Ability and Work, this time from Brooks
I first ran into David Brooks when I got Bobos In Paradise
Since then I’ve mainly gotten him mediated through James K.A. Smith’s blog, though recently I started subscribing to his NYT columns via Google Reader.
Ah, yes.? The topic at hand.? In the vein of Malcolm Gladwell and more recently of Paul Spears’s blog post, Brooks points to current theories of genius that have more to do with deliberate practice than with any Romantic-style poetic potency:
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It?s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it?s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
I don’t have much to add to this account other than to say that, although I certainly don’t think myself a genius, this theory bears out on a smaller level with regards to the meager abilities I have.? It’s also nice to see some conservatives, who as a group tend to be rather hung up on genetic differences (more often with regards to gender but also with regards to ability), talking about human nature as itself plastic.? (It’s also nice to see Coleridge’s sense of plastic in modern prose):
Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this process. This research takes some of the magic out of great achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we?re ?hard-wired? to do. And it?s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. As Coyle observes, it?s not who you are, it?s what you do.
As some of you likely know, my short posts lately have much to do with the semester’s end.? I’ll likely start producing some more substantial material after my grades go into the registrar’s database.
by