Posting in Science
All successful people have one thing in common -- they spent more than 10,000 hours learning and developing their skills.
Some experts and authors studying achievement are finding that mastery of any skill or subject be learned by anyone -- anyone -- who puts their mind to it and works hard to achieve it. The bottom line is that genius is the result of lots of hard work, and not just the fortune of having the right match-up of genes.
David Shenk, for one, says that everyone, regardless of genetic makeup or background, has the potential to excel at a chosen field. Annie Murphy Paul recently reviewed David Shenk's new book, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong. Shenk argues that we have before us not a “talent scarcity” but a “latent talent abundance.” Shenk states that "the vast majority of us have not even come close to tapping what scientists call our ‘unactualized potential.’ ”
As Shenk reveals, science is revealing the attainment of "genius" to be the product of highly concentrated effort. In her review of his book, Annie Paul cites a passage that describes the work of the psychologist Anders Ericsson, who wondered if he could train an ordinary person to perform extraordinary feats of memory:
"When Ericsson began working with a young man identified as S.F., his subject could, like most of us, hold only seven numbers in his short-term memory. By the end of the study, S.F. could correctly recall an astonishing 80-plus digits. With the right kind of mental discipline, Ericsson and his co-investigator concluded, 'there is seemingly no limit to memory performance.'”
Shenk also cites some of history's great achievers — Ted Williams and Michael Jordan, Mozart and Beethoven — as examples of individuals who worked hard day and night to master their chosen fields.
Is that the key to extraordinary success, then? Persistently, single-mindedly and doggedly working at something until mastery is achieved? Malcolm Gladwell also seems to agree, at least in part, with this notion. In his recent work, Outliers, Gladwell looked at people who rose above the rest and achieved incredible success in their respective endeavors.
Birth date -- even the time of year you are born -- seem to weigh in on your success prospects in a given field. But an interesting point Gladwell makes is that all people successful in their respective fields all have one thing in common: they have spent at least 10,000 hours learning and internalizing and perfecting their crafts. That applies to all the top artists, musicians, writers, and IT leaders. They all spent at least 10,000 hours or more doing what they do. That's at least a solid five years or more of dedicated work.
Shenk concurs, saying the key to success is practice, practice, practice for years and years. “You have to want it, want it so bad you will never give up, so bad that you are ready to sacrifice time, money, sleep, friendships, even your reputation,” he writes. “You will have to adopt a particular lifestyle of ambition, not just for a few weeks or months but for years and years and years. You have to want it so bad that you are not only ready to fail, but you actually want to experience failure: revel in it, learn from it.”
What Shenk and Gladwell also say here is that failure is an important element of any success story. The years of relentless practice result in incredible learning and relearning of what works and doesn't work. That, apparently gets you much farther in the world than a pair of good genes.
Mar 28, 2010
Talents and genius in both innate and delibrate learned are there . It is good to have two wheeels as long as the road is there clear. Once when you reach the end of the road you have to walk in to the jungle to bring the truth. Depending upon the circmstances paractice and knowledge and expertice built . If both talent creativity and genius understanding in multi directions avaialble it is good . Genius understanding is multiplied by creative approach at every stage . Ultimately this is lasser beam one can be having at work.
Regarding the criticism and challenge regarding the definition of "Genius" presented by mejohnsn, I would ask what is the difference between "Genius" that is God given and that which is learned? Isn't the end result the measure of someone's Genius rather than how they come to have it? In fact, I would argue that the ability to become a "Genius" in a skill or an area of knowledge is a necessary ingredient of geniusness. If you are born with a high intellectual capability, you are smart or intelligent, but you have not learned what it takes - the discipline, the dedication, the perseverence - nor indeed the appreciation, of what it takes to be a "Genius." It may be easier for someone naturally borne with a high intellect to achieve "Genius" status, but even Einstein would not have been considered such without years of focus, dedication and the self-awareness to understand what "Genius" really is and how to use it. SB
Where innate is a miss no argument at all . Tragedies best nutrient, genius oozes only in desprate existence. Leonorda vinci is harmony,balance and equalibrium. Picasso is erratic,bizzary and pretentious . Both had the God's gift innate as base . According to the inner length of light they developed (lasser) they performed and among viewers, if they had developed some length only can understand. When self will is directing desire force should not drag , the awareness and endevour, contineous innate facilitation one into another is all that work out into the lasser. NJBond
"Learn to focus like a laser beam". This is so not true. Watch any genius in operation in their chosen field and see how they zone out ... not zone in, as focus implies. Case in point: watch any savant in action. There is a spiritual aspect to genius which the OP is ignoring. Push effort can give you craftsman-like polish, but is no substitute for God-given raw talent, which I believe genius truly really is. Having read Gladwell's book, I came to the conclusion that he was referring to the success of rising to the top of a chosen field, not really that God-given innate genius-like talent which defies logical explanation. Fudley Bezuidenhout
Genius is both God given gifted talent ability to learn far better than others and Genius is also hard work and study in a particular field that produces extraordinary brilliant results. Nothing less. You can't change the definition of genius 5,000 years later.LOL!
well i have tried all my best in the sciences but i am not good in it,but i love it,help firstname.lastname@example.org
mejohnsn Thanks for your observations. I actually gave a lot of thought to the definition of "genius" while writing the piece, and decided to stick with Shenk's intent, which is to demonstrate that genius is something that could be developed through life, versus a gift at birth.
I had heard about the 10,000 hours of practice and developement that separates a professional musician from a wanna be. I have found that if you work at anything long enough that you become very good at it. There are many factors that can help or hinder. The first one is related to parenting, parents who have a passion for singing, music and other things are role models for children. Another is cultural, what scultural activities are available to encourage and reward focused efforts.
Let me have your total concentration. I'd check the other contributions to achieving genius besides a quick learner. Synthesizing learned knowledge, skills, with present information to make enlightened decisions is another matter but the ability to have patience and even humour to rebound from failure is another factor. There are the opportunities to achieve success from whatever measure we choose for ourselves. The ability to analyze through difficulty and alter the course from possible disaster doesn't necessarily provide insight from analysis of what should have been avoided, what contributed to the conditions, and predicting where the alteration will lead. With training, as experimentation, it's simulation that allows review of consequences that possibly result from many controls or factors but may be narrowed to specifics that may be addressed for further analysis. Failure analysis can be just as inspiring and revelaing than knowing when to come up with something totally new. It broadens the mind, enhances subtle observation, promotes subtle responses from both the action taken and replies. This process should also inspire visioning a positive goal with the consideration of effects that could alter the path toward that goal from the interaction of the present information provided from observation, detection, responses, and replies. I think Edison had continuously repeated an experiment that seemingly failed to occur in many ways. When asked why pursue this course of failure if nothing is being learned from it? TAE replied I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. At least we know how it doesn't work because we have been paying attention. People need to understand that synthetic ability varies so recognize how and when that affects the pace of their progress, take time for analysis of the inner and outer influences, know when and how to reset when an agreement has been made that it is needed, to benefit from the encounter with difficulty as well as to celebrate the crunches along with the achievements, don't take it ability at any measure for granted but don't expect to be able to define perfection in yourself or others, appreciate the gift of opportunity and make it enjoyable in the end.
I am disappointed that a blog called 'SMART' planet could fall for such a DUMB fallacy! For yes, that is exactly what has happened here. What fallacy? Better yet, which TWO fallacies? 1) the entire article, so presumably Shenk's book too, misuses the term 'genius'. It does NOT mean "someone who has mastered his craft/art/science". 'Genius' is specifically a measure of intelligence, not ability. Intelligence is not just the ability to learn, but the ability to learn quickly. Fhe faster you can learn, the higher you score on the Stanford-Binet test. This is why people tend to score the same on the test both before, and after a good, thorough education, including even the five years of dedication to your chosen field. This is also why lots of people had the same long dedication to physics that Feynmann had, but only a very few won Nobel Prizes for it. So McKendrick has, to put it simply, confused two very different things, 'genius' and "the expertise that comes with experience". 2) It seems to have not even occurred to the McKendrick that the cultural message he mentions as drilled into us since we were toddler's could have given both himself and Shenk "confirmation bias". That is, since the culture TELLS them to expect it is true, they subconsciously or half-consciously read the conclusion into the data, instead of the other way around as they should. Now of course, I do not know that they have fallen for this second fallacy. But since it takes great effort to avoid it -- effort I do not see reflected in the way this article is written -- I am very strongly inclined to believe that McKendrick has fallen for it -- as has Shenk.
A follower of Malcolm Gladwell?s work myself, I'd like to share this snippet of Linkage?s last broadcast featuring Glaswell presenting live at the time to organizations around the world via satellite and the web. The next of the sort is scheduled for June 17 2010 on Why People are Successful if you?re interested. (or) Feel free to check it out at http://www.linkageinc.com/offerings/elearning/Pages/MalcolmGladwell2010.aspx
I disagree with your Numbers Americans aren't optimistic about light at the end of the tunnel, telling pollsters that, despite economists' assertions, the recession won't be over any time soon. However, most are coping and making changes that could pay dividends in the future. Many in the middle class report they are worried about staying there. In a new ABC News and Washington Post poll, a plurality described them as middle-class. Of this group, 41% said they were struggling to remain in the middle class, 52% comfortable in it and 6% moving beyond it. Ultimately much as booming foreign imports are a signal of American productivity, so are human inflows a signal from foreigners that the U.S. is where their talents can be best utilized. Greater compliments about the U.S. would be hard to fathom. It is too bad then these men are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan He who never leaves his country is full of prejudices. -- Carlo Goldoni I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA