talent is what the unskilled call skill

[5RingsFitness]

been reading more and more about the neurology of skill development

"skill is insulation wrapped around neural networks, it grows according to specific rules"

that is from "the talent code" by Daniel Coyle

between that and "Talent is over-rated"

my thoughts on how to practice have been both reinforced and drastically changed

the deliberate practice model of skill development
practicing in the best physical and mental state possible and also practicing in distress are crucial
also viral is to learn to recognize when practice is no longer productive, and to quit then
not later after wasting time and becoming better at being crappy

everything is a skill
deliberate, dedicated, focused practice is essential to developing mastery
10000 hours is required for proficiency if not mastery
skill is insulation wrapped around neural networks and it grows according to certain rules
if we are cognizant of where our practice is leading us, we will be able to devote our time to optimal practice rayed than simply getting our reps in

anyone who is truly interested in developing mastery of any skill should read these texts

neuro science is a burgeoning field that IMHO is the edge of a giant wave that is a bout to crash on the human paradigm

just my little growl from the back of the den

[Crafty_Dog]

I read "Talent is Over-rated" and thought it very good-- though a bit overly relentless in its efforts to refute the existence and role of talent.

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 Talent is a quality assessment made by others as to ones skills in performance or the end result of that performance. Talent isn't a physical thing that is possessed but rather a result of skill being presented in a way that captures someone else's admiration of it. You can practice a skill all you want and never be talented at it, on the otherhand an unskilled person with the ability to catch a human eye or ear, can hide their ineptness and be thought of as being quite talented. People do like to be entertained.
                              P.C.

[maija]

I wholeheartedly agree that skill comes from practice - and a great deal of smart practice is necessary to gain superlative competence, but I have seen 'talent' in people, or perhaps 'natural aptitude' or 'gift' might be a better term? It may be an assessment made by others, but it is nothing to do with an ability to disguise weak performance. It can manifest at the earliest stages of practice all the way through to mastery.

[sting]

Love these topics that make for controversial conversation.  

The concept of the absence of talent appeals to "blank slate" crowd in which all beings are created with an exacting equalness, with a particular uniformity of genetics and development inside the skull.

While one can look at repetition as the path to mastery, repetition can also be viewed as a method for talent identification.  Ask a track team to run the 100 meter dash 10,000 times.  Eventually, you will find the talented 100 meter runner with the ability to exceed all others subjected to the same training.  In fact, I'm more impressed that 100 meter runners emerge at all despite the ridiculous training routines such as group hurdler's stretch and five mile runs that my entire track team was subjected to.  Two generations of coaches need to pass away for such nonsense to be forgotten.

[prentice crawford]

I wholeheartedly agree that skill comes from practice - and a great deal of smart practice is necessary to gain superlative competence, but I have seen 'talent' in people, or perhaps 'natural aptitude' or 'gift' might be a better term? It may be an assessment made by others, but it is nothing to do with an ability to disguise weak performance. It can manifest at the earliest stages of practice all the way through to mastery.

Love these topics that make for controversial conversation.  

The concept of the absence of talent appeals to "blank slate" crowd in which all beings are created with an exacting equalness, with a particular uniformity of genetics and development inside the skull.

While one can look at repetition as the path to mastery, repetition can also be viewed as a method for talent identification.  Ask a track team to run the 100 meter dash 10,000 times.  Eventually, you will find the talented 100 meter runner with the ability to exceed all others subjected to the same training.  In fact, I'm more impressed that 100 meter runners emerge at all despite the ridiculous training routines such as group hurdler's stretch and five mile runs that my entire track team was subjected to.  Two generations of coaches need to pass away for such nonsense to be forgotten.

Woof,
 And there is a difference between talent and natural attributes of physical and cognitive abilities, due to hitting the genetic lottery. Sometimes both play a role, sometimes they are independent of eachother, and then practice and skill development have their part as well. I'm just differentiating what is perceived as talent being subjective to human judgement, and natural physical abilities and learned/trained skills. A person that can sing or paint a picture or write a poem or build a house or land a perfect backflip or takedown can all be considered talented but not necessarily physically superior to others. Talent, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and if you think playing to the crowd doesn't have an effect on physical performance then you might be missing something called the human element and if you think genetics don't count then you don't understand that certain things can't be trained into you. You can't train better eye sight or body type. Let's face it, a ballerina isn't going to make a good weight lifter and a weight lifter isn't going to do so well in a tu tu.
                                 P.C.

[5RingsFitness]

one of the points made relentlesly in both books is that if you examine "talent"
you will in fact find deliberate practice
starting with mental imagery and leading all the way to physical practice

concert impressarios have parents that are accomplished musicians
tracks stars have older siblings to catch up to
financial wizards have incentive and mentors
most f all
they are all driven by passion

eusain boldt (sp) is the prime example

guy screams across the finish line with yard between the nearest competitor and makes it look easy
at a height that all who know would say makes it impossible for him to be a world class sprinter

[sting]

one of the points made relentlesly in both books is that if you examine "talent"
you will in fact find deliberate practice

Talent is that which exceeds a group that practices deliberately.  For example, a talented runner is not one that runs while others watch the Kardashians on TV.  Talent is the runner that leads the pack of runners.

[Howling Dog]

Woof, Genetics and knowing your strengths play a vital role. Not to mention a strong mental drive that allows a person to push his physical limits, where as most, will let their minds say...."stop thats too hard"   
   HD

[Crafty_Dog]

At the opposite end of spectrum from the "tabla rasa" folks are those that tend to see things as genetically determined.  Such people tend to quit easily in the face of frustation; such people tend to avoid situations where they might look bad, whereas people who believe that work/training/studying make a difference tend to take on challenges transcend them.

The book "Social Theories" by Carol Dweck, which was recommended to me by Chris Gizzi, is an excellent discussion of this.

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 I agree with that, no matter what you start out with you can always improve and find ways to compensate for a weakness.
                                P.C.

[maija]

Crafty, are you saying that people that think talent is genetically determined will quit (if they don't think they have 'it') sooner than those that do not?
I suspect that believing in the concept of innate talent, and believing in the necessity of hard work, are not mutually exclusive.
Also, is it not a question of the chicken and the egg - which came first, the tendency to quit? Or the excuse?

[5RingsFitness]

another large determinating factor was passion, if passionate about a subject the drive to master skill is higher
how many of the folks here have given up social engagement, superfluous hobbies and even relationships to become better at expressing themselves through interpersonal human conflict

having personally spent 6 days a week 1-3 hrs per day trying to develop my skill as a practitioner and instructor of martial arts, sports, and science

this rang true

[Howling Dog]

Woof, I would say talent is a relative term. As is skill.
When I made my post I was refering to those who reach Championship level, top tier,  break world records or compete at the elite level.
No matter how hard some work or over come....Its just a matter of fact that, there are only a few that reach the level I described.

A rare combination, of physical and mental gifts, as well as finding the perfect venue to use them.

Yes others can also be "skilled" because the work hard, but would it not be better to call them...."Good", "above average"....or even "ok"
I may have missed the point some where, as to what "skilled" really means.
                HD

[prentice crawford]

Woof, I would say talent is a relative term. As is skill.
When I made my post I was refering to those who reach Championship level, top tier,  break world records or compete at the elite level.
No matter how hard some work or over come....Its just a matter of fact that, there are only a few that reach the level I described.

A rare combination, of physical and mental gifts, as well as finding the perfect venue to use them.

Yes others can also be "skilled" because the work hard, but would it not be better to call them...."Good", "above average"....or even "ok"
I may have missed the point some where, as to what "skilled" really means.
                HD

Woof Howling Dog,
 You've hit on the basic problem that many discussions like this have; we can all hold different ideas determined by our definition of the terms being used and often this will cause people to talk pass eachother because they aren't thinking in the same terms with eachother or at least not according to their definition of the terms.
                                    P.C.

[5RingsFitness]

all of the above is absolutely true somewhere in the world

personally I view everyone as an athlete of varying levels of skill and ability

the seperations get thinner the higher up the food chain you move for sure, still
those folks in the top 2% are the ones that practice from micro to macro and do so dilligently and conciously

[stilljames]

another large determinating factor was passion, if passionate about a subject the drive to master skill is higher
how many of the folks here have given up social engagement, superfluous hobbies and even relationships to become better at expressing themselves through interpersonal human conflict

having personally spent 6 days a week 1-3 hrs per day trying to develop my skill as a practitioner and instructor of martial arts, sports, and science

this rang true

*laugh*  One of my standing offers to my friends is:  I'll go out partying all night with you if you will get up at 6am to go running with me.

To date, no one has taken me up on the offer.

[5RingsFitness]

 

[Karsk]

What do you mean by skill or talent?  Are you talking about physiological parameters in general as well?  Like muscle fiber composition, torso to leg length ratio, levels of hemoglobin,  capillary density.  as well as ability to process information quickly and accurately?  How much does  purely physiological parameters affect success in any activity including fighting?   If you mean grasp of method and the ability to achieve it I think that there is a physiological component to this.  Body physiologies do vary and I think that this includes neurological function.   And certain body physiologies do seem to match up with specific activities.  I mean we all more or less acknowledge this.  For example, years ago, the Australians started using physiological means to pre-assess "talent" for rowing  (you could argue that rowing is not as complex an activity as martial arts but perhaps good rowers would argue that ...I dunno)  They had crappy rowing teams and when they adopted a physiologically based pre-assessment where they searched for physiologies that matched top Olympic athletes they in fact produced a winning team.  Now it is routine: http://www.topendsports.com/sport/rowing/testing-ntid.htm

I think that they do this for soccer players too.  Kind of takes the "natural" out of natural selection....

I have noticed that in open fighting situations where there are no weight classes, certain physiological characteristics tend to dominate the winners circles.  Do you think that that is true?  I suspect it depends on type of fighting as well.  Anderson Silva body type versus Randy Couture?

That being said, I remember an old oriental tidbit saying "if one person tries one time try 10 times, for 100 try 1000, in this way even the dull become sharp"  or something to that effect.   I think that there are lots of people who are genetically gifted to do something who simply do not take advantage of it. It takes more than just genetic advantage. The best of the best seem to be people with genetic propensity who also bust their tails practicing and perfecting.  In the mid ranges where most people are, I think its possible for someone with less genetic propensity to overcome the disadvantages simply by putting way more into skill development.

Karsk

[JDN]

The best of the best seem to be people with genetic propensity who also bust their tails practicing and perfecting.

Karsk

And if you don't have the genetic propensity i.e. talent, you can bust your tail all day practicing and perfecting, but
you will never equal God given genetic talent - the chosen ones; they are the "best of the best".

[5RingsFitness]

all the talent in the world is useless if it is never practiced

[Karsk]

I disagree that you will never equal God given talent to this extent.  If the person with talent is arrogant or lazy or stupid on top of the talent and they waste the gifts that they have been given by sitting on a couch swigging beer and watching Jackass part 10 then they will be passed by.  By anyone with tenacity and discipline. 

Its not enough to have the genetic capacity to deliver. You have to have heart as well.

[Karsk]

Came across this this morning.  Its worth it to take the time to watch it.  Its about how very serious psychological problems like obsessive compulsive disorder and schizophrenia can be corrected by "practicing".  This revolves around the idea that the brain is malleable rather than unchanging.  The term is "neuroplasticity".   What you use you "fuse" together neuronal circuit wise.   Anyways....it relates to the development of capacity through practice.  More than the body is trained when we go through motions.   The brain itself can be rewired to be more efficient.  The documentary even draws parallels to zen practices.

I think about this stuff relative to repetitive practices. 


http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Nature_of_Things/ID=1605117929

[5RingsFitness]

awesome find Karsk
snag

bummer, can not watch it here in the us

[Karsk]

How about that! I am used to that happening in reverse (not able to get things from the states)

Well...here are some links to videos that give similar information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8Lz5vFds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFbm3jL7CDI&feature=related

A TED talk on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z41BTeAU7DI&feature=related

This one has to do with studies on Tibetan Monks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkXtz72hjDI


and an article about neuroplasticity training and schizophrenia...http://www.newsweek.com/2009/08/17/training-faulty-brains-to-work-better.html#




Karsk