Bounce

Can I recommend the book Bounce to anyone on this site who is concerned that their lack of talent might limit their progress?

- It has a lot of interesting things to say about talent v hard work as the key to achievement.

Here's a link to some information about it:

http://www.matthewsyed.co.uk/books/

If anyone here is familiar with the author's argument, do you agree? (I certainly do subject only to some minor reservations)

Andy K said:

Can I recommend the book Bounce to anyone on this site who is concerned that their lack of talent might limit their progress?

- It has a lot of interesting things to say about talent v hard work as the key to achievement.

Here's a link to some information about it:

http://www.matthewsyed.co.uk/books/

If anyone here is familiar with the author's argument, do you agree? (I certainly do subject only to some minor reservations)

Not familar with the argument but basically there are 4 combinations that can occur:

No talent + No work

Talent + No work

No talent + Work

Talent + Work

Only the final combination can produce the best result. Keep in mind, there are degrees of talent and work, so they aren't absolute categories.

A person with talent who doesn't work can produce a better result than someone who works but lacks talent. Or visa versa. But it is unlikely that either would produce a better result than someone with both in equal amounts to what they bring in their best category.

What is his argument?

Generally speaking, those with the most talent have the worst work ethics because they simply do not need them to perform well.

For many years I have been this way with my academics, and it's true that most people can't keep up even if they do study fairly hard but those with lesser talent than me and significantly better study habits can and sometimes do perform better than I do, but very often just as well or close to it. It is only recently that I have learned the value of regimented study time, and it makes a huge difference.

Great talent + great work ethic is the best combination, but great talent + crap work ethic is often equaled and sometimes trounced by moderate talent + impeccable work ethic + perfect training.

Talent is definitely a factor in everything, but like you guys are saying, if the talent is not truly focused with a solid work ethic it won't get much further than an untalented and moderately hard working person. I'm an avid tennis fan, so I'll give the example of Roger Federer, a very fierce tennis competitor who continues to achieve huge wins and plays just as well as he always has despite getting older. He's very talented, but he works really really hard to stay on top of his game.

High talent + strong work ethic = high achievements

Any level of talent + impeccable work ethic = higher achievements (IMO)

Talent is an interesting concept, though. What is it, exactly? A natural physical and/or mental inclination towards certain abilities? If we can figure out exactly what makes this talented person so naturally inclined towards X ability, perhaps we can learn how to 'develop' such talent in others? It's something I have a lot of interest in, because I've never been very talented at anything that I know of (besides being really interested in a ton of things).

When I started martial arts at 12 years old, I don't think I was any better than the other beginners, but after about 8 months of the standard two classes a week (2 total hours) I started doing 4 hours on Tuesday and 4 hours on Friday bringing my total time practicing up to 10/week versus the standard 2/week. I watched tons of sparring vids, did 1000+ kicks a week, did Bill Wallace drills, stretched a ton, and in less than a 2-3 years I was a super strong competitor with the black belts and had the best kicks in the class easily. I was the "King" of kicks in Pascagoula, such as it is. I then skipped a belt, and proceeded to dominate all the way to black belt. I eventually upped the total hours trained per week to about 15, again versus the standard 2-3 for mostly everyone else. My extra time training added up in the long run, and now I'm the head of the younger black belt instructors (those under 50 ), despite being the youngest and least experienced.

Clearly my hard work paid off, but perhaps the talent was limited by the amount of work I was spending on it. Perhaps my talent at sparring or anything couldn't really be used until I possessed the physical abilities to practice it.

Who knows? But it's something we need to continue to ponder. :?

From the reviews of the book, it seems that in one sentence the author's argument is that "talent is made, and not born".

I really found that in school grade sports, the emphasis was on talent and not on training. To me, there should

have been greater emphasis on teaching the fundamentals, and even more importantly, practicing them.

I suppose it could have been just me, but taking baseball (farm team) for example, it was very much just go out there

and do it. Damn I could have been a contenda if someone had taken the time to work with me, and instill

a work ethic. Guess that is what fathers are for, which is another story

Another thing that can be discouraging is to be told that you have talent and then find out that

it isn't omnipotence. It's almost if you have to work at it, it is less of a positive reflection and almost

disparaging! But it isn't or shouldn't be. For example, I was told many things that led me to believe

that I didn't have to work hard, mainly in mathematics, music, physics and chess. That was true to a point

but consequently I didn't achieive as much as I could have with a better work ethic.

So I'd agree with slizz that it's tough to get some people with talent to expend effort to exceed it.

Luckilly, there are some who start with a lot and take to great heights - these people are often called geniuses.

So although I haven't read the book, I'd agree that work, practice and training are often undervalued

and should be the focus of the great majority.

There is one other thing that is being missed: the feeling of accomplishment that comes with the investment of consistent hard work. Even if you have immense talent, the sense of achievement isn't there if the work isn't there. Even if the work doesn't actually improve your performance very much the act of investing the time and effort makes the end result far more rewarding. When you dominate because you have some sort of inborn advantage that required little or no work the result is not a sense of achievement but rather a sense of inflated ego, a sort of superiority complex. It's not the same, is not perceived by others to be the same and doesn't feel the same inside either. Having been on both sides of that fence, I can say with confidence that this is true, or at the very least it is true for me.

Matthew Syed presents a lot of compelling evidence that talent does not exist and that everything is down to hard work. (He even quantifies how much work is needed). He looks at child prodigies. It seems that far from being prodigious, all of them worked extremely hard from the get-go. (E.g., Mozart, Bobby Fischer).

Real world examples of rising to the top via hard work: Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods. (And I always thought they were talented!)

One point to note is that emphasis on the talent paradigm rather than the work paradigm leads to a decline in performance.

I'm sure you can argue it either way, but the evidence he has is very impressive and certainly made me re-think what kind of a person I am and what I might be able to do.

I always liked the quote from Harper Lee's to kill a mocking bird, where it went something like "no sane man takes pride in his talents" with reference to Atticus Finch's supreme skill at shooting. I guess you can take this quote many ways but I always took it to mean that Atticus wasn't proud of his talent as it was something that he was just able to do, he hadn't worked for that skill, but I guess he had more of a right to proud of the work that he put in as a lawyer and how he fought for justice in the trial.

Just something that's always stuck with me since I read that book in year 8 English.

Maybe Mozart, Fisher, etc had supreme talent for hard work too?

They worked hard, but even prior to working hard I believe they stood out.

Will take a look at the book though ... thanks.

Patrick Smith said:

Talent is definitely a factor in everything, but like you guys are saying, if the talent is not truly focused with a solid work ethic it won't get much further than an untalented and moderately hard working person. I'm an avid tennis fan, so I'll give the example of Roger Federer, a very fierce tennis competitor who continues to achieve huge wins and plays just as well as he always has despite getting older. He's very talented, but he works really really hard to stay on top of his game.

High talent + strong work ethic = high achievements

Any level of talent + impeccable work ethic = higher achievements (IMO)

Talent is an interesting concept, though. What is it, exactly? A natural physical and/or mental inclination towards certain abilities? If we can figure out exactly what makes this talented person so naturally inclined towards X ability, perhaps we can learn how to 'develop' such talent in others? It's something I have a lot of interest in, because I've never been very talented at anything that I know of (besides being really interested in a ton of things).

When I started martial arts at 12 years old, I don't think I was any better than the other beginners, but after about 8 months of the standard two classes a week (2 total hours) I started doing 4 hours on Tuesday and 4 hours on Friday bringing my total time practicing up to 10/week versus the standard 2/week. I watched tons of sparring vids, did 1000+ kicks a week, did Bill Wallace drills, stretched a ton, and in less than a 2-3 years I was a super strong competitor with the black belts and had the best kicks in the class easily. I was the "King" of kicks in Pascagoula, such as it is. I then skipped a belt, and proceeded to dominate all the way to black belt. I eventually upped the total hours trained per week to about 15, again versus the standard 2-3 for mostly everyone else. My extra time training added up in the long run, and now I'm the head of the younger black belt instructors (those under 50 ), despite being the youngest and least experienced.

Clearly my hard work paid off, but perhaps the talent was limited by the amount of work I was spending on it. Perhaps my talent at sparring or anything couldn't really be used until I possessed the physical abilities to practice it.

Who knows? But it's something we need to continue to ponder. :?

Interesting points. In your case it's rather an acedmic discussion. It's the results that matter and you've acheived them.

Talent can be limited by neglect for sure. It may be possible to be overpracticed somewhat. At some point you may be able to

rethink/advance your game to use your aquired abilities in a manner that reflects more of your own viewpoint.

P.S. Federer may or may not be the greatest player of all time depending on the critera chosen, but he is the finest I've ever seen play the game. I would rather watch him play than anyone else. Also, can you believe that he NEVER retired prematurely in any of his 1000 or so professional matches? Mind boggling!

What a coincidence. I currently have this book checked out of the library

Another good book on the topic is "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle. Development and teaching of skill is not a simple matter. Good to see others reading into this

Matthew Syed presents a lot of compelling evidence that talent does not exist and that everything is down to hard work. (He even quantifies how much work is needed). He looks at child prodigies. It seems that far from being prodigious, all of them worked extremely hard from the get-go. (E.g., Mozart, Bobby Fischer).

If only it were that simple.

Effort and hard word do indeed matter; but only up to a certain point.

For many many years now, I have continually taken grief from Olympic and National Team Coaches all around the world (Chinese, Russian, Bulgarian, Japanese, American etc etc etc) all telling me the same thing; quit wasting my time on those athletes who possess mediocre to above average talent. Focus my efforts on only the best of the best. This however is something that I have always resisted and still continue to resist today.

For you see, I enjoy working with a wide range of athletes and helping them to maximize their potential, whatever that potential might be. I love the process, the journey of discovery, the struggle for self improvement. If there is anyone on this planet who believes that you are capable of becoming far more than what you already are; it is myself.

Over the years, I have found that if an athlete is first developed as a "young man", their best competitive results will naturally follow. Hence in my competitive men's team program, gymnastics is used first and foremost as a tool to develop the character of young men (their honesty, integrity, sense of responsibility, perseverance, work ethic, accountability). I am extremely demanding and refuse to accept less than their best. They learn to work and to work very hard. They learn that they are capable of reaching the incredibly high standards that I have set for them. They learn that competitive success is something that must be earned by outworking their competitors.

To this end, I protect them from the outside world. Within the four walls of my gym, I create an environment where all is measured and rewarded according to their individual level of effort. Thus a young Level 4 can hope to compete on equal footing with the Level 9 national champion, even though his physical strength and technical skills are light years behind, if only he can show me that he is giving me all that he has and that he is "working" harder than the national champ. I want to develop the ability within them to always give their best; day in day out, month after month, year after year.

However despite the many long-term, life changing benefits that the young man accrues from learning to give his all, despite my giving him my all as his coach, despite the years of blood and sweat; sometimes it is quite simply just not enough. While I have given him the tools to maximize his potential; there is nothing that either of us can do to increase the level of talent that he is working with. This is an innate limitation that cannot be overcome.

When in competition with others of similar capabilities, harder work does indeed triumph. It can also overcome a deficit of talent if they are able to outwork someone who is a little more talented than themselves. It can even defeat someone who is far more talented is that person has failed to apply themselves properly. However when in competition against someone who works equally hard, but possesses clearly superior gifts it is a different story.

Perhaps this only becomes readily apparent to someone who has spent thousands and thousands of hours in the gym working with the same group of athletes for year after year after year. All of whom take the same number of turns, attempt to learn and progress thru the same drills, do the same conditioning rep for rep and set for set; and yet occasionally someone not only passes their peers, they explode past.

I tagged Allan Bower as a potential National Champion when he was 6 years old. Think about that; six years old. He also happens to possess an insane work ethic. However without his incredible level of talent to sustain him; all of his hard work would have been for naught. He has had many teammates over the years who have worked equally hard, but have far less to show for it. In Allan's case it was this marriage of superior talent and a relentless work ethic that blossomed into a national champion.

While it sticks in the craw of many of us (especially if we personally did not win the genetic lottery :x); talent matters and it matters huge. It is a gift beyond measure and the fact that it is often squandered does not lessen this.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Wow, this discussion certainly touches a nerve with me. I believe talent, if there is such a thing, is a result, not a cause. The book someone mentioned, "The Talent Code," claims that talent is a combination of hard work, desire, and proper training. Malcom Gladwell's book "Outliers" theorizes on even more causations of talent, some internal and others external, from racial discrimination to what time of the year you were born in. I certainly lean more towards the "hard work" camp myself. Not because I believe there is no such thing as talent, though. It would be naive of me to think that everyone's brains are born the exact same way and that we all have the exact same potential. Kids with Down Syndrome, Autism, or other neurological conditions make this painfully obvious. And it stands to reason that for every DS child, there's s child on the other end of the spectrum who's brain just seems to make connections faster than the rest of us.

How this comes to be, though, is much more complicated than genetics. Kids born to musical parents, for example, are more likely to grow up to be professional musicians ... but this is equally true of adopted kids. So maybe the propensity for music comes from what happens in the household more than the genes. And yet I have twin daughters, both of whom take lessons, both of whom (I make sure ) practice the same amount. One, though, is objectively better than the other. But you see, I don't know what goes on in her mind when she's not playing. Does she think about music more? Does she relate things in everyday life to music more than the other? I'm a professional musician, yet until I got into college, I didn't necessarily practice any more than average. But my father inadvertently talked me into changing my major from engineering to music when he asked me "When your mind wanders, where does it go?" I would practice for an hour, and my friends would practice for an hour. But for the rest of the day, I'd be thinking about music - obsessed with it, almost, while my peers would be thinking about a thousand other things. So I'd ask Coach Sommer, what does Alan Bower do when he's not training that other, less skilled but equally trained gymnasts don't do?

The very phrase "natural gifts" irks me a bit. When someone tells me I have a natural gift for music that they just don't posses, it does two things: 1) it lets them off the hook for not working as hard as they could, and 2) it completely ignores the tens-of-thousands (yes, literally) of hours I've put into music so far in my life. How do you know you could never be as good as me? Have you tried? Tell me that when you've put in 10,000 hours on the saxophone, practicing the way I practice and studying with my teachers. I hear what Coach is saying, though - sometimes there truly are handicaps, like height. And yet even still, some people - Muggsy Bogues (5'3" retired NBA player) and Russell Czeschin (6'3" NCAA division I gymnast) come to mind - find ways to overcome them. I'm 6'2" myself, and I specifically joined my high school gymnastics team because people told me I was too tall. While I was never All-State quality, I worked harder than my peers and got good enough to win a few meets on horse.

Sorry, I'm going very long and rambling. My point is this - I focus on hard work because that's all I have control over, both as a performer and as a teacher. I can't make my students practice harder, and I can't make them like music more. If I have some kind of genetic handicap that makes it harder to learn to do something I want to do, well, there's nothing I can do about that. It does me no good as a teacher to ponder whether or not my kids have "talent" (man, the more I say it, the more I'm starting to hate that word). It does us no good to think about whether we'll be any good at something we like. Just work really hard, get great instruction and follow it to the letter, and see what happens. I don't know what the ultimate human potential is, but I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE - even Olympic gymnasts and NBA all-stars - are living below it. Chew on that for a while when you think you've done everything you can.

Andy K said:

Matthew Syed presents a lot of compelling evidence that talent does not exist and that everything is down to hard work. (He even quantifies how much work is needed). He looks at child prodigies. It seems that far from being prodigious, all of them worked extremely hard from the get-go. (E.g., Mozart, Bobby Fischer).

Real world examples of rising to the top via hard work: Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods. (And I always thought they were talented!)

One point to note is that emphasis on the talent paradigm rather than the work paradigm leads to a decline in performance.

I'm sure you can argue it either way, but the evidence he has is very impressive and certainly made me re-think what kind of a person I am and what I might be able to do.

But have you read and evaluated the studies presented for yourself? Are you sure the author has not cherry-picked research to confirm his hypothesis (i.e. are you familiar with the overall body of literature on this topic?)?

Unless you can answer "yes" to both these questions, take what you read with a grain of salt.

For a contradictory take, here's a good start:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/11 ... ining.html

I believe there's no simple way to define talent, but hard work is pure and simple..

Talent can be someone that is truly passionate by something, someone that gives it all to achieve something and then talent grows.. Or talent's just that, passion.. That passion can make things easier to achieve because the journey is truly enjoyed ..

Hard work is method, is go beyond, is trying always to achieve the next step.. constantly improving, constantly finding ways to become better in something.. There's no such thing as luck.. luck is an excuse for those who do not work and don't achieve what they want.. is knowing your limits, and then.. go beyond...

Talent does matter. There are people who seem to instinctively know how to move, what to do, without ever having been taught. What others can do with much difficulty (if at all), these people can do with ease. As for purely logical arguments on whether or not talent exists or what exactly is it if it does exist, I am afraid I don't see their usefulness.

It is true that human emotions are a great mystery, and what has been branded as 'impossible' was in fact attainable by someone who focused their enitre being on attaining their goal. Focusing one's entire being is much more than just working hard, it's a state where you want something so much that you dissolve your very self in your focus.

We tend to compare people of similar ability and then concetrate on their work ethic. Sure, the person with better work ethic wins. We also compare people with differing abilities where the person with superior natural talent has a weaker work ethic. In this case, it cannot be guaranteed who comes out on top, as sometimes we do see people cruise on their natural talents, and we know that life is not fair.

But what if we have someone with substantial natural abilities and strong work ethic vs someone with moderate natural abilities and the focus of a spiritual giant? Who could say for sure who'd come out on top? And so the Coach is right to give his knowledge and experience to all levels of ability, to be pragmatic enough to recognise that talent does matter, and when that rare 'spiritual giant' does turn up, do you honestly think that someone like that can be missed?

Yes, Matthew Syed agrees with the comment about physical limitations.He makes the point that physical qualities can limit you (e.g., a five foot tall world class basketball player is an improbable scenario). Age of course is a factor. At the age of 55 I doubt that I'll ever become a world class gymnast, especially having only begun my journey into this compelling world a few months ago.

Even if you don't agree with Syed that talent does not exist, you might agree at least that hard work can get you a lot further than the general consensus would have you believe. Mr Syed puts up a good case that hard work has created an improbable number of world class table tennis players from a relatively small geographical location (his own school catchment area).

Having said that, I have to admit that Allan Bower is quite amazing and evidence that something other than hard work is involved. We could call it talent I suppose.

The take home message should be that if you are motivated and apply yourself intelligently, you can achieve goals that you may think are beyond you.

I was thinking of people like Usain Bolt, that one time said that wakes up almost at 11am, doesn't take breakfast..

Or Jimi Hendrix, that played with rusty strings, left handed, didn't waste time with a custom made guitar for lefties and the sound he played even today is unique.. Maybe he just didn't waste time with the things that some that hard work their way to learn the guitar wastes.. They simply can enjoy the things as they are, and take their best of everything.. Maybe one can say that Jimi got talent, maybe one can say that Jimi would be a better parachute guy.. Or maybe someone can say that he was like a zen master..

Zen archery for instance, is that talent? is that hard work? Is that a state of mind? Is that simply a cleared mind achieving something that for others is hard to explain?

Someone said that our brain works at 10% of their capacity.. Einstein's worked at 12%...

Sometimes our hard work gets in the way to achieve things in a more natural way, because of our frustrations.. Maybe talent is the way to handle those frustrations in a better way..

Andy K wrote:

Matthew Syed presents a lot of compelling evidence that talent does not exist and that everything is down to hard work. (He even quantifies how much work is needed). He looks at child prodigies. It seems that far from being prodigious, all of them worked extremely hard from the get-go. (E.g., Mozart, Bobby Fischer).

Real world examples of rising to the top via hard work: Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods. (And I always thought they were talented!)

One point to note is that emphasis on the talent paradigm rather than the work paradigm leads to a decline in performance.

I'm sure you can argue it either way, but the evidence he has is very impressive and certainly made me re-think what kind of a person I am and what I might be able to do.

But have you read and evaluated the studies presented for yourself? Are you sure the author has not cherry-picked research to confirm his hypothesis (i.e. are you familiar with the overall body of literature on this topic?)?

Unless you can answer "yes" to both these questions, take what you read with a grain of salt.

For a contradictory take, here's a good start:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/11 ... ining.html

Yes...the sport scientist article is very impressive. Maybe the take home message from Mr Syed's work is that many people can achieve far more than they think with focus and hard work.

Does the existence and extent of talent really matter that much in the end? Talent does not cause you to work more or less, but rather your character does. It is only when you have given your all--right training, work, time, precision--and still been found lacking that you can perhaps be concerned with whether or not talent plays a role in your life. And in such case, it rarely is a life or death matter, though often we make it so in our minds. We can't control the result, only the journey. Worrying about result is only additional stress on top of the rest of life.

ryanjanus said:

...I focus on hard work because that's all I have control over, both as a performer and as a teacher. I can't make my students practice harder, and I can't make them like music more. If I have some kind of genetic handicap that makes it harder to learn to do something I want to do, well, there's nothing I can do about that. It does me no good as a teacher to ponder whether or not my kids have "talent" ... It does us no good to think about whether we'll be any good at something we like. Just work really hard, get great instruction and follow it to the letter, and see what happens....

This is a very important point. Control what you can(work ethic, type of work done, consistency, etc.) and don't stress the rest(genetics).

I would like to hear some specifics as to what that talent refers to. Is it something to do with bones, muscles or joints? Or does it have something to do with the myelination in the nervous system? If it's the former it seems like talent would be huge and the latter less so. It would be good to separate skills into one category or another to avoid bad comparisons. The CNS would be more plastic than the other structures.

Very interesting posts.

I would like to add a very important ingridient. Not only do you have to have talent and be willing to work hard, to be able to succeed in top level performance like world champoinships, olympics, performing a concert on Wembely stadion, you must also be excellent at performing/competing in front of a croud, being able to handle pressure etc., have nerves o f steel.

I used to be very good at skateboarding.

I had the:

Talent

Workde hard. Practiced every day and when I didn´t practice I thought about skateboarding.

But I was useless at competing! Just got to nervous. I couldn´t go into my own world and close the ouside world away while competing.

ezekeal said:

I would like to hear some specifics as to what that talent refers to. Is it something to do with bones, muscles or joints? Or does it have something to do with the myelination in the nervous system? If it's the former it seems like talent would be huge and the latter less so. It would be good to separate skills into one category or another to avoid bad comparisons. The CNS would be more plastic than the other structures.

Talent is defined as inherent characteristics that predispose you to success in a given sport. This includes, but is not limited to, an intuitive understanding of how a certain sport works. Once training tools are developed for specific sports this can be developed to a fair extent on everyone but there are some people who just "get it" and as far as we know that just can't be trained.

Example: Some people have much better coordination than others, and no matter how hard any of us work on things we can not catch up to the few who have inherently more efficient nervous systems. This is heavily influenced by how a child is raised and what they are exposed to, but it is also genetically determined to a certain extent. We can, of course, make improvements and quite impressive ones, but we are limited by the age we start at (CNS starts slowing down around age 17, which is why you will notice that the elite video-game players of true hand-eye reaction games like FPS games and Starcraft 2 all have a very short shelf life and are all young) as well as whatever genetic attributes we have that help determine how powerful and efficient our nervous system is.

Other examples include having long arms, which predisposes you to success in throwing sports. More advantageous muscle attachments, having the tendon of the short head of the biceps extend up to the acromion process instead of stopping at the coracoid process, and having faster heavy myosin chain types in your muscles all add to the long arm advantage and would also be considered a part of throwing talent.

Every sport has its own set of "talents."

The importance of talent is overrated.