Is talent a destructive myth?

[Cortina]

Is talent a destructive myth?

Worth a listen, it's very short. See thread on Secondary education for more details. It's great Matthew Syed has agreed to answer our questions on Mumsnet. Also ties in to Gabby Logan sport Q&A session.

So many of us decide we have no aptitude for certain subjects/areas very early on...

"They may well be matched in paper qualifications by the dogged slogger, but introduce a new subject and the former will still learn and grasp the concepts more quickly"

And is it really worth it to spend say a 100 hours of effort to get the same position as some people take an hour to get to?
Is it really fair to ask the "talented ones" to sit around and wait for the slower ones to catch up?

I'm not sure whether its applicable to sport, but thinking about music - hours of practice may make for a technically flawless violinist, but they may never achieve the emotional interpretation which is what defines a great performer. Someone might spend years studying composition but have no spark of creative genius.

And for every williams sister, jimmy conners, lewis hamilton who have been trained from a very young age by their parents, how many never make it to the top. We only ever hear about the successful ones. How many children on those "my kid is a future star" type programmes actually ever make it to the top of their sports.

Cortina Tue 24-May-11 11:37:15

"Define 'real talent' though, often what we think of as giftedness is hidden practice and expertise in disguise."

Well, my experience is in academia. I know several people who have dreamed of an academic career all their lives, who have worked tremendously hard and know everything there is to know in the books, but who still fail because their thinking simply isn't intelligent enough or creative enough. Their knowledge may be nothing short of miraculous but their conclusions are simply not plausible. Or not at all original. Or not at all interesting. It is very sad to see and it often takes years before they realise what other people may have seen much earlier- that this isn't going anywhere.

In this particular area it is not just a question of repeating what you have learnt elsewhere but of contributing something new, that nobody else has thought of. And the need kicks in fairly early: I am marking undergraduate essays atm and reflecting once more on how hard it is to teach intelligent thinking and creativity, and what a massive difference there is between students who have it and students who don't. You do need to be innovative in some sense even to get through your first year at university.

Music has been mentioned: yes, you can become technically very competent, but that is not all that is required to be a Mozart or Yehudi Menuhin. There were other little kids belonging to musical families who spent all their waking time at the piano in the olden days; they did not all become Mozarts, though no doubt many became competent performers and an asset to their families.

There must have been lots of youngsters who got more early practise in the theatre than Shakespeare did, but they didn't write his plays. Henry Irwing came late to acting but outshone people who had been brought up in the theatre.

Shakespeare's skill wasn't in dreaming up stories and plots, if that's what you mean by 'plays' - he borrowed many of those, IMO his skill was a dramatist and wordsmith. I was so shocked when I heard his ideas were not always original. I thought all his plots and characterisation were a sign of his superior genius and entirely his own. Things are not always as they seem.

New developments in cognitive science seem to be ignored or disregarded by many, we all want to believe in talent. We all want to believe that some have been endowed with superior genetic gifts and that try as we might we can't catch them. It gives us an excuse and it often means we don't bother to try very hard, especially if something seems to be devilishly tricky. There are many myths about intelligence too as I have explored on here before. There are also good reasons why we cling to falsehoods about ability.

We still seem to subconsciously bar code children very young and it's this, more than anything else, that gets my blood pressure up. We stream for maths in our large primary in Y3 on Y2's performance. Sure you can move but the teachers have made some decisions about your inherent ability by then which may influence your progress going forward. A teacher told me that she has three children, high, low and middle ability, they are still young but this is her mindset. Her eldest is poor at english and everyone despaired but tried to help. People were shocked this was the case as she was a teacher. Her eldest is now perhaps going to get a B at GCSE in english. They are over the moon they imagined he was capable of far less. Surely if he can get a B he can get an A* why are they not aiming for more? Because he is 'low ability' that's why. They expect more from the other children and children have a habit of living up to our expectations. This is not to say I think everyone should become an academic, etc, etc.

I had a friend who, if we be believe in innate gifts/spark/talent, I'd say had far less than me. We were on the same degree course, she'd got very poor A'level grades (if this means anything) but just to give the back history. She studied, I mean really studied, read up on everything daily and for many hours. Eventually she had things off pat was bright enough to manipulate the information appropriately. She got a first I got a 2:1.

The fact is most are capable of more than they know. I wish I'd known it was possible to get incrementally better and I was capable of an A* at GCSE with the right amount of work.

Cortina, what is the point of an A if it takes you out of your comfort zone. Yes some people may get the A by working very hard, but it may give them qualifications to do a job them can't cope with on a day to day basis, because they can't think fast enough or have the intelligence to actually do the job.
Do you really want a not so bright doctor who has only got where he has by working twice as hard as others to get the same qualifications. You need someone who is quick witted and intelligent who can think on their feet, not a dullard hard worker.

Hmm, I'd argue not if we are talking about an entry level qualification like a GCSE.

Also recent developments in cognitive science have shown we can 'get smarter' but most seem to believe blindly in fixed ability and that we are prisoners of our genetic inheritance. Yet I know every day I get that bit smarter in my area of expertise.

If you can qualify as a GP for example surely you are smart enough to be a GP? As many have recently argued you only need to be 'smart enough' not an intellectual giant. I'd rather face a GP with EQ and a passion for the job, who was smart enough to qualify rather than a quicker witted person who had no empathy.

No one ever told me, throughout my school career, that you could actually get incrementally better at everything. Most seemed to think that certain children got to a point where they had reached their limit and would get out of their depth going forward. When I found something tough, where hitherto it had been easy for me, I assumed I just wasn't clever enough and had hit my ability ceiling. I walked out of an S level for this reason alone. If I had known about the growth mindset concept it also would have changed my life for the better.

I am not trying to argue all can be a rocket scientist merely that true genius is rare - how many realise that Shakespeare paraphrased and sometimes plagarised Plutarch? How many realise that genius inventors often have teams that support them and don't come up with ideas totally alone? Also I am trying to say that we are all capable of more than we know. My personal bugbear is when children are effectively written off very young.

Again it's interesting how IMO culturally we belittle and ascribe low status to hard work and effort, hard workers are 'dullards', the tortoises in the race not the glamorous hares.

No.

My personal bugbear is when children are effectively written off very young.

Of course, that's inexcusable.

However, there's no point pretending that we aren't all, to greater or lesser extents 'limited by our hardware' - not just size and leg muscle, but by what's inside our skulls. Now, I agree that all too many of us don't fulfil our true potential - but that potential does vary hugely between individuals, and within an individual (eg a dyslexic mathematician)

"However, there's no point pretending that we aren't all, to greater or lesser extents 'limited by our hardware' - not just size and leg muscle, but by what's inside our skulls. Now, I agree that all too many of us don't fulfil our true potential - but that potential does vary hugely between individuals, and within an individual (eg a dyslexic mathematician)"

Exactly Grimma

I used the word dullard to emphasize the fact they don't have the spark to think quickly and intelligently, there is plenty of room in this world for all types of intelligence. But the point is there some people who will never have the right type of intelligence to be a doctor . There is no point in this world making everyone A* level and holding back those who fly higher and faster.

You make the mistake of confusing intelligence with eduction, they are very different things. A degree doesn't necessarily make an intelligent person. I have worked with people who have obviously had the best education money can buy and probably had degrees, but they are as thick as two short planks and frustrating to work with.

The sad fact is that regardless of potential and intelligence, some children will never fulfil their potential due to lack of opportunity and money. Two kids, same intelligence, one goes to private school, ends up at Oxbridge, one goes to local comp ends up in Tesco/call centre. Even more so nowadays due to government policy.

Yes comp school kid can try harder but the disparity between teaching etc are remarkable. I'm talking about A level rather than GSCE.

As for 'talent' re athletics etc we can all run a marathon if we try hard enough, some will have it easier due to build but we can all do it.

I'm not aware that many (or any) people are being told they are "no good" at things early in life. So I have trouble with Syed's starting point. If that is a common msg, it needs to be altered, obviously.

I have a problem if people are set up for failed expectations, that is very demoralising. Much better to decide to do something (learn a language, jogging, play an instrument, time-trialling, whatever) just because you want to do it, and to improve as much as you personally can improve, not held up against other people's standards.

Cortina Wed 25-May-11 15:03:19
"Shakespeare's skill wasn't in dreaming up stories and plots, if that's what you mean by 'plays' - he borrowed many of those, IMO his skill was a dramatist and wordsmith. I was so shocked when I heard his ideas were not always original. I thought all his plots and characterisation were a sign of his superior genius and entirely his own. Things are not always as they seem. "

To me that doesn't prove anything. This is just how literature works and always has done. The ancients called it 'aemulatio'; taking a traditional theme and trying to go one better, to inject into it something that makes it different, more moving than all other works written on that theme. It does not preclude creative genius in any way. It's like the rules of say traditional poetry: provides a framework for people to exercise their particular creativity in. Lots of other dramatists used the same plots and they aren't all Shakespeare. I have read the tale Shakespeare based King Lear on- it is mildly amusing, without any of the tragic grandeur Shakespeare conveys in his play.

I can see where you are coming from, Cortina, and I think you are absolutely right in that there is a tragic waste of potential and that some of it, at least, is definitely classbound. It is quite simply wrong that someone should give up on themselves before they've even got started, because of expectations that come from outside and have nothing to do with their as yet unknown potential.

Having said that, I also see the other side of it: students who are led to believe that they can do anything if they only try hard enough, and who end up bewildered and betrayed and burned out. You get breakdowns, depression, occasional suicides. You end up with bitter, discontented academics who end up convinced that there is a conspiracy against them because they keep missing out on jobs and advancement to colleagues who don't work anything as hard as they do: what they cannot see is that Dr-Lackadaisical-Colleague actually wrote a better book.

So how would I like my own children to feel? I think as in everything else I would like there to be a balance.

My dd wants to be an actress which is a horrendously competitive field, even for somebody without her health problems. What I tell her is not that "you can reach anything if you only try hard enough and believe in yourself", that is unrealistic and the world is full of out-of-work actors to prove me wrong. Probably a fair few of them did believe in themselves or they wouldn't have tried acting in the first place.

What I do tell her is "You will be taking a risk. We cannot know yet if you have the kind of talent that will succeed. There is always an element of luck. You will certainly have to work hard in any case. You should make sure there is a Plan B. But if you want this enough- then go for it!"

I would say the same in the case of an academic career. No guarantees, but if you want it, try your hardest.

A little harder to know what to say to ds who has a chronic joint disorder but until recently wanted to be a footballer...

"You can be anything if you only try enough" is a blatant lie: "if You try hard enough you will end up permanently wheelchair bound" is probably nearer the truth. I tried to compromise, to point out that most boys who wish to become footballers don't make it, but that it's still a great interest to have, that you don't have to work with the thing you love most, but that if he brushes up on his other skills he might still be able to do something football related.

bidibidi, low expectations are a fact in many families and in some schools. I had a brilliant friend whose dad tried to stop her doing a PhD because he thought she was getting above herself. My SIL did everything she could to discourage my nieces and nephew from going on to HE- and she succeeded with all three of them. She also made it clear that she thought playing an instrument while still at school (heavily subsidised by school) was not worth while and that there shouldn't be too many books in the house, and encouraged her (very gifted) dd to choose the easiest Sixth Form options.

As for schools, we were shocked when we visited one local secondary before ds' application. All the other schools talked about a provision for both academic and more practically inclined students, they had talked about vocational and GCSEs, about support for SN and for extension work for gifted students and for every shade in between.

This school (an ordinary state secondary) only talked about vocational courses, hardly mentioned GCSEs at all, but were full of enthusiasm about some kind of blended programme in Yr 7 which would be less hard than the standard subject division. The impression we got from all the teachers we spoke to was that any pupil who came to them would be unlikely to be interested in getting good GCSE grades with an eye to higher education, so this wasn't really something they spent much time thinking about.

If ds hadn't been standing next to me, I would have piped up with "excuse me, our ds is very interested in further studies and hoping to go to Oxbridge, how would you support someone like him?" And I bet they wouldn't have had an answer.

I know they follow the national curriculum, but it is clear where their emphasis lies (and their GCSE results are some of the lowest in the country). Hundreds of local pupils have no choice but going to this school. Unless their parents have totally different expectations for them it will be very difficult for them to believe that they could possibly achieve Oxbridge. Of course they won't all be undiscovered geniuses. But a few of them might actually be quite bright-and they're never going to know.

Of course, there may also be children whose talent for plumbing or hairdressing is lost by being pushed along too academic a route (or by being the 'wrong' gender). Part of the problem is that children may perceive themselves as 'written off' if they aren't academically able - but they might be bloody good at something else, given the right environment.

How to devise a system which allows all to thrive is beyond me!

You have a point Grimma: two of my brothers had to put in quite a lot of effort to find their practical paths through life, coming from an academic family. Probably a similar effort to that put in by my grandfather to get an education coming from a poor rural background. They have all done well, but it took years for my eldest brother to find his way, and he has been left with a permanent sense of failure though actually he has done very well for himself in life. Not that my parents were not tolerant and liberal, not that they feel he has failed; just that it was very difficult for them to think outside the box.

I do think it's a disgrace, though, when a secondary school with several hundred pupils finds it difficult to envisage that some of those pupils might actually want to go on to university.

Hi Cory. I agree with much of what you say. Not sure about Shakespeare although I can see where you were coming from & agree that nothing is new etc, etc. Parts of Julius Caesar are paraphrase Plutarch however and try as I might I can't see the genius in that. I am not the world's greatest Shakespeare fan and that may well cloud my judgement :).

Saw your remark: "You will be taking a risk. We cannot know yet if you have the kind of talent that will succeed'' this makes me feel uncomfortable. I see what you mean, but I don't believe that there's a drama genome or a God given endowed talent for being an actress I am afraid. Some element of raw ability perhaps but then a lot is luck, leg work, possibly 'who you know' and from what I've seen recently how you look plays more of a part than it should. Does Kate Winslet have more of a God given 'talent' for being an actress than her lesser known actress sister? I don't think Angelina Jolie is a particularly good actress etc.

I think the words we use are important and can have a powerful impact so if me I might say 'You will be taking a risk, it's likely to be a difficult path and you are going to have to work very hard. There's no guarantee you will become a successful actress but by all means give it your best shot and see what happens'. I'd encourage my children to adopt a growth mindset come what may.

Sorry that should read paraphrase Plutarch not 'are paraphrase'. :).

Cortina, if you look into any major author (or minor, for that matter) you will find that they build on what went before. You'd be writing off most of world literature. The same goes for composers; can't think of any major composer who doesn't borrow from others: does that mean they are none of them any good? Virgil paraphrases Homer, Homer builds on an older oral tradition etc etc.

When it comes to drama, perhaps I (and dd) have a different perception of what success actually means. For us, it would mean actually acting well, making a difference to the people who watch, feeling that you had done a good job, not just earning lots of money whilst acting badly. Getting a part in a film would not satisfy dd unless she felt she could do it well. SO the kind of success you can get from contacts (not that she has those) simply wouldn't be a success she could understand.

It's the same with my academic job: I need to feel that my writing is good and that it makes a difference to my field; the title and money are less important. I wouldn't swop the book I am about to publish- about which I feel moderately confident- for a title and a chair and people muttering behind my back 'of course she's not actually that good, but she has contacts'.

Re building on what went before - and scientists: 'If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants' - Isaac Newton.

But with the same body of knowledge available (and small enough at that stage for many educated people to have read just about everything), only Newton wrote Principa.

Its not an either/or - to be great in most serious disciplines you have to put in the graft and have some added spark.

I understand this Cory, the skill comes from the re-working, interpretation etc. I think there are instances with Julius Caesar though where the 'borrowing' constitutes rejigging word order and paraphrasing, this play was certainly far less original than I'd ever realised. Shakespeare isn't the best example but people like to believe in genius which IMO isn't always about genetic endowment.

Yes, I also see what you mean, re: acting I was going off on a tangent and missing the point. I still say there's no drama genome and there's no writing genome for that matter. By the way Matthew Syed has answered the questions posted on the secondary education thread, well worth a look. Be interested in your perspective.

Grimma, Matthew Syed says 'environment overwhelms genetic variation due to the transformation that occurs at a neural level with hard work. Our brains are highly transformable' - is it not possible to so become 'talented' and so develop a 'spark'? I once read something that said 'cells that grow together glow together' which explained how we can effectively 'switch on' part of our brains and so get smarter in this way. Perhaps some we see as 'talented' have unwittingly done this?

Maybe. Not convinced - would be interested to know the basis for that 'overwhelms' claim, as I thought most of the evidence in the nature vs nurture debate tended to 'Its both'.