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...

Hmmm. I think it is true that "gifted" is often just hard work and plenty of practice in disguise.

More useful a measure of intelligence is the speed with which you can grasp new concepts. Some children/students just have to be told something once and that's it, they take it and run with it. In others it unfolds more slowly, if at all.

The other point is sheer style. Take Shakespeare. He may have reworked ideas but it is in his use of language that his genius shines through. It really is remarkable.

When anyone, a sportsperson, an author, an artist or a poet is able to easily fall into this "zone of genius" they just ooze a kind of magnetic, authentic quality that no amount of word perfect, note perfect trying is going to make happen.

Grimma - Matthew's Q&A session is worth a view on secondary education.

I thought the fundamental thing about Shakespeare was his grasp of humanity combined with his ability to express this. A lot of the plots are pretty naff TBH, they're just vehicles.

Wildstrawberries - what do you think is the cause of the 'zone of genius' you describe or this innate IQ? Superior wiring in the brain, genetic inheritance? Is it not possible that we can transform our brain over time 'the cells that glow together, grow together' or something like that, see Matthew Syed's comments I quoted a couple of posts back. Recent developments in cognitive science seem to show we really can 'develop' our brain, new neural pathways can be laid/brain plasticity etc.

Do you enter the 'zone of genius' (as you describe it) only if you have confidence and flair to back up your talent?

If there is no writing genome, Cortina, how do you account for the fact that out of the great number of people who attend creative writing courses and/or spend all their spare time writing, only a very few turn out something that other people can recognise as really good? Most of the stuff that ends up in publishers' slush piles is not actually very good writing. You would expect there to be more writers of genius, given how many people dedicate serious time and effort to writing. How come people can write 50 novels and never develop that spark?

Of course any writer can improve. I am a better writer, in my very limted way, than I was 20 years ago. But I am not like the really great ones in my field and perhaps I never will be.

btw Grimma, the dwarfs on the shoulders of giants quote is John of Salisbury (12th century), though no guarantee he did not snitch it from someone else. As people do.

To be a truly brilliant writer I think you need a high quality basic education, you need also need to be absolutely passionate about your craft possibly to the point of obsession. Those who write well are often voracious readers of many different types of literature. Writers are often incredibly disciplined behind the scenes. David Mitchell who wrote the brilliant Black Swan Green (and is better known for Cloud Atlas) spent many hours, weeks, months and even longer searching for exactly the right word within a sentence. He likened his craft to precision engineering and was absolutely meticulous and driven. That was just when he was looking for the right word and doesn't include the endless drafting and redrafting, working on plot and characterisation etc.

It's all too easy to pick up one of his books, think it's well written and Mitchell's talented without realising the 'hidden practice' that's gone on behind the scenes. The more he does this perhaps the more his brain makes connections and his ability grows, he's broken down the the craft of writing into many different stages. He's far more driven than the average writer I'd argue, few would spend months looking for the best possible word ever to go into a sentence etc.

Lauren St John the children's writer some may be familiar with (White Giraffe, Dead Man's Cove) is well thought of. Curiously she uses what Enid Blyton termed her 'under mind' to write. This is when you are able to lull yourself into a almost trance like state and you give no conscious thought to your words at all, the narrative pours from you and you pause only to laugh at a comment one of your character's made. Blyton once said she could never think up something as amusing as some of her characters could. This technique, which I can sometimes harness just as I am drifting off to sleep, often makes for brilliant writing. So a different technique, but one that some seem to be able to harness. Perhaps this is the spark you speak of? Enid Blyton (whom not all rate I know :) ) was very unhappy during childhood and she used to wind down by using the 'cinema screen' in her mind, she trained herself to do it. If you can tap into your inner cinema screen as I've said I think it makes for powerful, less stilted writing. The few books Enid wrote 'consciously' are far poorer for it. I may be on shaky ground if I hold Enid up as an example of a 'good writer' but she is/was undeniably a popular one.

A great, successful journalist friend of mine had read every children's classic at her school in India by the age of 11, the expectations were high and her basic education sound. She was on fire when she joined our school at 11, 'difficult' literature left her undaunted (it threw the rest of us), she had no TV at home so she read, and read, the best novelists and poets. When she wrote she blew us away. Was she born a great writer? I don't think so.

To be a truly brilliant writer I think you need a high quality basic education, you need also need to be absolutely passionate about your craft possibly to the point of obsession. Those who write well are often voracious readers of many different types of literature. Writers are often incredibly disciplined behind the scenes. David Mitchell who wrote the brilliant Black Swan Green (and is better known for Cloud Atlas) spent many hours, weeks, months and even longer searching for exactly the right word within a sentence. He likened his craft to precision engineering and was absolutely meticulous and driven. That was just when he was looking for the right word and doesn't include the endless drafting and redrafting, working on plot and characterisation etc.

It's all too easy to pick up one of his books, think it's well written and Mitchell's talented without realising the 'hidden practice' that's gone on behind the scenes. The more he does this perhaps the more his brain makes connections and his ability grows, he's broken down the the craft of writing into many different stages. He's far more driven than the average writer I'd argue, few would spend months looking for the best possible word ever to go into a sentence etc.

Lauren St John the children's writer some may be familiar with (White Giraffe, Dead Man's Cove) is well thought of. Curiously she uses what Enid Blyton termed her 'under mind' to write. This is when you are able to lull yourself into a almost trance like state and you give no conscious thought to your words at all, the narrative pours from you and you pause only to laugh at a comment one of your character's made. Blyton once said she could never think up something as amusing as some of her characters could. This technique, which I can sometimes harness just as I am drifting off to sleep, often makes for brilliant writing. So a different technique, but one that some seem to be able to harness. Perhaps this is the spark you speak of? Enid Blyton (whom not all rate I know :) ) was very unhappy during childhood and she used to wind down by using the 'cinema screen' in her mind, she trained herself to do it. If you can tap into your inner cinema screen as I've said I think it makes for powerful, less stilted writing. The few books Enid wrote 'consciously' are far poorer for it. I may be on shaky ground if I hold Enid up as an example of a 'good writer' but she is/was undeniably a popular one.

A great, successful journalist friend of mine had read every children's classic at her school in India by the age of 11, the expectations were high and her basic education sound. She was on fire when she joined our school at 11, 'difficult' literature left her undaunted (it threw the rest of us), she had no TV at home so she read, and read, the best novelists and poets. When she wrote she blew us away. Was she born a great writer? I don't think so.

In terms of acting, there is no doubt that there are many very able actors, sometimes very charismatic actors, who do not get wide recognition or "success" and this may well be down to chance/luck/contacts/drive/determination. However, there are also many actors who contstantly strive, work hard, practise, know how to use their voice and their body but don't have charisma. Some of these actors will be in work, because they have a good work ethic and great determination. They might be regarded as successful, but if you put them alongside a charismatic actor I maintain that you will see a difference. A spark. A certain something. I do believe that some people have an inbuilt talent/aptitude for certain things.

I know lots and lots of young people who want to be actors. I try to be encouraging but realistic when I am talking to them. There will be some of them who have a "certain something" - I think it's really clear - they will have an advantage over others, but it will certainly not bring guaranteed success.

As others have said, I think the best we can do for young people in education is to try to help them find what they can enjoy and excel at (or at least do well enough) - I do not think we should suggest that anyone can achieve anything if they try hard enough, because I just don't think that's true. Encouraging people to try is one thing, urging people to go on and on trying is not always a kind or sensible thing to do IMO.

I think it has probably got something to do with looping between right and left brain hemispheres. I think it is definitely the case that with further research we will find ways of improving our capacities.

One of the things that is interesting to me is the fact that many "spiritual exercises" practised in the mystical branches of the major religions (ie for example sufism, not mainstream religion) turn out to be methods of training the brain towards right hemisphere dominance, or at least some form of training to do with right/left hemisphere use. I mean if you can "create" a mystical sense of oneness or experience of "god" by practising exercises to do with right/left brain, then the sky is the limit, right?

But the "zone of genius" I mentioned...I think that these people are conduits. Probably sound like a crackpot, but it's all about chanelling the creative force I think, and maybe some people are just a better instrument for whatever reason - the way a violin will sound different depending on the wood, the way it is carved, the age of it, the skill of the carver and the player. It's complex. I don't think there is any formula for genius.

Definitely to do with creativity though - even the best maths/science genius is creative - it's what makes them stand out.

OK, well I'll have to take issue with the use of David Mitchell as an example of a great writer - I think he's a prime example of style over substance.

Cortina - the "spark"? - I think people are born with that. Doris Lessing (now there's a great writer for you!) said she became the writer she was because of what she read as a child and the way she read it, voraciously, fearlessly - similar to your journalist friend - but there are countless people who've had a similar education or background but they don't have the same "talent". Those who are able to launch off into greatness bring to the same equation something else don't they?

Black Swan Green is v good indeed I think. Have you read it?

V interesting re: brain Strawberries. Haven't read much Lessing but would agree, must read more. I think a brilliant writer has a compulsion, they write in their heads, they might jot daily, they have an overpowering urge. I was good at creative writing as a child, the only thing I could vaguely excel at and I wanted to do more and more, I wrote on the bus, I wrote in the bathroom etc :) A born skill? More a developed passion that sparks from early praise or a deep interest. When this coincides with an eccentricity - which has developed because everyone avoids you & thinks you bonkers :) - you begin to create something different, original. If you've got a solid education/grounding too and you are reading voraciously you might produce something noteworthy & be described as having a 'talent'.

I don't know the truth about this either way (though I'm leaning towards the growth model), but I think some of the arguments in favour of innate ability that have been posited above are flawed.

First of all, 'success' is not the same as 'talent'; there are lots of seemingly talented people, with 'spark', that are not successful in their chosen field and vice versa.

Secondly, in order to be gifted at, say, music, it is not necessarily the case that a person is innately able; it's also not necessarily the case that they have spent hours upon hours working on that particular skill. Other skills could conceivably build up the required neuron pathways, so they could appear to be geniuses when in actual fact the skill is very much learned - but in other contexts. IYSWIM.

We know that genetic variation exists and manifests itself in our 'hardware', and obviously lots of people are limited by the hardware they end up with. Some people, on the other hand, have the perfect hardware required to do the job. That, along with dedication, is what we term 'sporting talent'.

The growth model rests on the assumption that we all have the same 'intelligence hardware' at birth. The crux of the matter, and the reason we can't answer this definitively at this point in time, is whether or not intelligence is a function of your 'hardware', or whether 'software' is more important.

To labour the computer metaphor further, I think it's probably a bit of both. Hardware limits software. You can't run Windows Vista on an old BBC computer.

btw Grimma, the dwarfs on the shoulders of giants quote is John of Salisbury (12th century), though no guarantee he did not snitch it from someone else. As people do.

Its surely the one quote which logically ought to be reused!

Freerange - I like your last analogy!

To be a truly brilliant writer I think you need a high quality basic education,

I'm not sure what your definition of 'a truly brilliant writer' is,; what would you make of John Clare ?

Grimma - I know very little about John Clare and enjoyed reading that, thank you. In his case I would argue that he certainly has the passion & obsessional qualities I've described and these probably trump the lack of education.

Also freerange like the analogy too. I also like Guy Claxton's theory that the genetic component of 'intelligence' can be compared to the size of a kitchen cooker. You may have three cooking rings and a single oven, someone else may have four rings and two ovens. This means that in theory the owner of the first oven has limits due to his 'hard wear'. In practice the quality and variety of the food is down to many different factors, how interested you are in cooking, the recipe books owned, how daring and adventurous you are, if you have someone who you can call for advice etc - your 'software'. Neither cook is at the limit of their cooking 'potential'. Any differences in the meals will be down to levels of support, interest and experience rather more than the additional of another ring or fan assisted oven.

verlaine I am often told mu DD has that quality you speak of in her acting. It's a basic energy that she is able to put over effectively.

I wonder whether this might be genetic as I'm a writer, and the one thing everyone says about me is that I have a very distictive writerly voice. All my projects have a certain energy.

I see so many would-be writers who have done courses til they are coming out of their ears, they have read every book in the world, they are technically very very good...but the spark is missing.

Now don't get me wrong, I have to work buggary hard, and I know heaps of writers who are better than I but have got precisiely no-where because they don't put in the graft..and DD too does, and will have to work very hard if she wants to make a career as ana actress...but we both have something to build on iyswim.

I've seen the would-be writers that lack the spark overtake those 'sparky' ones too many times. I've seen them develop or find their own writing niche. Sometimes that 'writing niche' becomes a spark over time. Many of the sparky, creative, rather brilliant people I know could be described as ' a porsche with half a gallon of petrol', often they're still in bed at noon but perhaps that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation? Perhaps 'sparky' people know they are so sometimes rest on their laurels, the tortoise and the hare?

I think that the cooking analogy is a fair one. But would also add that some cooks simply have a better palate than others.

My SIL's seasoning is always immaculate, my husband's is very hit and miss. He has spent far more time poring over recipes than she has, he has a far larger collection, we grow our own produce. She only started cooking after her marriage, he has been taking a keen interest in it for 30 years. And still ends up putting together combinations that nobody likes or that are just a bit dull. Or getting the seasoning almost right but not quite.

I agree that spark on its own is not enough: you've got to have the cooking utensils, you've got to spend that time chopping and parboiling and trying out new recipes, you've got to read up on techniques. But you also have got to have the ability to feel when the broth is absolutely right.

I'd say the moral is "you are never at the limit of your cooking potential". But that may not be in the same place as somebody else's cooking potential.

Agree Cory but the point is many say 'no point, only got one oven and an old ring'. I know someone who worked with Jamie Oliver, he is a talented chef and rather bitter at what he considers Jamie Oliver's lack of innate cooking ability. He says he always had far more talent.

Some people undeniably have a 'talent' for self-promotion!

Going back to sport... this morning on Today there was something about spin bowling. I know bugger all about cricket but it sure sounded like you had to have a 'gift' for it.

Oh absolutely agree with that, Cortina: if you don't try to push against your limits you'll stay where you are.

And I would agree that it's far more important to concentrate on that aspect: after all, that is the bit you can do something about.

I just hate it when people can't cope with failure because they've been led to believe that if you want something enough then failure can't happen. If it does then it's got to be your own fault for not trying hard enough.

But fully agree that you can't spend your time thinking in terms of failure.

freerangeeggs - you're right, success isn't the same as talent, but of course people will use those examples because it's more likely that everyone will know who they are talking about.

I think in terms of education the key is to allow people to fulfill themselves to the best of their ability and encourage confidence in all areas, keeping people's horizons open rather than narrowing them down.

I've just read the Q&A - v. interesting. I am loving this thread too. Quick question to those of you much more knowledgable than me on such subjects: Can telling our DC that they are 'clever' actually inhibit a growth mindset?