Not that I think this will ever turn me into a great writer, but that this will make my writing better. Haven't read that book yet, so I'm not sure if the argument is based solely on hours-on-task or if there is a combination of innate skills plus hours-on-task that leads to the heights of excellence. I heard in an excerpt that top performers in given fields don't have the best IQs - there's no benefit after a score of about 120. That suggests that intelligence (or the IQ measure of it) is not a key factor. I believe that there is a balance between innate skills, intelligence and practise. Someone that posses innate abilities but cannot be challenged at the right time will never explore the heights of their skills. If an individual cannot remain engaged, they won't put in the time necessary. This can be easily demonstrated with sports and the development of athletes - for example women's hockey. Canada and the US have the two best teams and the two best programs. The "program"is more than the identification and training of skilled athletes, it's the large number of teams for women to play in and the hierarchy of competitive tiers. Countries without a wide infrastructure at the youngest ages don't cast the net very wide. If there is lots of amateur play, but no tiers of increasing skill, the best players continue to play with the same set of teammates and opponents and are never challenged. In Canada, women's hockey benefited from the existing hockey infrastructure - arenas, coaches, lots of people interested in the sport. I believe (but do not know for sure) that in the US there are not as many amateur players, but good players are moved into more competitive leagues very effectively. Other countries have excellent players, but their players may play at a skill level so far above their teammates that they aren't challenged during training. That and other countries may not identify some of the truly skilled players because of this lack of infrastructure.
Long digression, but still see the balance between these items as being as important as any single factor. Even the examples I've heard from Outliers (Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Wayne Gretzky) have that balance - all have innate skills, but access to certain resources (to allow the magic time to practise) and a place to apply the items were very fortuitous. This is why we don't have people who simply spend thousands of hours making it. If that were so, the pop charts would be clogged with the many skilled musicians that simply never made it "big" for whatever reason. Looking at the issue from the other way - why did skilled, smart individuals not make it? - I guess that's why I'm arguing for the multiple factors. Skill, focus and situational opportunity are the combo. Skill is obvious - innate abilities sharpened through practise and refinement. Situational opportunity are those things that can be called "right-place-right-time". For Bill Gates, it was access to computer time when computers were rare and highly specialized. For Bill Joy, it was arriving at Berkeley at the right time to be able to contribute to Unix and then found Sun. Wayne Gretzky it was being part of the Canadian amateur hockey system that allowed him to compete against much older children so that he could challenge his own skills.
All this argument shows a bias forged in experience and undergraduate psychology courses - when there are several possible answers, the best (or right) answer is usually a combination of those possibilities. When you are looking at phenomenon that is identified and studied in a scientific manner, the possible answers reflect the people creating hypotheses. To explore a topic, an hypothesis is created and then tested. Each individual may emphasize some items and overlook others so the initial hypothesis may not encompass the whole picture. At around the same time, a different person explores the same phenomenon and starts with a different hypothesis. Once research and testing show a hypothesis is valid, it is difficult to change people's minds about it, so sides develop that stick with one idea over the other. Finally this is resolved when someone creates a hypothesis that incorporates both ideas and shows that it is true. Similarly, experience shows conflicts are generally nuanced enough that it isn't as simple as one side over the other. So that's my bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment