Moving this video to dgandhi's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Yes. That three year old that can play piano by ear is absolutely the result of 10,000 hours of practice.

Are people really trying to argue that natural aptitudes don't exist? Rage.

>> ^direpickle:

Yes. That three year old that can play piano by ear is absolutely the result of 10,000 hours of practice.
Are people really trying to argue that natural aptitudes don't exist? Rage.


More like them alone don't solely define your success. And most of those child stars have done their skill for thousands of hours, people with a natural aptitude tend to indulge that aptitude. But a person who is a natural born genius, but doesn't get alone well with others, or isn't in the right time or place doesn't always get ahead. Georges Lemaître, father of the big bang theory, isn't really remembered by any lay person...even though his theory shapes the entire field of astrophysics, much like Einstein, but everyone remembers him. Kurt Gödel, who's that, oh, a genius who ramifications in thought still haven't been fully explored 80 years later...but no one knows his name. Or even the famous composers and artists that we all love today, many died poor and unrecognized. Timing/luck seems AS fundamental for success as being a genius. The book isn't talking about actually producing the "best" but being recognized and reaping the rewards of being the best. It is a good read, I recommend it.

Nevermind! Arguing on the Internet and all that.

I think of talent as a natural multiplier to the amount of effort that you expend on something.

Person A has "natural talent" (which really just means a combination of mental and physical aptitudes that generally contribute to their ability) for playing guitar.

Person B is peak-of-the-bellcurve average in their "talent" for guitar playing.

Person C has a set of innate mental and physical aptitudes that hinder their "talent" for guitar playing.


So lets assign rough multipliers for A/B/C, maybe something like 3/1/.25 (roughly). When Person A spends an hour doing the "work" of learning to play a guitar, he gains 3 units of skill/ability. Person B gets 1 unit of skill over the same amount of time invested, and Person C would have to work for 4 hours to match the increase in skill of Person B.

Our enjoyment gained from improving our skill at something is loosely correlated to that multiplier also, but that isn't set in stone. Since Person A has a high multiplier for playing guitar, it is more likely that he will also enjoy that activity, but not guaranteed.

Finally I think that setting "success", in general or specific terms, as the measure of value here isn't really the best solution. One can enjoy something and consider their "work" put in to gaining any level of skill at it to be fulfilling and worthwhile without necessarily becoming a publicly lauded, highly paid professional. I'd say that we are better off defining success in terms of our own personal enjoyment.

@MilkmanDan One of the examples they used in the book was ice hockey. Unlike your example of the multiplier, in many cases, it is winner takes all. So, in hockey, tryouts are in January. Leagues are typically by age group. So, being the absolute oldest you can be for the group naturally entails an age gap that makes you just a bit stronger, faster, more mature, ect. That edge means you are more likely that someone who is born, say, in July-August. That half a year of aging ends up that most of the oldest players edge out all of the youngest players, even in, given apples and apples of age, those younger players might be better overall players; the "skill" gap, however makes that edge not more so than the age gap, and therefor many will not make the team.

This cycle will continue; so, the younger not only will ALWAYS be younger, but usually miss out on being on the team, not getting the necessarily experience needed if he wanted to make hockey his job. He is, in effect, crowded out of the best training and experience not based only on his skill, but his age. So, he is implicitly left out in the rain. I can't remember the exact number, but some statistically significant (like 70+%) of hockey players are born near the normal tryout date for hockey. It would seem doubtful that this be some genetic inheritance of being born in a time of year more than a man made occurrence of time conditions.

So you could apply a multiplier to that, I guess. It just isn't quite as simple as "I have a bigger multiplier in this one spot". There are many "lucky" factors like time of birth, personality, family life, sociability, and random circumstances beyond your control that have huge effects on the overall outcome of your life. And moreso, beyond your raw ability to make up for that difference. One of the great examples (which the book uses) of life getting in the way is Christopher_Langan. He is the only person to score a perfect result on the IQ test, which has never been done, and such, is touted as the smartest man in the world, ever. However, the conditions of his life, broken home, and various others, resulted in him loosing his scholarship, working in a bar, and a relatively unremarkable life. No one knows his name (except for savy sifters, he's on here) even though he should have every opportunity to make use of his great mind. The point of the book, and I think most people would agree when they consider it, is that talent isn't enough. You have to be in the right place, at the right time, and know the right people to make that talent count for something. That even applies for science, it isn't immune to irrational bouts of favoritism and unreasonable circumstance. Everything has its, as Sun Tzu would call it, rules of heaven and earth.

The books main point is that the best of the best aren't in that spot based on merit alone. They had several other, equally important, factors determining the fate of their empires of awesome. The arc of the messages is that many great people in history have been forgotten, and many of the greats that we know weren't really that great.

This is a classic paper on expertise if anyone is wanting an introduction.