More on the Talent-Practice question:

[c***@yahoo.com]

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

[thomas]

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/>

If they measure "practice" just by the number of hours spent, then they're not capturing the essential factor. Quality of practice is as important, if not more important, than quantity.

[Murdick]

Post by thomas

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/>

If they measure "practice" just by the number of hours spent, then they're not capturing the essential factor. Quality of practice is as important, if not more important, than quantity.

Quality is the most important aspect of practice. To reach the concert level you must start young, be dedicated and have good instruction. To be great you must also have talent - there's no getting around it.

[Tony Done]

Post by Murdick

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/>

If they measure "practice" just by the number of hours spent, then
they're not capturing the essential factor. Quality of practice is as
important, if not more important, than quantity.

Post by Murdick
Quality is the most important aspect of practice. To reach the
concert level you must start young, be dedicated and have good
instruction. To be great you must also have talent - there's no
getting around it.

I do not understand how anyone can look at the diversity of the human
race and not believe in variation in just about everything, including
talent.

IMO, practice can make you competent, talent can make you great. What we
don't know is who and how many have unused talent because it isn't
exploited.

[dsi1]

Post by Tony Done
I do not understand how anyone can look at the diversity of the human
race and not believe in variation in just about everything, including
talent.
IMO, practice can make you competent, talent can make you great. What we
don't know is who and how many have unused talent because it isn't
exploited.

What we call "talent" probably isn't anything too special and everybody
will have a neurological system that is optimized for some areas of
human activities. You are correct about unused talent - one could have
the abilities to be a great guitarist but how would they know unless
they picked up a guitar and started to learn how to play it? Of course,
being neurologically suited for something doesn't mean you have any
desire to partake in it. Great talents are like a perfect storm.

[Tony Done]

Great talents are like a perfect storm.

Er, unlike Flossie?

[dsi1]

Post by dsi1
Great talents are like a perfect storm.
Er, unlike Flossie?

Ha ha, Flossie was a floozy. You'll know one when it hits you.

[Tony Done]

Post by dsi1

Post by dsi1
Great talents are like a perfect storm.
Er, unlike Flossie?

Ha ha, Flossie was a floozy. You'll know one when it hits you.

Oh, we get our fair share. I got caught in a little one in Darwin, can't
recall the name. It blew a lot of shallow-rooted trees over, but didn't
do any structural damage.

[dsi1]

Post by Tony Done

Post by dsi1

Post by dsi1
Great talents are like a perfect storm.
Er, unlike Flossie?

Ha ha, Flossie was a floozy. You'll know one when it hits you.

Oh, we get our fair share. I got caught in a little one in Darwin, can't
recall the name. It blew a lot of shallow-rooted trees over, but didn't
do any structural damage.

These things are mother nature's way of bringing more excitement into
your life.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
What we call "talent" probably isn't anything too special and everybody
will have a neurological system that is optimized for some areas of
human activities. You are correct about unused talent - one could have
the abilities to be a great guitarist but how would they know unless
they picked up a guitar and started to learn how to play it? Of course,
being neurologically suited for something doesn't mean you have any
desire to partake in it. Great talents are like a perfect storm.

David, I disagree with everything you just said. Not because I actually disagree with any of it, in fact, I can't even remember any of it and I just read it about 30 seconds ago. Nay, I disagree because I just enjoy disagreeing with you in general and because I'm not sure if these threads we have here about "talent" are the single most boring threads ever but they probably are.

Sincerely yours,

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
What we call "talent" probably isn't anything too special and everybody
will have a neurological system that is optimized for some areas of
human activities. You are correct about unused talent - one could have
the abilities to be a great guitarist but how would they know unless
they picked up a guitar and started to learn how to play it? Of course,
being neurologically suited for something doesn't mean you have any
desire to partake in it. Great talents are like a perfect storm.

David, I disagree with everything you just said. Not because I actually disagree with any of it, in fact, I can't even remember any of it and I just read it about 30 seconds ago. Nay, I disagree because I just enjoy disagreeing with you in general and because I'm not sure if these threads we have here about "talent" are the single most boring threads ever but they probably are.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew

That's because one of your talents is in disagreement. Follow your talents. My talents are in agreement and I think that what you say is true. I can't remember what I've typed 20 seconds after I type it. You're right that topics on talent are boring.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
That's because one of your talents is in disagreement. Follow your talents. My talents are in agreement and I think that what you say is true. I can't remember what I've typed 20 seconds after I type it. You're right that topics on talent are boring.

I agree with everything you just said, IIRC.

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
That's because one of your talents is in disagreement. Follow your talents. My talents are in agreement and I think that what you say is true. I can't remember what I've typed 20 seconds after I type it. You're right that topics on talent are boring.

I agree with everything you just said, IIRC.

I think that we both can agree that you're only agreeing with everything I just said because I was agreeing with everything you just said. If only we could just all disagree to agree.

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[thomas]

Post by dsi1

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
That's because one of your talents is in disagreement. Follow your talents. My talents are in agreement and I think that what you say is true. I can't remember what I've typed 20 seconds after I type it. You're right that topics on talent are boring.

I agree with everything you just said, IIRC.

I think that we both can agree that you're only agreeing with everything I just said because I was agreeing with everything you just said. If only we could just all disagree to agree.

Can't we all just not get along?

[Tony Done]

Post by thomas

Post by dsi1

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
That's because one of your talents is in disagreement. Follow
your talents. My talents are in agreement and I think that what
you say is true. I can't remember what I've typed 20 seconds
after I type it. You're right that topics on talent are
boring.

I agree with everything you just said, IIRC.

I think that we both can agree that you're only agreeing with
everything I just said because I was agreeing with everything you
just said. If only we could just all disagree to agree.

Can't we all just not get along?

Where's the fun in that?

[dsi1]

Post by thomas
Can't we all just not get along?

¡Si, se puede!

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
I think that we both can agree that you're only agreeing with everything I just said because I was agreeing with everything you just said. If only we could just all disagree to agree.

I agree that our disagreement is giving a talented boost to this thread, do you agree?

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
I think that we both can agree that you're only agreeing with everything I just said because I was agreeing with everything you just said. If only we could just all disagree to agree.

I agree that our disagreement is giving a talented boost to this thread, do you agree?
Andrew

I think we might be on the same page on this - the book might be
different but I think the page number is the same.

[Learnwell]

I'm not sure if these threads we have here about "talent" are the single most boring threads ever but they probably are.

I have a talent for that.

[Learnwell]

Post by Murdick
Quality is the most important aspect of practice.

Yes

Post by Murdick
To reach the concert level you must start young

Why?

Post by Murdick
To be great you must also have talent - there's no getting around it.

What is it, what does it look like?

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.

As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

[Learnwell]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

We are also talking about physical skill in the form of technique, practice freq

[Tony Done]

Post by Learnwell

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

We are also talking about physical skill in the form of technique, practice freq

And there is where you and I (and possibly others) have got at
cross-purposes . I am not talking about skill, expertise, competence or
anything that can obviously be developed with practice as you suggest
(as in that journal article that I am slowing wading through), and with
which I agree entirely. What I am I am talking about that spark that
makes someone truly great in the eyes of others. This might cause some
fur and feathers to fly, but it isn't trolling. - The greatness in
classical music lies in the composition, so to what extent do the
performers exhibit greatness in that class? For example did Segovia have
it because he conceived a new way to play guitar and persuaded composers
to write music for him? I would say yes, but how about, say, John
Williams? There I'm not so sure. I think those who might be considered
great would go for other forms of music that are less rigid, like jazz,
or be composers rather than, or as much as, performers.

I quite willing to be persuaded otherwise on this opinion.

[dsi1]

Post by Tony Done
And there is where you and I (and possibly others) have got at
cross-purposes . I am not talking about skill, expertise, competence or
anything that can obviously be developed with practice as you suggest
(as in that journal article that I am slowing wading through), and with
which I agree entirely. What I am I am talking about that spark that
makes someone truly great in the eyes of others. This might cause some
fur and feathers to fly, but it isn't trolling. - The greatness in
classical music lies in the composition, so to what extent do the
performers exhibit greatness in that class? For example did Segovia have
it because he conceived a new way to play guitar and persuaded composers
to write music for him? I would say yes, but how about, say, John
Williams? There I'm not so sure. I think those who might be considered
great would go for other forms of music that are less rigid, like jazz,
or be composers rather than, or as much as, performers.
I quite willing to be persuaded otherwise on this opinion.

What makes most people great to other people is something mysterious
that can't be taught by any teacher. It's the ability to communicate and
connect with their audience on an emotional level. Great communicators
are awesome.

Talent is overblown anyway, mostly by people that are afraid or in awe
of it. I am neither. I have a couple of musically talented friends and I
don't envy them because they don't see themselves as anything special
and other people tend to want to exploit them. These talented friends
were awash in a sea of expectations by people that wanted to feed off of
them. It was not a pretty picture but they handled it with grace - and a
big middle finger. :-)

[Richard Yates]

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

We are also talking about physical skill in the form of technique, practice freq

And there is where you and I (and possibly others) have got at
cross-purposes . I am not talking about skill, expertise, competence or
anything that can obviously be developed with practice as you suggest
(as in that journal article that I am slowing wading through), and with
which I agree entirely. What I am I am talking about that spark that
makes someone truly great in the eyes of others. This might cause some
fur and feathers to fly, but it isn't trolling. - The greatness in
classical music lies in the composition, so to what extent do the
performers exhibit greatness in that class? For example did Segovia have
it because he conceived a new way to play guitar and persuaded composers
to write music for him? I would say yes, but how about, say, John
Williams? There I'm not so sure. I think those who might be considered
great would go for other forms of music that are less rigid, like jazz,
or be composers rather than, or as much as, performers.
I quite willing to be persuaded otherwise on this opinion.

The problem is that you do not actually have an opinion - or at least
have not expressed one - about what talent is.

You say that there is such a thing.
You say some of the things that it is not.
You use the metaphor of a "spark."
You give a vague, indirect measure of it as an effect on other people.
None of this says what you think it is; what you mean when you use the
word.

[Tony Done]

Post by Richard Yates
The problem is that you do not actually have an opinion - or at least
have not expressed one - about what talent is.
You say that there is such a thing.
You say some of the things that it is not.
You use the metaphor of a "spark."
You give a vague, indirect measure of it as an effect on other people.
None of this says what you think it is; what you mean when you use the
word.

Fair comment, and I can't provide what I think is a good comprehensive
answer. Something close is the ability to create something *new* in your
mind that represents a significant landmark in human achievement, and
then bring it to the light of day. This would apply to any aspect of
human endeavour, including the bad (Hitler?) as well as the good, and it
might only be evident in retrospect, eg Van Gogh. I can see the
technical excellence displayed by classical guitarists, as argued by
Learnwell, but how about the creativity?

[Slogoin]

Post by Tony Done

Post by Tony Done
Something close is the ability to create something *new* in your

mind that represents a significant landmark in human achievement, and
then bring it to the light of day.

Uh, sounds like science, not art, which is NNUTS.

You seem to be stuck in the idea that CGists are not creative because they don't write much of their own music, which is just silly. Most music is just the same stuff recycled over and over, even jazz where most of the sounds are far from new. Writing a new 12 bar blues is not being more creative than a CGist who can bring new ideas to an old warhorse.

[Tony Done]

Post by Slogoin

Post by Tony Done

Post by Tony Done
Something close is the ability to create something *new* in your

mind that represents a significant landmark in human achievement,
and then bring it to the light of day.

Uh, sounds like science, not art, which is NNUTS.

I don't understand your argument there, I would have thought that art
might be more about creativity than science.

Post by Slogoin
You seem to be stuck in the idea that CGists are not creative because
they don't write much of their own music, which is just silly.

OK, I am a bit prejudiced against classical guitarists, possibly because
I don't understand it well enough- this is in part what this discussion
is about. The arguments about how you should cock your left elbow and
the like reinforce my view that it is a discipline for pedants. - The
CGist is trying to perfect, not to create, which I see as a technical skill.

Most music is just the same stuff recycled over and over, even jazz
where most of the sounds are far from new. Writing a new 12 bar blues is
not being more creative than a CGist who can bring new ideas to an old
warhorse.
With that I agree entirely. I'm not very complimentary about my own
abilities as a guitarist for this reason. I can see somewhat more in
12-bar blues than in *playing* classical, but I am arguing at least
partly from ignorance.

[Learnwell]

Post by Tony Done
Fair comment, and I can't provide what I think is a good comprehensive
answer. Something close is the ability to create something *new* in your
mind that represents a significant landmark in human achievement, and
then bring it to the light of day. This would apply to any aspect of
human endeavour, including the bad (Hitler?) as well as the good, and it
might only be evident in retrospect, eg Van Gogh. I can see the
technical excellence displayed by classical guitarists, as argued by
Learnwell, but how about the creativity?

So in this account we cannot use talent in most cases that it is used. A pitcher throwing a no-hitter is only doing something that has been done before yet many would call him talented. Many kids who can play well but not innovate are called talented. Anyone starting to see the problem here? No-one knows exactly what it is, and those who try to define it by, say, someone learning something significantly faster are up against the literature which shows differently.

[Tony Done]

Post by Learnwell

Post by Tony Done
Fair comment, and I can't provide what I think is a good
comprehensive
answer. Something close is the ability to create something *new* in your
mind that represents a significant landmark in human achievement, and
then bring it to the light of day. This would apply to any aspect of
human endeavour, including the bad (Hitler?) as well as the good, and it
might only be evident in retrospect, eg Van Gogh. I can see the
technical excellence displayed by classical guitarists, as argued by
Learnwell, but how about the creativity?

So in this account we cannot use talent in most cases that it is
used. A pitcher throwing a no-hitter is only doing something that has
been done before yet many would call him talented. Many kids who can
play well but not innovate are called talented. Anyone starting to
see the problem here? No-one knows exactly what it is, and those who
try to define it by, say, someone learning something significantly
faster are up against the literature which shows differently.

I do think that the word talent is overused, but it is a matter of
degree, and we are attaching somewhat different meanings to it.

[Learnwell]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

[Learnwell]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

We are also talking about physical skill in the form of technique, practice frequency and design, mindset, etc.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Learnwell

Post by Andrew Schulman
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

We are also talking about physical skill in the form of technique, practice frequency and design, mindset, etc.

Well, of course, where has anyone said otherwise, that those things are important if anyone wants to live up to their full potential? This is why I said "boring" earlier. And why Wolly just accurately wrote in the other thread, "you can't beat a dead horse. but we do anyway".

I did read some of the things you posted some time ago, from the links. I'm going to listen to Wolly: If you or anyone else thinks there is no such thing as talent, and it is just about physical skill in the form of technique, practice frequency and design, mindset, etc., that's your prerogative. But it's really not in touch with reality.

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Learnwell
What is it, what does it look like?

If we were talking about painting you would ask what it looks like. Re: music, the question would be what does it sound like.
As Louis Armstrong is reputed to have said along these lines, If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.

Wow, he was harsh.

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Wow, he was harsh.

You think that's harsh!?!

All reports about Louis are he was a really good guy, I don't think he was being harsh, just being succinct.

Andrew

[Learnwell]

Post by thomas

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/>

If they measure "practice" just by the number of hours spent, then they're not capturing the essential factor. Quality of practice is as important, if not more important, than quantity.

That is it, you've hit the nail on the head.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

To what extent is "natural ability" or "talent" responsible for
effective work and concentration? Without dealing with this,
such research goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

[Mental Handle]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

To what extent is "natural ability" or "talent" responsible for
effective work and concentration? Without dealing with this,
such research goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

Today they deal effective work and concentration by use of stimulants
like Ritalin etc. - the air force and army in general has used such
help for decades, also.

[Learnwell]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
To what extent is "natural ability" or "talent" responsible for
effective work and concentration? Without dealing with this,
such research goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

That issue is very easy to address. I agree that some people could be endowed (or trained without realizing it, but let's take it your way and say endowed) with an ability to work more efficiently, or dedicate themselves or whatever.

The great myth of talent is not that some are not born with what my be a slight advantage in the beginning, but that for some reason others are precluded from developing this ability on their own. Do everything a talented individual does and you'll get to the same place in about the same amount of time. (and small significant gains are part of this as well as long term improvement, so this is not a scam by teachers who understand this to keep students on the books).

If a student does not know how to work most efficiently they can be taught.

Some may have a slight advantage before training begins, but all can decide to engage in the activities that allow skills to be acquired as well as those who were born with these abilities.

Those who argue for the talent account have nothing more than pixie dust to account for it.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by Learnwell

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
To what extent is "natural ability" or "talent" responsible for
effective work and concentration? Without dealing with this,
such research goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

That issue is very easy to address. I agree that some people could be
endowed (or trained without realizing it, but let's take it your way and
say endowed) with an ability to work more efficiently, or dedicate
themselves or whatever.
The great myth of talent is not that some are not born with what my be a
slight advantage in the beginning, but that for some reason others are
precluded from developing this ability on their own. Do everything a
talented individual does and you'll get to the same place in about the
same amount of time. (and small significant gains are part of this as
well as long term improvement, so this is not a scam by teachers who
understand this to keep students on the books).
If a student does not know how to work most efficiently they can be taught.

I have defined talent as two weeks headstart for decades.

Most of the respondents define talent as what it is not, which
is hard work, motivation, etc., etc.. They do not consider their
reasoning to be circular but it is. Completely.

Regards, Rale

Post by Learnwell
Some may have a slight advantage before training begins, but all can
decide to engage in the activities that allow skills to be acquired as
well as those who were born with these abilities.
Those who argue for the talent account have nothing more than pixie dust to account for it.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by Learnwell

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
To what extent is "natural ability" or "talent" responsible for
effective work and concentration? Without dealing with this,
such research goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

That issue is very easy to address. I agree that some people could be
endowed (or trained without realizing it, but let's take it your way and
say endowed) with an ability to work more efficiently, or dedicate
themselves or whatever.
The great myth of talent is not that some are not born with what my be a
slight advantage in the beginning, but that for some reason others are
precluded from developing this ability on their own. Do everything a
talented individual does and you'll get to the same place in about the
same amount of time. (and small significant gains are part of this as
well as long term improvement, so this is not a scam by teachers who
understand this to keep students on the books).
If a student does not know how to work most efficiently they can be taught.

I have defined talent as two weeks headstart for decades.

Most of the respondents define talent as what it is not, which
is hard work, motivation, etc., etc.. They do not consider their
reasoning to be circular but it is. Completely.

Regards, Rale

Post by Learnwell
Some may have a slight advantage before training begins, but all can
decide to engage in the activities that allow skills to be acquired as
well as those who were born with these abilities.
Those who argue for the talent account have nothing more than pixie dust to account for it.

[John Nguyen]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
I have defined talent as two weeks headstart for decades.

Please give some example of someone catching up with the two-week headstart from this kid. I probably can find some more kids with the "2-week" headstart if needed.
Thanks!

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

To what extent does "talent" and "natural ability" realize
effective practice and concentration? Without an answer to
that, such research as this goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

[John Nguyen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:19:20 -0700, carey_1959 wrote: > http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/ To what extent does "talent" and "natural ability" realize effective practice and concentration? Without an answer to that, such research as this goes nowhere. Regards, Rale -- For All Guitar Beginners: The pages of very easy solos missing from all of the published guitar methods of others. For All Guitarists: Solos, Duets, and the only worthy guitar exercises. http://www.openguitar.com

It looks as if they are not interrelated. Assuming effective practice and concentration helped a person to reach top-tier in guitar, the same effective practice and concentration may not necessarily help the same person to reach top-tier in golf. That brain may be wired to excel on guitar but not on golf.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by John Nguyen

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:19:20 -0700, carey_1959 wrote: >
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/
To what extent does "talent" and "natural ability" realize effective
practice and concentration? Without an answer to that, such research as
this goes nowhere. Regards, Rale -- For All Guitar Beginners: The pages
of very easy solos missing from all of the published guitar methods of
others. For All Guitarists: Solos, Duets, and the only worthy guitar
exercises. http://www.openguitar.com

It looks as if they are not interrelated.

???? To pick only one example, "talent" and motivation are
not related? Are you really saying that? Are you defining
talent as a quintessence not related to anything else? IOW
defining talent as undefinable? That goes nowhere too.
Regards, Rale

[Learnwell]

Post by John Nguyen
It looks as if they are not interrelated. Assuming effective practice and concentration helped a person to reach top-tier in guitar, the same effective practice and concentration may not necessarily help the same person to reach top-tier in golf.

Yes, it would.

[Tony Done]

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?

[Learnwell]

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

Tell me what you have read on the subject so that I do not duplicate.

[Tony Done]

Post by Learnwell

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

Tell me what you have read on the subject so that I do not duplicate.

Nothing, but I think the obligation is on you since I asked first, and
it flies in the face of my version of commonsense. Commonsense for me is
shaded by 40-odd years as a geneticist with an interest in
genotype*environment interactions.

I can have some empathy with the notion that we all have the same innate
ability, and that it is all in the nurture, nothing in nature. However,
to suggest that there is an ability gene (or epigene) that works for
both music and golf seems so weird to me that I would want to see some
published peer-reviewed evidence to convince me of its possibility,
never mind probability.

<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

[Learnwell]

I would want to see some

Post by Tony Done
published peer-reviewed evidence to convince me of its possibility,
never mind probability.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

That is offensive to any good teacher. No wonder so many last so few years in the profession.

[Tony Done]

Post by Tony Done
I would want to see some

Post by Tony Done
published peer-reviewed evidence to convince me of its possibility,
never mind probability.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

That is offensive to any good teacher. No wonder so many last so few years in the profession.

It wasn't intended to be offensive, it should have read "that teachers
might have....". A typo, my apologies. FWIW, we have a viola maker not
far from where I live, his instruments cost about $18,000, but he does
set up work on any member of the violin family. When we went to have my
daughter's violin set up, he seemed very bitter about the way teachers
and tutors at the tertiary level seem to have vested interests in
promoting the instruments of particular makers. I have no idea where the
truth in this lies, but it did make me wonder just how lily white and
altruistic teachers really are.

[Learnwell]

Post by Tony Done
I have no idea where the
truth in this lies, but it did make me wonder just how lily white and
altruistic teachers really are.

Like any other profession it depends on the person. I've had more than a few offers from makers to sell their instruments for a markup.

There is nothing wrong with that per se though I can't get past the conflict of interest either real or perceived.

I look forward to hearing what you think of the paper. And since you mentioned epigenetics here is a book dealing with that as it relates to skill acquisition and the talent myth, "The Genius in All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ." http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/

[Tony Done]

Post by Learnwell

Post by Tony Done
I have no idea where the
truth in this lies, but it did make me wonder just how lily white and
altruistic teachers really are.

Like any other profession it depends on the person. I've had more
than a few offers from makers to sell their instruments for a
markup.
There is nothing wrong with that per se though I can't get past the
conflict of interest either real or perceived.
I look forward to hearing what you think of the paper. And since you
mentioned epigenetics here is a book dealing with that as it relates
New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ."
http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/

Thanks, I will read the paper and get back to you. The book sounds
interesting if it covers the role of epigenetics.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Tony Done
I would want to see some

Post by Tony Done
published peer-reviewed evidence to convince me of its possibility,
never mind probability.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

I've read parts of this--interesting, and will read further when I get
to a non-flaky computer. I see two main issues:
1) Unless I'm missing something (and again, I haven't had the time to
read this all), but at least most of these supporting the correlation of
time spent on purposeful practice with achievement are retrospective
studies. Prospective studies (of course, they'd take a long time) would
be more useful.
2) Those advocating the primacy of genetics are working at a huge
disadvantage, as none of these traits have (to my knowledge) been mapped
genotypically. It is far easier to measure direct effects of
environment than that of what is almost certainly a complex interaction
between multiple genetic traits, epigenetic factors and environment.

This is an interesting area of study, but I'm not holding my breath to
get results in humans.

Steve

Post by Tony Done

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

That is offensive to any good teacher. No wonder so many last so few years in the profession.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

Tell me what you have read on the subject so that I do not duplicate.

Nothing, but I think the obligation is on you since I asked first, and
it flies in the face of my version of commonsense. Commonsense for me is
shaded by 40-odd years as a geneticist with an interest in
genotype*environment interactions.

Holy crap--after all these years I realize I had no idea whatever about
your training.
Obviously you must know that twin studies (reared together and apart)
are a big part of nature/nurture research historically.
My brother and I were involved as subjects in a large twin study here
in NYC in about 1963 or so.

Post by Tony Done
I can have some empathy with the notion that we all have the same innate
ability, and that it is all in the nurture, nothing in nature. However,
to suggest that there is an ability gene (or epigene) that works for
both music and golf seems so weird to me that I would want to see some
published peer-reviewed evidence to convince me of its possibility,
never mind probability.
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

Well, sure. But then I'd generally ask why the teacher can't play like
Segovia.
These conversations never really go anywhere (though the survey article
cited by Matt was interesting).
The cool thing about genetic determinism is that you can always blame
your parents. In fact, I blame them anyway. And my daughter blames me.

Steve

[dsi1]

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

The strange thing is that some numbers of teachers here seem to be
unaware that these savants exist. They may be lying about this or in a
state of denial or have actually never met one. I've met quite a few.

I under the belief that everybody that played an instrument would meet
one of these creatures/mutants/talented persons sometime in their lives.
I used to think that I was a pretty good player in high school but
Robert B. handed me my reality check stamped, punched, and validated,
when I heard him play a single measure. Here was a kid that could play
like Jimmy Page, tone and all. He even wore his guitar slung way down
low. In the end, it was obvious that all the practicing in the world
would never bring me up to his level of playing. Fuck it, I'll just take
up classical guitar. :-)

[Learnwell]

Post by dsi1

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

The strange thing is that some numbers of teachers here seem to be
unaware that these savants exist. They may be lying about this or in a
state of denial or have actually never met one. I've met quite a few.
I under the belief that everybody that played an instrument would meet
one of these creatures/mutants/talented persons sometime in their lives.
I used to think that I was a pretty good player in high school but
Robert B. handed me my reality check stamped, punched, and validated,
when I heard him play a single measure. Here was a kid that could play
like Jimmy Page, tone and all. He even wore his guitar slung way down
low. In the end, it was obvious that all the practicing in the world
would never bring me up to his level of playing. Fuck it, I'll just take
up classical guitar. :-)

Let's see, savants; a child who has no other ability who obsesses for thousands of hours on a particular skill then after much immersion shows advanced ability. Savants have been studied and show, you guessed it, much previous practice.

[Slogoin]

Post by Learnwell
Let's see, savants; a child who has no other ability who obsesses
for thousands of hours on a particular skill then after much
immersion shows advanced ability. Savants have been studied
and show, you guessed it, much previous practice.

That is not the case with Kit Armstrong. How does he fit in your definition with so many diverse interests even at a decade old, and now mastery of music, math and linguistics... far beyond what any of his teachers can do. Even as a child he did things his teachers could not do and his teachers have been some of the best. All of his teachers have learned from him because none have ever had a student like him before so like my friend there was a lot of marveling at what he did and surprises in holes where his age showed and he was just a kid again.

[Matt Faunce]

Post by Slogoin

Post by Learnwell
Let's see, savants; a child who has no other ability who obsesses
for thousands of hours on a particular skill then after much
immersion shows advanced ability. Savants have been studied and
show, you guessed it, much previous practice.

That is not the case with Kit Armstrong. How does he fit in your
definition with so many diverse interests even at a decade old, and
now mastery of music, math and linguistics... far beyond what any of
his teachers can do. Even as a child he did things his teachers could
not do and his teachers have been some of the best. All of his
teachers have learned from him because none have ever had a student
like him before so like my friend there was a lot of marveling at
what he did and surprises in holes where his age showed and he was
just a kid again.

Maybe Gregg is Hindu.

[dsi1]

Post by Learnwell
Let's see, savants; a child who has no other ability who obsesses for thousands of hours on a particular skill then after much immersion shows advanced ability. Savants have been studied and show, you guessed it, much previous practice.

I use "savant" in a broader sense than you - as a player whose abilities
seem to spring out of nowhere. My definition of talent is pretty
specific and more focused that most people's. Some people think that I
have talent in playing the guitar. I sure don't. The truth is I have no
musical talents. What I do have is many years of playing and practice.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
The truth is I have no
musical talents. What I do have is many years of playing and practice.

David, here's a shocker. Over 4 decades as a professional musician I've had the good fortune to have worked with many superb musicians. To the best of my recollection every single one them, with one exception, practiced hard all through the years, studied hard, etc. They took their God given talent, or the talent that existed in them for whatever reason, and did something with it.

The only one who didn't work hard was Larry Adler, the great harmonica virtuoso. This a good representative video of Larry:

Larry never practiced. I did a series of concerts with him here and in England in 1989-90 and after the last one, at the Royal Albert Hall, celebrating his 75th birthday, we had dinner and he told me the main regret of his life was that he'd never developed his talent for music has he should have. I was 38 at the time and though I'd always practiced and studied I did so with greater intensity after that conversation.

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
The truth is I have no
musical talents. What I do have is many years of playing and practice.

David, here's a shocker. Over 4 decades as a professional musician I've had the good fortune to have worked with many superb musicians. To the best of my recollection every single one them, with one exception, practiced hard all through the years, studied hard, etc. They took their God given talent, or the talent that existed in them for whatever reason, and did something with it.

I'm not shocked. That's what you have to do to be a professional
musician and make a living - work hard at playing music. You can be a
great player without being professional. My guess is that most great
players are not professional musicians nor do they want to have that
particular quirk of their neurological system define themselves to others.

Post by Andrew Schulman
http://youtu.be/YoCM_NLQTcs
Larry never practiced. I did a series of concerts with him here and in England in 1989-90 and after the last one, at the Royal Albert Hall, celebrating his 75th birthday, we had dinner and he told me the main regret of his life was that he'd never developed his talent for music has he should have. I was 38 at the time and though I'd always practiced and studied I did so with greater intensity after that conversation.

God bless Larry Adler! That guy made a living playing one of the
instruments in the holy trinity of funny instruments: accordion,
harmonica, and bagpipes. In my case, it's lute, harmonica, and bagpipes.

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
I'm not shocked. That's what you have to do to be a professional
musician and make a living - work hard at playing music. You can be a
great player without being professional. My guess is that most great
players are not professional musicians nor do they want to have that
particular quirk of their neurological system define themselves to others.

I've heard that said before. I know there are a lot of amateur musicians who are terrific players, I've met many, who decided for various reasons, generally very good ones, not to become professional players.

Post by dsi1

Post by Andrew Schulman
http://youtu.be/YoCM_NLQTcs

God bless Larry Adler! That guy made a living playing one of the
instruments in the holy trinity of funny instruments: accordion,
harmonica, and bagpipes. In my case, it's lute, harmonica, and bagpipes.

It was a really great experience to spend time with Larry and work with him. Needless to say, he had many, many stories about all the great musicians he worked with. And it was a revelation to hear his interpretations of the pieces we played. We did seven concerts together. One of the cool things about that is that we had exactly one rehearsal, and that was just to make sure the roadmap for each piece was in sync. He didn't like to practice and he didn't like to rehearse, he expected me to hear it and do it. I carried this over into my Abaca String Band, which I started just after the concerts with Larry. We've never had more than one or two rehearsals for any program we've ever played.

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman
It was a really great experience to spend time with Larry and work with him. Needless to say, he had many, many stories about all the great musicians he worked with. And it was a revelation to hear his interpretations of the pieces we played. We did seven concerts together. One of the cool things about that is that we had exactly one rehearsal, and that was just to make sure the roadmap for each piece was in sync. He didn't like to practice and he didn't like to rehearse, he expected me to hear it and do it. I carried this over into my Abaca String Band, which I started just after the concerts with Larry. We've never had more than one or two rehearsals for any program we've ever played.
Andrew

I can understand where he's coming from. He didn't want his performance
to be stilted by rehearsed moves and play what he had already played.
Everytime he plays he's using up one of his ways to play. It's a nutty
way to think but it makes sense to me.

Classical guitar player have the exact opposite attitude. That's a real
shame. Well, that's my sweeping generalization for August 3, 2013.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by dsi1
I can understand where he's coming from. He didn't want his performance
to be stilted by rehearsed moves and play what he had already played.
Everytime he plays he's using up one of his ways to play. It's a nutty
way to think but it makes sense to me.

I never asked him about it. He was a brilliant guy. Got caught up in the McCarthy stuff and moved to London, one night he told me the whole story. My mentor in college was Richard Dyer-Bennett, he was also blacklisted and told me his story. Tough times they went through but survived it all. Neither of them were Communists, remotely, but they wouldn't name names.

Post by dsi1
Classical guitar player have the exact opposite attitude. That's a real
shame. Well, that's my sweeping generalization for August 3, 2013.

Sweeping generalization? Really!?!

Andrew

[dsi1]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
I can understand where he's coming from. He didn't want his performance
to be stilted by rehearsed moves and play what he had already played.
Everytime he plays he's using up one of his ways to play. It's a nutty
way to think but it makes sense to me.

I never asked him about it. He was a brilliant guy. Got caught up in the McCarthy stuff and moved to London, one night he told me the whole story. My mentor in college was Richard Dyer-Bennett, he was also blacklisted and told me his story. Tough times they went through but survived it all. Neither of them were Communists, remotely, but they wouldn't name names.

People with character and integrity tend to be troublesome in that regard. They never name names.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by dsi1
Classical guitar player have the exact opposite attitude. That's a real
shame. Well, that's my sweeping generalization for August 3, 2013.

Sweeping generalization? Really!?!

Nothing to get excited about. You can't hardly say anything without making sweeping generalizations. See I just made one right there...

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[Learnwell]

Post by dsi1
I use "savant" in a broader sense than you - as a player whose abilities
seem to spring out of nowhere.

Doesn't happen, period. That is a myth, folklore.

[dsi1]

Post by Learnwell

Post by dsi1
I use "savant" in a broader sense than you - as a player whose abilities
seem to spring out of nowhere.

Doesn't happen, period. That is a myth, folklore.

Sure, Derek Amato could be a fake, he could also be real.

http://science.discovery.com/video-topics/brain-intelligence/ingenious-minds-head-injury-reveals-hidden-talent.htm

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Learnwell

Post by dsi1

Post by Tony Done
<g> As I have commented a few times recently, I can see that teachers
have a vested interest in not believing in the nature bit. - "Sure you
will be able to play like Segovia, just practice a lot and keep up with
the lessons."

The strange thing is that some numbers of teachers here seem to be
unaware that these savants exist. They may be lying about this or in a
state of denial or have actually never met one. I've met quite a few.
I under the belief that everybody that played an instrument would meet
one of these creatures/mutants/talented persons sometime in their lives.
I used to think that I was a pretty good player in high school but
Robert B. handed me my reality check stamped, punched, and validated,
when I heard him play a single measure. Here was a kid that could play
like Jimmy Page, tone and all. He even wore his guitar slung way down
low. In the end, it was obvious that all the practicing in the world
would never bring me up to his level of playing. Fuck it, I'll just take
up classical guitar. :-)

Let's see, savants; a child who has no other ability who obsesses for thousands of hours on a particular skill then after much immersion shows advanced ability. Savants have been studied and show, you guessed it, much previous practice.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?

The problem with calling talent "pixie dust" is that those who argue
against it are also dusting the pixie.
Potential of most sorts is (by its nature) difficult to impossible to
measure. Achievement is (OTOH) often far easier to quantify.
My brother is taking a course with coursera dealing with
epigenetics--fascinating stuff--highly technical, may or may not raise
more questions than it answers.

Steve

[Tony Done]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Tony Done

Post by Learnwell
Yes, it would.

I think that is highly unlikely, putting it politely. Got any references?

The problem with calling talent "pixie dust" is that those who argue
against it are also dusting the pixie.
Potential of most sorts is (by its nature) difficult to impossible to
measure. Achievement is (OTOH) often far easier to quantify.

Very good point, worth remembering.

Post by Steven Bornfeld
My brother is taking a course with coursera dealing with
epigenetics--fascinating stuff--highly technical, may or may not raise
more questions than it answers.
Steve

I'm sure it will. I haven't heard much about it in the world of plants,
but it is clearly receiving a lot of attention in relation to human
genetics. - There was a segment on TV a few weeks ago about identical
twins, one of who had diabetes and the other didn't, an epigenetic effect.

[John Nguyen]

It looks as if they are not interrelated. Assuming effective practice and concentration helped a person to reach top-tier in guitar, the same effective practice and concentration may not necessarily help the same person to reach top-tier in golf. Yes, it would.

Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of competency. One would think Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley would have reached the skill level in golf comparable to that of Greg Norman by now given so many years since they picked up the golf game after their retirement from basketball. Or maybe they just didn't have the level of concentration they used to have in basketball. What a slacker!

[thomas]

It looks as if they are not interrelated. Assuming effective practice and concentration helped a person to reach top-tier in guitar, the same effective practice and concentration may not necessarily help the same person to reach top-tier in golf. Yes, it would.

Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of competency. One would think Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley would have reached the skill level in golf comparable to that of Greg Norman by now given so many years since they picked up the golf game after their retirement from basketball. Or maybe they just didn't have the level of concentration they used to have in basketball. What a slacker!>

Barkley should be better than Lebron by now. I wonder why he isn't?

[Learnwell]

Post by John Nguyen
Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of competency.

That has been proven, over and over, to not be true. There is just no evidence for it and a lot disproving it. If you'd like to dig in and read the literature you'll find the same.

[Slogoin]

Post by Learnwell
If you'd like to dig in and read the literature you'll find the same.

Others who have read more, written more, and are more qualified disagree.

[John Nguyen]

Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of competency. That has been proven, over and over, to not be true. There is just no evidence for it and a lot disproving it. If you'd like to dig in and read the literature you'll find the same.

I've read a fair amount of literature on this topic, probably more than I cared for, and, at least to me, people a built differently that no amount of training can possibly make up for it. There are genes in the DNA that correlate to individual traits. A cat can swim, but it will not probably as good as a dog, and when subjected to the same training condition, the dog will have the advantage.

There is no sense to beating a dead horse here, but I'm still waiting for your personal example on this theory of focused training.
Cheers,

John

[Learnwell]

Post by John Nguyen
I've read a fair amount of literature on this topic, probably more than I cared for, and, at least to me, people a built differently that no amount of training can possibly make up for it.

Great, truly, please point me in the direction of this literature that you have read that supports;

Post by John Nguyen
Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some >will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of >competency.

I've read a lot on this (and experienced it as a teacher) and again and again that is never the case when practice design is the same.

Links or book titles are fine (short descriptions would be nice too), only things that you yourself have read that contradict the other evidence which you must have encountered in the fair amount of literature that you have read. I'll certainly read it. Thanks.

Post by John Nguyen
There is no sense to beating a dead horse here, but I'm still waiting for your personal example on this theory of focused training.

That would be evidenced in my teaching.

[Jonathan]

Post by Learnwell

Post by John Nguyen
I've read a fair amount of literature on this topic, probably more than I cared for, and, at least to me, people a built differently that no amount of training can possibly make up for it.

Great, truly, please point me in the direction of this literature that you have read that supports;

Post by John Nguyen
Sure, giving time,and with the same effective practice and concentration some >will take 2 years while other takes 150 years to accomplish the same level of >competency.

I've read a lot on this (and experienced it as a teacher) and again and again that is never the case when practice design is the same.
Links or book titles are fine (short descriptions would be nice too), only things that you yourself have read that contradict the other evidence which you must have encountered in the fair amount of literature that you have read. I'll certainly read it. Thanks.

Post by John Nguyen
There is no sense to beating a dead horse here, but I'm still waiting for your personal example on this theory of focused training.

That would be evidenced in my teaching.

Don't you also believe that intelligence is mostly nurture as well?
I vaguely remember you saying this the last time this topic came up.

[Learnwell]

Post by Jonathan
Don't you also believe that intelligence is mostly nurture as well?
I vaguely remember you saying this the last time this topic came up.

Yes.

[Jonathan]

Post by Jonathan
Don't you also believe that intelligence is mostly nurture as well?
I vaguely remember you saying this the last time this topic came up.

Yes.

That seems like a pretty radical view.
I remember seeing a documentary about Stephen Hawking, and it portrayed him as lazy and unambitious in college. He just intuitively knew how to do theoretical physics.
If he was lazy in college, it stands to reason that he probably didn't study very hard as a child either.

[Learnwell]

Post by Learnwell
Great, truly, please point me in the direction of this literature that you have read that supports;

Hellooooo? Supporting evidence of the fair amount you have read, please? This is typical of the talent belief, pull the curtain and there is nothing behind.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by John Nguyen
I've read a fair amount of literature on this topic, probably more than I cared for, and, at least to me,

people a built differently that no amount of training can possibly
make up for it. There are genes in the DNA that

correlate to individual traits. A cat can swim, but it will not probably
as good as a dog, and when subjected to

the same training condition, the dog will have the advantage.


Nice kitty!

Post by John Nguyen
There is no sense to beating a dead horse here, but I'm still waiting for your personal example on this theory of focused training.
Cheers,
John

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 8/1/2013 11:24 AM, Learnwell wrote:
to accomplish the same level of competency.

Post by Learnwell
That has been proven, over and over, to not be true. There is just no evidence

for it and a lot disproving it. If you'd like to dig in and read the
literature you'll find the same.
Unfortunately, this is not even testable, let alone provable--in the
same way that "safety" cannot be proven (safety being in this context
the absence of danger). You can fail to find an association with
danger, but you cannot disprove a negative. Some things would be a lot
easier if you could!

Steve

[dsi1]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

To what extent does "talent" and "natural ability" realize
effective practice and concentration? Without an answer to
that, such research as this goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

Mostly talent has to do with memory - muscle memory, mental, and aural memory. Your work habits have to do with motivation which has nothing to do with memory. The ability to focus your mind depends on how your brain is wired which also affects your memory.

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
--
For All Guitar Beginners: The pages of very easy solos missing
from all of the published guitar methods of others.
For All Guitarists: Solos, Duets, and the only worthy guitar
exercises. http://www.openguitar.com

[dsi1]

Post by dsi1

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

To what extent does "talent" and "natural ability" realize
effective practice and concentration? Without an answer to
that, such research as this goes nowhere. Regards, Rale

Mostly talent has to do with memory - muscle memory, mental, and aural memory. Your work habits have to do with motivation which has nothing to do with memory. The ability to focus your mind depends on how your brain is wired which also affects your memory.

To clarify, a remarkable memory is key to musical talent, not necessarily others.

Post by dsi1

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
--
For All Guitar Beginners: The pages of very easy solos missing
from all of the published guitar methods of others.
For All Guitarists: Solos, Duets, and the only worthy guitar
exercises. http://www.openguitar.com

[Tony Done]

Post by dsi1
Mostly talent has to do with memory - muscle memory, mental, and
aural memory. Your work habits have to do with motivation which has
nothing to do with memory. The ability to focus your mind depends on
how your brain is wired which also affects your memory.

I think talent is a good deal more complicated than memory, especially
in the case of the fine arts. For example, it could be the ability to
see or hear things clearly in your head that do not come directly from
our eyes or ears. Michelangelo is supposed to have said that his great
statues were just lumps of stone waiting to have the excess bits knocked
off - or something in that vein.

Work habits might also be an innate characteristic, at least to some
extent. It gets complicated, but I am convinced that some will do better
at a given task than others for a given amount of (specified) work input.

[dsi1]

Post by Tony Done

Post by dsi1
Mostly talent has to do with memory - muscle memory, mental, and
aural memory. Your work habits have to do with motivation which has
nothing to do with memory. The ability to focus your mind depends on
how your brain is wired which also affects your memory.

I think talent is a good deal more complicated than memory, especially
in the case of the fine arts. For example, it could be the ability to
see or hear things clearly in your head that do not come directly from
our eyes or ears. Michelangelo is supposed to have said that his great
statues were just lumps of stone waiting to have the excess bits knocked
off - or something in that vein.
Work habits might also be an innate characteristic, at least to some
extent. It gets complicated, but I am convinced that some will do better
at a given task than others for a given amount of (specified) work input.
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

These guys have an enormous advantage over the rest of us because they can replay stuff they hear in their mind. They know what happens when they move their fingers over the fretboard. They can see the notes scrolling before their eyes like on a movie screen and hear the notes. We are pretty much retards compared to these guys. I'm sure they have other super powers that I can't even start to comprehend. They are also completely unaware that we don't see the world as they do.

[Learnwell]

Post by dsi1
The ability to focus your mind depends on how your brain is wired

Actually the ability to focus can be taught and developed like a muscle. Start with small bits and develop it. It is a process that, in most cases, takes coaching.

Google 'desirable difficulty' if you are interested. That is the sweet spot of learning.

[Learnwell]

Post by dsi1
Your work habits have to do with motivation which has nothing to do with memory.

It has to do with habit pattern development, which can be developed.

Post by dsi1
The ability to focus your mind depends on how your brain is wired which also affects your memory.

It does depend on how your brain is wired. The catch is that you can wire up your brain (and we all do) just as you can build your muscles with weights. Of this there is no real debate in cognitive neuroscience.

[Learnwell]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/practice-makes-perfect-not-so-much/

He needs to read the literature. He may disagree if he wishes, but he needs to address it. His suppositions are wrong and the whole 'find your areas of strength' movement is potentially harmful.

However, for those who have unwittingly developed areas that they have greater strengths in I would agree that would be a good place to place ones future efforts.

[Slogoin]

Post by Learnwell
He needs to read the literature. He may disagree if he wishes,
but he needs to address it. His suppositions are wrong and the
whole 'find your areas of strength' movement is potentially harmful.

His email is right there...
He knows the literature and has created some of it that you might want to read.

http://psychology.msu.edu/Faculty/FacultyMember.aspx?netid=hambric3

[Matt Faunce]

Post by Slogoin

Post by Learnwell
He needs to read the literature. He may disagree if he wishes,
but he needs to address it. His suppositions are wrong and the
whole 'find your areas of strength' movement is potentially harmful.

His email is right there...
He knows the literature and has created some of it that you might want to read.
http://psychology.msu.edu/Faculty/FacultyMember.aspx?netid=hambric3

And there's this:
http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/10/5b176194-ba9a-498d-87c3-c51bc0b1c66b.pdf

Learnwell, have you read this? What have you read by Zach Hambrick?

Matt

[Learnwell]

Post by Matt Faunce

Post by Slogoin

Post by Learnwell
He needs to read the literature. He may disagree if he wishes,
but he needs to address it. His suppositions are wrong and the
whole 'find your areas of strength' movement is potentially harmful.

His email is right there...
He knows the literature and has created some of it that you might want to read.
http://psychology.msu.edu/Faculty/FacultyMember.aspx?netid=hambric3

http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/10/5b176194-ba9a-498d-87c3-c51bc0b1c66b.pdf
Learnwell, have you read this? What have you read by Zach Hambrick?
Matt

I've read Hambrick, and what I remember most besides other significant problems, is it was not peer reviewed and published. I'd be surprised if it has become so since then if it remained in the same form it was when I first read it.

[Slogoin]

Post by Learnwell
I've read Hambrick, and what I remember most besides other significant problems,

The "significant problems" are with your views not his and he is a LOT more qualified than you ever will be.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Slogoin

Post by Learnwell
I've read Hambrick, and what I remember most besides other significant problems,

The "significant problems" are with your views not his and he is a LOT more qualified than you ever will be.

Is that really necessary?

[Slogoin]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Is that really necessary?

Yes. There is more to this story than RMCG.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Learnwell
I've read Hambrick, and what I remember most besides other significant problems,

is it was not peer reviewed and published. I'd be surprised if it has
become so since

then if it remained in the same form it was when I first read it.
" Current Directions in Psychological Science (CDPS) is a peer-reviewed
bi-monthly journal featuring reviews by leading experts covering all of
scientific psychology and its applications. Current Directions features
topics such as language, memory and cognition, development, the neural
basis of behavior and emotions, various aspects of psychopathology, and
theory of mind. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE)"



http://cdp.sagepub.com/

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Matt Faunce
Learnwell, have you read this? What have you read by Zach Hambrick?
Matt

Nice survey. Wow, they love to hate Gladwell, dont' they?

Steve

[Matt Faunce]

Post by Slogoin

Post by Learnwell
He needs to read the literature. He may disagree if he wishes,
but he needs to address it. His suppositions are wrong and the
whole 'find your areas of strength' movement is potentially harmful.

His email is right there...
He knows the literature and has created some of it that you might want to read.
http://psychology.msu.edu/Faculty/FacultyMember.aspx?netid=hambric3

Thanks for that link, Larry. From that page I requested a copy of his 2013 paper and got a quick reply with the PDF.

Matt

[Slogoin]

Post by Matt Faunce
Thanks for that link, Larry. From that page I requested a
copy of his 2013 paper and got a quick reply with the PDF.

Yep. Some folks here would rather not read and just post their opinions as facts.