This is an interesting article
What if talent is not just a meaningless concept, but a corrosive one; robbing ourselves and our children of the incentive to work hard and excel?
Chris.
Excellent read!! Thank you for sharing. This is not the first time I have head that London Taxi Cab driver study referenced and it really stuck with me when I initially heard it. It goes to show that old dogs CAN learn new tricks! lol Or new languages as the case may be.
I like this one. Thanks for sharing. I have been praising effort in a number of areas my girls excel at. Interestingly, in reelection the areas that they are finding more difficult and showing less enthusiasm for are areas i have NOT been praising them for effort.
It’s easy to praise effort when your kids are out in front, there is often little else to praise them for if they are already excelling. Well I find that anyway. I shall take this on board and work towards noticing and encouraging the effort. I have seen this work already just hadn’t managed to put it together and know why!
Thanks a lot, Chris1, for sharing that article. It inspired me to go in search of author Mathew Syed’s book ‘Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice’.
One thing then led to the other. I decided to check reviews of the book on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, and then learnt from the reviews that similar concepts were explored in 3 other books:
a) Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell
b) The Talent Code: Greatness isn’t born. It’s grown, by David Coyle
c) Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin.
I have ordered all 4 books, some from the library, and I’m reading ‘Talent is Overrated’ now. Seriously, I have been very, very inspired by ‘Talent is Overrated’, and it is given me the impetus to put in my 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve excellence in what I do. Further, I now know what it will take to get my kids outstanding in whatever they decide to do: practice, practice, and practice. The book demystified the concepts of ‘genius’ and ‘talented’. I hope the other 3 books will be as inspiring.
Thanks again. Just one of the reasons I love, love, and love this forum - you learn a lot every day.
This was very interesting to me. I often have to remind myself to be praising my daughter’s efforts. Even at her young age I can see a difference in her willingness to keep trying something when I praise effort, not results. I needed this reminder!!
Nee1-
One more fantastic book in the same area (you will actually find it referenced heavily in Syed’s book!) is the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-The-New-Psychology-Success/dp/0345472322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333235848&sr=8-1
She (Carol Dweck) is the researcher mentioned in the Independent article that conducted the praise experiments…
One thing I found fantastic. She offers advice on how to effectively praise a child, especially when they blaze through something with little difficulty:
“Whoops, I guess that was too easy! I apologize for wasting your time. Let’s do something you can really learn from,”
I have modified this a bit for my two-year-old, saying" oh, silly Mommy made a mistake and gave you too many easy ones! I forgot you need to have some harder ones to learn from!"
It has worked miracles…I even made myself a large poster for the first week or so to remind myself how to give proper, encouraging responses rather than mindless, generic praise. Silly, maybe, but you don’t realize just how ingrained it is until you actively start monitoring your own responses!
Chris1-
Thanks for the article reference! Hubby has printed it out to pass out at the beginning of college level chemistry classes…I think he is just so tired of students coming through expecting an A because they are ‘smart’ and shouldn’t actually have to work at it!
I requested Bounce from my local library about 2 months ago, I just found out I was number 27 on the list to read it! Who would have thaught it would be so popular? I think I shall just buy it!
Ilike that " sorry it was too esy, mummy wasted your time" I wish the teachers at school would use it! I know I will be!
Mandaplus3, here is a pdf preview of Syed’s book ‘Bounce’ - http://www.waterstones.com/wat/images/special/pdf/9780007350520.pdf
Note: ‘Bounce: How Champions Are Made’ is a previous edition of new renamed book ‘Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice’. At least that is what Amazon.co.uk showed me. So when buying, get ‘Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice’.
Anyway, when I read the above preview, I knew I just had to get the whole book. Syed was once Britain’s number-one tennis player, an Olympian, winner at Commonwealth games, etc., so he sure knows what separates world class players from everyone else.
Kerileanne99, I recently got ‘Mindset: the New Psychology of Success’ by Carol Dweck but I’m yet to read it. But I know it will be as good as the other books. I’m currently soaking up the ideas in ‘Talent is Overrated’ but I’ll get to ‘Mindset’ soonest. Thank you so much. Any other recommendations?
This is a great thread. I read Bounce a couple of years ago and was very inspired by it. What I thought was really interesting was how it seems to be essential to acheiving greatness in any arena that the individual must become self-motivated to do so themselves, i.e. it can’t just be being pushed by someone else, so I came away thinking about ways to help motivate my children to become self-directed learners in any area they are interested in. And whilst it seems that if anyone is willing to put in the 10,000 hours of the right type of practice (which is by definition boring at times and always pushing at the edges of areas that you are not so competent in) that they can become great, it also seemed to me that there are actually fairly few people who are determined and motivated enough to put in this amount of time into any one (or more?!) areas, and perhaps it is this mindset and determination / willingness to practice and not giving up, which is the most important key to success.
Kerileanne99 - thanks for this suggestion - I have just ordered Carol Dweck’s book from Amazon (although I think it has been republished with a slightly new title: Mindset: How You Can Fulfil Your Potential but I think it is the same book - hope so!!) I have really been looking for ways to translate these theories into practice in communicating with my kids. Can’t wait to read it!
Hi lzp11,
I found interesting insights in a booklet titled ‘How children learn’, one of the FREE publications of UNESCO. Link previously posted by Ayesha Nicole (Thank you so much, Ayesha): http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/services/online-materials/publications/educational-practices.html. Scroll down to the booklet ‘How children learn’ and download the pdf file.
By the way, I highly recommend all the UNESCO booklets on that web page. They contain some of the best information on teaching and motivating young children and will be useful to everyone: homeschoolers, afterschoolers, and all of us early learning parents.
Anyway, here goes the quotation on page 23 of ‘How children learn’:
``Research shows that people must carry out a great deal of practice to acquire expertise in an area. Even small differences in the amount of time during which people are exposed to information can result in large differences in the information they have acquired. Cognitive psychologists Chase & Simon (1973) studied chess experts and found that they had often spent as many as 50,000 hours practising chess. A 35-year-old chess master who has spent 50,000 hours playing chess must have spent four to five hours on the chessboard from the age of 5 every day for thirty years! Less accomplished players have spent considerably less time playing chess.
Research shows that the reading and writing skills of highschool students relate to the hours they have spent on reading and writing. Effective reading and writing requires a lot of practice. Students from disadvantaged environments who have less opportunities to learn and who miss school because of work or illness will not be expected to do as well at school compared to children who had more time to practice and acquire information.’’
The above quote proves again the power of practice!
Nee1 thanks for the link I have read that this morning and will download the ebook to finish the rest of the book in the next few days. I am on a research kick because I have a decision to make…
So the other side of the coin…thinking out loud and rambling most likely lol
My oldest age 8 is a very good gymnast for her age, the others at her level are 3 years older minimum at her current club. Her coach has just quit. We don’t like the replacement coach, he doesn’t push her or praise her enough. Both of us think that not just me 
soooo our choices are decide to take it all more seriously and sign up to a professional club which is 40 mins away and requires 9 hours training a week minimum. ( three car trips there and back) Or sign up to another recreational club closer and do two ( hopefully) classes a week (4 hours) for the next year or two and let her decide when she is older. My daughter loves gymnastics and would happily train 3 hours almost every day. But she is 8! I feel three hours of anything that physical at 8 Is too much. I have 3 children if she was an only child the decision would be easier. Is it right to set a child on a path to greatness knowing the stakes are so high? It’s a very competitive field, she is good at lots of things…should I look for something less demanding? Is it right to chase greatness from so young? Knowing you can shave hours off the 10000 hours by starting young, should we? If by doing so we cut other opportunities. From very young we have known she was very physically capable and encouraged her extra practice of physical skills so would I be wrong to deny her the opportunity for greatness?
Probably this year we will sign up for the professional club and commit to a year and reassess later.
You thoughts?
Hi Mandaplus3,
-
I recently read in a book titled ‘Genius Explained’ by Michael Howe that most child prodigies (e.g., Mozart) had already completed most of their 10,000 hours of practice by late childhood; hence they were able to be adult geniuses quickly. And it had nothing to do with talent - Mozart was possibly practicing 3 hours a day by age 3, hence by teenagehood, he had perfected his practice. Hence, starting a child out early may help because the child will already have most of his 10,000 hours of practice completed by late childhood or teenagehood, and is more likely to become an adult genius.
-
But the question lies with motivation. Is the child intrinsically motivated to put in the hours? Or is the motivation solely extrinsic, i.e., coming mostly from the parent? That is the issue Michael Howe addresses in another book of his titled ‘Principles of Ability and Human Learning’. He also talks about ‘locus of control’ in this second book, in which if the child feels he has an internal locus of control, he performs better, but if he feels his life is in someone else’s hand (external locus of control), he does not do as well. I cannot say it as well as Michael Howe so if you get the books from the library and read it for yourself, so much better. So for example, when I read the preview of ‘Bounce’ I gave above, I saw a lot of intrinsic motivation in Mathew Syed, one of the things Howe calls achievement motivation in the book ‘Principles of Ability and Human Learning’ .
-
So by reading Howe’s books, I’ve know how to balance things up. I know the extents to encourage, support, foster independence, sustain motivation, and so on. And I am still learning a lot each day, so my insights at this point are still forming. And once again, I strongly recommend the UNESCO booklets- you will learn a lot and possibly be able to make a decision from reading them. Howe (with colleague Sloboda) is one of researchers frequently cited in the nature vs nuture debate, he believes so much in nurture, and I do take on board so much of what he says. See one of his articles ‘Is innate talent a myth’ at http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/howe.innate.html.
-
And maybe read ‘Bounce’. It will give you lots of insights into the world of sports and early practice and how athletes maintain motivation.
-
And read this news article where 8 year old, Zoihab Ahmed, was the youngest to score A* grades at UK A level maths. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7941327.stm and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4979604/Nine-year-old-becomes-youngest-ever-to-pass-A-level-maths-with-Grade-A.html.
Alongside his brother, they became the youngest kids in the UK to get A* grades at A level maths . See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1164614/Britains-cleverest-family-They-got-maths-A-levels-primary-school--thanks-hours-study-night-75p-Dad.html. (Note, this reporter appears biased against early learning, so read with discernment).
And the parents keep insisting that it was not due to genes, but diligence and interest. Watch an interview AND read the testimonial from the boys’ parents at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/child-genius/articles/video-interview-with-wajih-and-zohaibs-parents. INSPIRING! -
So, from the article, you see the advantage of an early start. When those boys’ IQ were tested during Channel 4 Child Genius programme, IQ tests said they were highly gifted. The boys’ father insisted during the documentary that he disagreed, they were not gifted, they simply started learning mathematics at an early age, making them become very bright. I believe him. Otherwise, what is the possibility of having 2 child prodigies (your only 2 children) in one family? Further when people say kids cannot learn math at an early age because they are not developmentally ready, I smile.
Thanks for lots more interesting reading Nee1 - this will keep me busy for a while lol
Manda - I understand your conflicting thoughts. I’ve often reflected on what it takes to become very proficient (whether you want to call it ‘genius’ or not) at any activity or sport and I can’t help think that there are huge benefits but also some costs involved. So it is really about weighing all of those up and trying to work out for your daughter and family what is the best road. And of course those benefits and costs might be in conflict between different family members (e.g. the time spent travelling to sports engagements might take time away from others in the family). When you hear about amazing young sportsmen and women then almost always there is a very proud and supportive parent standing right behind them. Who has often made many sacrifices of their own - for example I know of a supportive mum who gave up work to drive her son around Europe in a campervan all year to compete in various competitions (I think it might have been canoeing but I might be wrong). Of course by starting early then you get a jump ahead with the number of hours, but that is providing the hours of training are continually progressive and always stretching outside the comfort zone so it can be tiring physically and emotionally. Also, to reach 10,000 hours in one thing, that means a lot of time spent NOT doing other activities. Some people might very legitimately choose to spend less time on a wider range of activities and might prefer to develop a broad range of abilities across lots of different areas.
I hope I’m not coming across as too negative here - actually I’m not at all, but just trying to be balanced. My own personality is quite driven to find the most challenging route and achieve the very best that I’m able to - in some ways that has been great and has really benefited me in terms of some of my achievements that I’m most proud of. But this can be quite tough at times. So I don’t want to automatically assume that being the best is the best thing for everyone.
It sounds like your daughter is very naturally talented at gymnastics and perhaps also (based on the theories discussed here) even more importantly she has practiced and worked hard to achieve such a high level at a young age. It sounds like she loves it and this is a huge part of what will motivate her to continue to perhaps a really high level if she wants to. If she is happy then that must be one of the most important things? 3 hours does sound a lot, having said that at many sports academies they might do the same or more at that age. As long as she has sufficient time to do all her other activities (i know you do a lot with all your children) without getting exhausted or injured then you know you are getting the balance right. Is it mainly the travel time? What would you decide if the competetive club was right on your doorstep? And do you think she will continue to thrive and love the sport in the more competitive atmosphere? This is again down to personality and how much internal pressure she might feel.
I don’t think you can make a wrong decision as long as you remain flexible and notice what’s working and what isn’t and then change if something needs fixing. Let us know how you get on! Good luck!
I have not read as much as some of you on this subject–I haven’t even read all of this thread, I confess…but…
What about twin studies of IQ? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that expertise doesn’t require practice or that “genius,” whatever that is, is the result of practice and passion as much as anything “inborn.” I’m also not saying that there is no point in doing early learning (obviously I think this is time very well spent!). The final quote in the article is apropos: “It’s the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school,” he says. “Not what you need to do well in life.”
All I’m saying is that the mental facility we associate with high IQ is mostly genetic. I haven’t yet seen any data that indicates that IQ can be increased by any special type of educational methods. If Wikipedia can be trusted 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ then the APA said the heritability of IQ in children was 0.45 and then a 2004 meta-analysis said that it was 0.85. This indicates that children can exhibit much more variation (they can test much lower or much higher than their parents) but by the time they are adults, their IQs closely resemble their parents’.
From this I conclude that, while extremely useful, improving IQ can’t be the main reason we do early education. I wouldn’t be surprised if certain early activities do improve IQ–just not very much. I think we are justified in doing it in order to increase knowledge and judgment over the long term–things that I think are more important, actually, than IQ–and to improve cognitive processing only marginally.
very interesting discussion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1131149
Children’s resemblance to their biological and adopting parents in two ethnic groups.
(2) there was no significant correlation between the midparent social-education rank of the adopting parents and their adopted children’s IQ, and (3) there was a strong correlation between the midparent social-education rank of the biological parents and their children’s individual intelligence ranks.
Currently I am reading "Talent is overrated. Thank you Chris1!
Here I read that IQ often does not correlate with outstanding performance and with “talent”, so all of you are right
DadDude,
-
I disagree. IQ is changeable, very changeable. Check out Michael Howe’s book ‘IQ in Question’, where he resolves some of those questions. For example, during HeadStart programs, the kids’ IQ increased. Other early intervention programs have also showed improvements in IQ. But note, the programs were not originally made out to increase IQ, so IQ increments were mostly a by-product. But it once again proves that IQ is not static. It improves with exposure, schooling, and environment. And again, Michael Howe discusses this in-depth in that book.
-
People may say, some studies showed that some of the IQ changes did fade, yes, some faded, because the duration of the programs were too short, some were about 2-5 hours a week for some months, amounting to about 60 hours in all, nowhere close to the 10000 hours required for expertise in a subject. Besides, the kids did not get to use the newly acquired knowledge at home. Remember, these kids were already from disadvantaged homes with low educational exposure. So, as with any skill, you use it or you lose it. And then, the schools some of those kids attended afterwards were not even up to par. So whatever they learnt during the HeadStart intervention programs, faded away. That was what then motivated researchers Hart and Risley to go in search of answers. What they found, they published in their seminal book ‘Meaningful differences in the lives of American Children’. Below is a summary of the book as published in American Educator. The article is titled: ‘The Early Catastophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3’- http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2003/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf.
-
Howe also discusses the twin-IQ question, and several more. See his book ‘IQ in question’.
-
I’ve done some amount of reading on this subject, not just Howe’s books, but people on the nature side, Joan Freeman for example. And even the data she presented in her earlier books showed that the greater the parental involvement and educational exposure in a child’s life, the greater the IQ. So how can that be genetic?
-
Ok, we are not doing early education to improve IQ, but I know IQ increments will be one of the by-products of early education. After all, what are the contents of most IQ questions? Learnt knowledge.
Yes, Frukc, you are right. High IQ does not correlate with later outstanding performance in life. For example Joan Freeman’s recent book showed that some of those ‘gifted’ children rarely went on to fulfil their potential. So I do wonder whether it was the label ‘gifted’ that actually hindered them. Afterall, as a ‘gifted’ and ‘smart’ child, you don’t have to work hard, you were born with high intelligence, so don’t work too hard. They may even be ashamed to be seen studying, after all smart kids don’t study, they are innately bright. No wonder they did not end up so well.
For example, in a previous book, she mentioned that the kids labelled ‘gifted’ by parents had more emotional and social problems compared to another group of kids with comparable ability that were not labelled.
My argument here is that devoting the required hours of practice to anything in life will produce more success than depending on IQ scores to guarantee life success. And encouraging a child to value effort over innate intelligence as Carol Dweck proposes in her book ‘Mindset’ will guarantee that child’s success.
My argument here is that devoting the required hours of practice to anything in life will produce more success than depending on IQ scores to guarantee life success. And encouraging a child to value effort over innate intelligence as Carol Dweck proposes in her book ‘Mindset’ will guarantee that child’s success.
I think that pretty much sums it up
I have heard and seen evidence in myself that IQ can change with practice of the IQ type questions, I mean probably not groundbreaking stuff but it does make you wonder it you spent 10000 hours on IQ test questions would you ace the test? And would you actually be smarter? lol
Izzp you have got my concerns exactly! This is precicely the problem I have. Should I push/allow/encourage a child to pursue their 10000 hours knowing the costs will be high. It’s a massive dessision to make on behalf of your child. My children are not science experiments…
You asked if the gym was next door what my answer would be well it would be completelly different. I would sign her up in a heart beat! She loves gym and would happily spend an hour or 3 every day in practice. My issue is probably that the extra travel time adds up to another 10000 hours wasted over the years! Hmmm maybe we could clock up 10000 hours in something else while in the car! lol AND that my other 2 kids would be dragged along for the ride quite often, not to even consider me! Or maybe it would be easier to commit all three kids to a life of gymnastics :unsure: And build a gym in out shed… Moving isn’t an option anytime soon.
Since she thrives on competition and quality practice that continually pushed her skills I have no questions about her personal ability to succeed. It’s more about whether I should. My current decision is sign her up for the rest of the year, commit for that time and actively re assess each year. So far she is easily coping with 5 and a half hours ( with 2 hours driving time for me) so a few more hours should work, she may have to drop one of her other activities, or do them on a more casual basis. I need to find a car pool! Lol
My opinion. We all see that toddlers have different interests. Some want to play with cars only, others like dolls, etc.
My kids do not play with dolls or cars; daughter wants games with talking and son wants mechanisms. Probably, they by themselves are developing particular skills which later will show up as “talent”.
If I will press my daughter to study devices for 1000 hours she probably will hate me. However that would be very good for my son. And in opposite.
This aspect is not covered in talent research. I think, talent = deep interest + practice. Let’s look for the interest at first.
[quote author=Frukc link=topic=13947.msg83522#msg83522 date=1333547082]
My opinion. We all see that toddlers have different interests. Some want to play with cars only, others like dolls, etc.
My kids do not play with dolls or cars; daughter wants games with talking and son wants mechanisms. Probably, they by themselves are developing particular skills which later will show up as “talent”.
If I will press my daughter to study devices for 1000 hours she probably will hate me. However that would be very good for my son. And in opposite.
This aspect is not covered in talent research. I think, talent = deep interest + practice. Let’s look for the interest at first.
[/
So true Frukc!! I need to watch and observe my dd more to see where her interests lie.