look at any field shows that the top performers are rarely more gifted than the also-rans, but they almost invariably outwork them.


the ten year rule


This has led scholars of elite performance to speak of a 10-year rule: it seems you have to put in at least a decade of focused work to master something and bring greatness within reach. This shows starkly in a 1985 study of 120 elite athletes, performers, artists, biochemists and mathematicians led by University of Chicago psychologist Benjamin Bloom, a giant of the field who died in 1999. Every single person in the study took at least a decade of hard study or practice to achieve international recognition. Olympic swimmers trained for an average of 15 years before making the team; the best concert pianists took 15 years to earn international recognition. Top researchers, sculptors and mathematicians put in similar amounts of time.

[snip]

The same is true for Tiger Woods. He seems magical on the golf course, but he was swinging a golf club before he could walk, got great instruction and practised constantly from boyhood, and even today outworks all his rivals. His genius has been laboriously constructed.

[snip]

...the subjects of Bloom's study, like most elite performers, almost invariably enjoyed plentiful support in their formative years. Bloom, in fact, came to see great talent as less an individual trait than a creation of environment and encouragement. "We were looking for exceptional kids," he said, "and what we found were exceptional conditions." He was intrigued to find that few of the study's subjects had shown special promise when they first took up the fields they later excelled in, and most harboured no early ambition for stellar achievement.

[snip]

Michael Jordan, widely considered to be one of the world's greatest athletes, struggled horribly when he moved from basketball to baseball, where he was routinely flummoxed by minor league pitchers.

[snip]

Eric Kandel of Columbia University in New York, who won a Nobel prize in 2000 for discovering much of the neural basis of memory and learning, has shown that both the number and strength of the nerve connections associated with a memory or skill increase in proportion to how often and how emphatically the lesson is repeated.

[snip]

Genius must be built.

[snip]

These disciplines all but insist that the traditional distinction between nature and nurture is obsolete. What we call talent or genius illustrates vividly what the past 25 years have taught us about gene expression - that our genetic potentials are activated and realised only through environment and experience.

[snip]

We should probably shelve the notion of genius as an innate, almost irrepressible gift and speak instead of expertise, talent or even greatness - terms that hint at the work underlying supreme accomplishment.

source:
How to Be a Genius



I wonder if spending hours and hours and hours of your life trying to figure out the connection between stereotypy and novelty so you can FINALLY finish a draft of CHAPTER ONE counts towards the 10-year rule.

Or do you have to stop the clock every time you get stuck?

...................

Don't answer that.

..................

I like the idea of replacing genius with greatness.


do what you love (may have to hit refresh a couple of times)
expertise and deliberate practice
freakonomics post on Ericsson
Cambridge Handbook of Expert Performance (terrific)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

No animal brain is designed just right to process NOVEL experiences. If they were, we would all be quite literally insane. There is nothing new under the sun--only stereotypy.

You're welcome. You can e-mail me to get my address for where to send my 0.001%.

Just kidding, of course. Wonderful post. A thousand amens.

SteveH said...

Don't forget the PR.

There is one fellow in my field who seems to go out of his way to talk what is normal engineering/scientist talk to people who don't have a clue what he is saying. He knows they don't, but most of them are very impressed. I've run into these people. They consider him to be a genius, even though they don't understand him. He also has this tendency to patent anything in sight.

Even Dick Feynman was adept at PR through all of his tricks, safecracking, and stunts, like the O-ring in the ice-water show. It tended to annoy some of his colleagues, but I got the impression that it was just part of his personality. In some ways, it made him more endearing and not such a one-dimensional person. Was he a genius? One book is defined that way, but I don't like using terms like that.

You have to be careful with words like genius, prodigy, or hero. They seem to be getting quite devalued nowadays. By the way, I wonder how many more times my son will have to write about his heroes. I don't think I have any heroes.


"I like the idea of replacing genius with greatness."

Greatness doesn't quite do it for me. There are a few people in my technical field who I would label as "amazing". I hope that would be more meaningful since I understand what they're doing.

Catherine Johnson said...

He also has this tendency to patent anything in sight.

snort

Catherine Johnson said...

"amazing" is good

Catherine Johnson said...

I'm actually starting to think that "genius" is wrong.

For quite awhile I interpreted the literature on expertise to mean that genius is always genius-plus-work.

But I'm starting to think that genius per se is a wrong concept (genius in the sense of an innate "absolute value" of talent...)

Anonymous said...

Can anyone provide the name of the 1985 Benjamin Bloom article? I've developed the habit of going back to primary sources when possible ...

Thanks,
Mark Roulo

Anonymous said...

I've developed the habit of going back to primary sources when possible ...

That's certainly a good habit to have. I try to do that as much as possible too. I think it keeps me honest and out of trouble. At least, I'd like to think it does.

Catherine Johnson said...

It might be this:

Bloom, B.S. (1986). The hands and feet of genius. Educational Leadership, 43, 70-77.