Monthly Archive for November, 2008

Page 2 of 3

“Genius at birth” basically a myth

One of the first things that we have to get out of our heads when we start looking at the formation of genius is the idea that people are born brilliant, or born average, or whatever the case may be (illnesses aside, of course).  Physically, we may be big or small, but the genetics of size don’t apply in anything like the same way as it might to any ‘genetics of the brain’.

In fact, we have very little basis on which that belief may rest.  Even in the human body, there is certainly a canvas, but the way each person lives will dictate where the canvas goes – a person can get a tan, for example, or can bleach their hair or work out at the gym.  The same principle applies to thinking – if anything, moreso.

Ericsson, Prietula and Cokely stated exactly this in their 2007 article, The Making of an Expert .  There, they provided support for the claim that expertise comes primarily through years of intense practice and dedicated coaching, through constant performance above and beyond what is currently possible – even comfortable – for that person.  This is something that is beyond a particular sport – managers, surgeons and musicians all had the common trait of deliberate, long-term focus on not-yet possible tasks and changing what was faulty in technique.  Ericsson (et al) makes clear that this takes at least a decade to reach expert performance, requiring another expert to give (often unpleasant) feedback.

K Anders Ericsson , Michael J Prietula, Edward T Cokely. 2007. The Making of an Expert. Harvard Business Review 85, no. 7,8 (July 1): 114-121.  Accessible through proquest.com .

This means something very particular for us: we cannot throw up our hands in despair whenever we hit a problem in our lives, whenever what we are doing just isn’t good enough.  If we want to be experts in a particular area, we must understand from the outset that it will take a lot of work, often painful work, and that it will be over a long time – about a decade’s worth of work, for starters.

That’s really hard.  It’s really daunting.  But, in my understanding, the most daunting part is that it’s all our choice .  We are able to choose to be experts in a given field, to be operating at that level.  As any expert can tell you – such as dancer-choreographer Twyla Tharp – it’s not through personal talent and innate genius alone.

Tharp’s interview was in: Diane Coutu 2008. Creativity Step by Step. Harvard Business Review 86, no. 4 (April 1).  Accessible through proquest.com .

It’s all about our choice – what we choose to do with our lives.  The one thing that we can change, no matter what stage or status of life we are in, is our selves.

Who wants to be a Bootstrapped Billionaire?

Sorry ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire’: being a millionaire just doesn’t cut it anymore… not when you can create a company that doesn’t make any money and become an overnight billionaire!

In 2006, in case you missed it, the guys who founded YouTube.com sold out their company – but not their concept – for US$1.65b… sure, it’s not enough to live on, but consider for a moment that they each made a billion dollars for the 20 months that they put in to the company since it was started in Chad’s garage. That’s like AU$50m per month… in case you’ve missed the story, here ’tis. Entrepreneurs talk about focusing on adding value at a point of the value chain and getting others to do the rest – in a strange twist, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen just outsourced the ‘profit’ component of their business plan! I love it!!!

I do wonder how long it will be before Google runs foul of antitrust legislation though… I’m guessing a lot sooner than it took Microsoft.

A while back, I mentioned The Bootstrappers Bible – well it’s back online again here. I like it… and hope that it’s interesting or useful for you too… I’ve always loved the ChangeThis manifestos – here’s another cool one about group architecture, contrasting ’spiders’ and ’starfish’ – simple concept, but very useful.

Daniel Smith

Genius in Specificity

One of the fairly standard findings in research about genius is that genius is something that can be very domain specific – and, depending on the area, specific to domains within domains.

There was a study done on soccer players around 2008.  To briefly summarise, there is a skill in soccer that is about anticipating where the ball is going to go.  The offensive and defensive soccer players were divided into two groups, and it was found anticipating where the ball is going to go was done far better by defensive players than offensive players (even when done in defense and offense, respectively).  Obviously, the defensive players have this as a central part of their role, while it’s more peripheral (and has less damaging results) for offensive players.

A Mark Williams,  Paul Ward,  Julian D Ward,  Nicolas J Smeeton. (2008). Domain Specificity, Task Specificity, and Expert Performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 428-33.  Available from Proquest.com .

On the surface, this looks counter intuitive – soccer players should be soccer players, right? – but even mentally, there are quite different skills required in defense from offense, even though it’s within the one game.

We can apply this to everyday life, too.  I have a friend who works as an engineer for a major mining company, and at the drop of a hat, he can tell you the exact specifications of any given bolt that can be used in mining machinery.  Another friend worked in air conditioning, and could easily diagnose any problem that happened to an air-conditioner. I’m sure many readers could bring out other stories like this (and feel free to comment with some of them).  By the same token, that engineer would be at a significant disadvantage in, for example, electrical engineering – even though it’s engineering, with similar concepts required.

What this means for us is that we choose to excel at needs to be defined, specific and achievable.  We can’t be afraid to spend several thousand hours perfecting that skill, either…but that’s another post for another time.

Andrew Smith.

Great Coffee in a Culture of Focus

Why is it so difficult to make great coffee? The Coffee Club is a great place to meet, but sadly they typically cut so many corners in the training of the baristas that they just can’t overcome the ultra-cheap coffee beans that they use. By contrast though, right now I’m enjoying a $3.70 affogato from Zarraffa’s that is simply sensational.

It is served in a plastic cup, with a plastic spoon. Yet, the shot of espresso is magnificent, the atmosphere better and the experience is one of enjoyment, rather than just one of drinking.

Great living comes from being totally focused in the moment; great quality comes from being totally focused on each customer… it’s not rocket science, it’s just about being there.

As a side note, Belinda (the lovely girl who took my order) just came over and asked me how I’d enjoyed it… not because she had to, but because she was genuinely interested – or at least seemed to be! To me, that’s the sort of thing that says a lot of GREAT things about the sort of culture of the company… and is very difficult to produce. Great work Zarraffa’s! (and they have franchises available in Carindale and Indooroopilly apparently)

In an issue of the Weekend Australian (in the Inquirer section) there is an interesting article entitled “Elite of the right kind”. Amongst a great deal of information on Quadrant magazine is a mention of how the Prime Minister of the time understood that to “win the battle of policy, you had to win the battle of history and fundamental ideas.” What a thought… to have political leaders who actually understand how the world works rather than just engaging in endless factionalism and petty point scoring.

Should Australia have a unified school curriculum? Ideally, we would have a unified set of educational outcomes, though until we can define those outcomes in terms of cognitive competencies, to interfere too much is likely to impair the diversity of outcomes that strengthen our nation even if they make it more difficult for individual students. If we are going to put education under the control of the Federal government, we need to be able to define the outcomes that we want; we don’t yet have that technology, and until we do, the Federal government should empower the States to do things their own way… that said, anything is possible!

Daniel Smith

Sleep and Time Management

An interesting article by Jim Horne in the New Scientist magazine, Time to wake up to the facts about sleep , discusses the amount of sleep that humans need.  It’s a common myth that we’re getting less sleep than previously – stemming from a 1913 test on 8-17 year olds, who slept an average of 9 hours per night (just as they do today) and supported by tests that measure the speed at which people fall asleep in a supportive environment and claim that this is indication of a need for sleep.  Horne argues that this is faulty, and damaging to society in general, provoking a rise in anxiety and increased demand for sleeping pills.  According to the article, several studies have shown that healthy adults average around 7 to 7½ hours of sleep each night.

This gives us a crucial piece of information.  We have 24 hours in each day, of which we should freely allocate 7½hrs to sleep.  That gives us just over 16 hours each day that we need to use to be productive – whether directly used to achieve greatness, used to continue living (the mundane activities such as shopping) or used to prepare ourselves for other activities.

The worst thing we can do with each of these hours is throw them away doing something useless.  The most prominent example in many homes (at least, in the Western world) is watching television.  Excessive watching of television has been linked with poor academic performance in schools by teenagers – even those who claim a lack of conclusive link between the two should concede that TV wouldn’t be helping academic struggles.  It is generally used in ways that do not foster social interaction, and does not engender people to the kind of active participation in learning that is required to upbuild society.

Those who are able to contribute and benefit others, it is postulated here, have an obligation to do so.




-->