David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, tries his best to summarize the latest research on genius:
The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q. ... Instead, it’s deliberate practice ...
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.
In Brooks' view, you can take anyone off the street and turn them into a genius. All you have to do is "create a sense of affinity" and infuse them with a "desperate need for success" and arm them with "ambition". Once you've instilled this passion, they will be driven to practice, practice, practice. And with practice comes talent.
Even if you ignore contradictory research (also in the Times) that genius brains are physically different from average brains (and that "the ability to focus for long periods of time" is probably also innate), Brooks' argument is fundamentally flawed. First, how do you get someone interested or motivated in something? It has to resonate with their innate desires and traits. You can't just arm someone with ambition. It has to come from within. Genes place a leash on our capacities, because they determine what things interest us enough to practice them.
If someone gives you a pat on the back and words of encouragement, chances are you'll practice for a while just to please them. But unless you're self-motivated and innately self-confident, you'll stop practicing as soon as it gets lonely to do so. Yet a true genius doesn't need approval. He or she is a force of nature, and practices day and night without approbation.
What Brooks doesn't understand is that our interests come from our genes (they can't be "infused" – they can only be triggered). Since we all differ genetically, we have different desires, cravings, and passions. Motivation and drive are innate, they're not qualities you can instill. They are rare qualities, which is why leaders are so highly paid for their rare gene variants. This obviously makes the case for greater redistribution of wealth even as it undermines the basic philosophical foundations of both major political parties.
Will Frehley, though I am sure he is an intelligent man, obviously misunderstands the ideas to which he refers, and he also misrepresents them.
Firstly, David Brooks isn't presenting his own ideas in his article "Genius: The Modern View." He is referring to the ideas and arguments crafted by Geoff Colvin, author of "Talent is Overrated," and Daniel Coyle, author of "The Talent Code." And these two men, Colvin and Coyle, are summarizing a plethora of scientific research that has been done over a period of many years. Frehley makes it seem as though this is Brooks' argument. It is not.
Secondly, the ingredients for "great performance" that Geoff Colvin and Daniel Coyle address are not summed up by the cute phrases "a sense of affinity," a "desperate need for success," and "ambition." Nor, as Colvin explicitly states over and over again in his book, is "practice, practice, practice" even remotely enough to make someone "talented" or "great" at something. These are simply aspects of a half-hypothetical scenario that Coyle presents, hardly the basis for his argument in and of themselves. And as for the real ingredients for great success? They're very clearly laid out in Colvin's book.
So, it isn't "Brooks' view" as Frehley introduces, and even if it were, he misrepresent the view anyhow. It's easier to argue against something that you misunderstand and misrepresent, isn't it?
Even if Frehley fairly represented the argument for "deliberate practice," his counter-argument is flawed anyhow. He quotes research that "genius brains are physically different from average brains," a quality that Colvin directly addresses and explains quite clearly. Deliberate practice changes us, even physically, after longs periods of time. Practice, improve, and refine a certain skill set for long enough, and your body adapts to what it is you're trying to do. Professional ballet dancers have hips, legs, and feet that are physically different from the average person's, but research show that amateur and beginner ballet dancers do not. How else could this be, were it not for the fact that spending thousands of hours "deliberately practicing" ballet technique actually changes these physical attributes in these people. The brain is just a muscle, and the same is true for it. Do something long enough, force yourself to improve, and the brain will physically change to accommodate that which you are doing.
Frehley assumes in his article that talent requires genius, and that all great performers are geniuses. He obviously ignored the studies that show that this is plainly not the case. Greatness shows no direct correlation to intelligence. There are a great many world class business leaders, musicians, artists, athletes, and even chess players who show no extraordinary intelligence quotient. There are even more people around the world with I.Q. scores above 160 of whom will never achieve greatness in anything. Simply put, high intelligence does not equal greatness, and greatness does not necessarily mean highly intelligent.
Frehley also completely misses the point about the difference between practice, which a lot of people do with a lot of things, and "deliberate practice," which very few people engage in, and generally only with one major focus in their lives. This is the real key that separates the highest of achievers in the world from the rest of the average people.
To those of you who read Frehley's article above, read David Brooks' actual column on the subject. I'm somewhat surprised that Frehley linked to it, (the bold underlined "New York Times" in the first sentence of this article, and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html), because it's obvious when you read Brooks' column and Frehley's response, that he (Frehley) misunderstands and misinterprets the argument. Frehley obviously disagrees with these ideas, and he snidely dismisses these concepts, and attributes them to Brooks instead of the authors of the books that he (Brooks) was reviewing, and more importantly, to the scientific research that these books are based on. Read Brooks' column for yourself. Read "Talent is Overrated" and "The Talent Code" for yourself. Read these scientific studies for yourself. Most importantly, don't let Frehley's misinterpretation of these ideas convince you that they're false. Decide for yourself.
Posted by: Joseph Kosowski | June 18, 2009 at 02:16 AM