Tag Archive for 'genius formation'

What makes somebody good at something?

Published on 4 February, 2009 in High Performance and child genius. Closed Tags: , .

Great minds frequently encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds. Yet, those great minds should also be physically superior if you listen to our friends from Cambridge (Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance).

Observing that those born earlier in the year tend to perform better – especially at age-level sports but also beyond – researchers are trying to understand why. While having a few months as a child over the person sitting beside you might give you a little advantage as a child, it’s the gap created by teachers, coaches and the public reinforcing talent that really creates an advantage. By inadvertently rewarding earlier development rather than genuine talent, and punishing delayed development rather than accepting variations as just part of the heterogeity of childhood, we make the smart kids smarter, and let the less talented students trail.

I didn’t realise that it was so marked until I learned about how national youth teams (the ones that feed into the senior teams) have children born in January, February and March – at the start of the measured year – outnumber those born in the rest of the year by up to a dozen or so to one!

Sure talent has a role – especially in grabbing attention – but, according to Ericsson, the key to learning is less talent: the game is really about immediate feedback and specific goal setting. So do what you love… it’s the only thing that you’ll bother to do well anyway.

Further reading: New York Times article, "A Star is Made ".

Daniel Smith

The Nature of Genius – Dispositionism

Published on 30 January, 2009 in High Performance, Personal Growth and child genius. Closed Tags: , , , .

A great deal has been written on the development of genius focusing upon neurological structures, heredity and social conditioning. Here, I would like to add a concept to our understanding of the development of the human mind.

Dispositionism means that each individual exhibits a range of behaviours that are selectively reinforced and thence evolve into habitual responses and patterns of thought. Those initial behaviours are "determined" by elements of social conditioning, genetic factors and an element of chance. Some individuals with little talent are able to overcome this difficiency by a combination of great external stimulation and perhaps an amount of luck. Equally, those with great genetic potential, and outstanding environmental influences may fall down through chance occurrences.

Let us examine some examples. John Stuart Mill is best known as the one who brought Utilitarianism into everyday usage. Many who have learnt of Mill’s theories and ideas have overlooked his extraordinary upbringing. Quite simply, Mill received one of the most intensive and extensive educational and mental development programs that has ever been known.

John Stuart Mill thus provides an example of how powerful external stimulii may be in the development of a great mind. Would Mill have been successful in his path had his father not taken such an interest in his education? Nobody can really say with any degree of certainty. However, we can be sure that the foundation of intellectual development that placed Mill 25 years ahead of his contemporaries positioned him uniquely, and ensured that he would at the least be an outstandingly average individual.

In all we can see a variety of factors contribute to the development of a genius. It is difficult to say that this is really the way human beings operate in an experimental sense due to the difficulties in eliminating chance. However, this certainly provides a model for interpreting and understanding the development of great minds – and the failure to do so. While we can not predict with absolute certainty do to the intrinsic random nature of the chance variable, we can certainly improve the odds of nurturing great minds.

Daniel Smith

“Genius at birth” basically a myth

Published on 17 November, 2008 in Change and High Performance. Closed Tags: , , , , , .

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.