Bounce

[Joshua Naterman]

The importance of talent is overrated.

Nonsense, the importance of consistent hard work is simply under-rated.

[Paul SONNEVILLE]

Hello,

Nice discussion. I mostly agree with Coach' opinion. In the case of Mozart, he was born with the "perfect earing" and you're born with or without, hard work or not, you'll never acquire it. It's what I think could be called talent. Same goes for Beethoven, was so talented he could still play the piano being deaf.

Talent is by definition (at least, MY definition of talent) superior capabilities in a particular field, that you were born with. And nothing could make up for that, but it has to be grown too. Talent, although being acquired when born, has to be developped (maybe you should work even more when talented so that you won't spoil this gift, for everyone that who's not talented, and of course for yourself !!).

PSon

[Alvaro Antolinez]

In my opinion there is a self ceiling that we inherit via education and cultural background, that operates in a hidden way. People didn´t use to think that running 100m under 10 secs was possible, so nobody tried( or just a few did), the same with marathon under 2 hours, apnea beyond 100m , sailing to the the Indies by the west route (Colon), being in contact with all the people constantly (Telephone, Internet, cellulars), etc...

Those are things that used to be seen as "impossible" till somebody(or a group of people) proved the rest wrong, from then on it was "easy" and "normal". Although there are natural or genetic limitations , still we got capabilities that could drive us beyond what we ever thought possible ( OK maybe not to a Olympic final for everyone, but still far enough).

Elite athletes are pushing that impossible boundaries constantly, as other experts are doing in their respective fields. But common people is still ignorant that they are under such "ceiling", that they are limiting themselves in such a heavy way.

There is where hard work, commitment or work ethic plays its part. But I think there is also a special "ingredient"to be taken into account: learning from those who are at the top (Coach Sommer pointed at the Mallorca seminar that this is one of his small obsessions). Is not just the "technique" or system they use to develop an athlete(that is the obvious part to look after, and relatively easy to learn by book or video), but a special mental frame, a more complete "know how" that allows them to go beyond what other people currently think is possible.

That mental frame(or a part of it) is what you will gain from attending Coach Sommer´s seminars for example. Is the same mental frame that a baby born in a musicians family, will learn without even realizing; allowing him to perform apparently without effort(obviously within his own physical capabilities) when compared to others who lack it. For him all that complicated stuff is just the normal thing from the beginning, his limits are much much farther than those of the common player(but of course just if he wants to pursue that way).

There is the traditional figure of apprentice that takes advantage of this. Before you learn the main part you have to "absorb" the basics, at first maybe just sweeping the room(but still learning from the people in it...). So not just hard work or proper technique, not just genetics, also this special kind of mindset is fundamental for success in my opinion.

[Jason Stein]

My reading of "Outliers" and "The Talent Code" (haven't read "Bounce" yet) is that it would be inaccurate to say that Coyle or Gladwell disallow the existence or importance of talent.

The book "Black Swan" was helpful in triangulating the two, as usually when discussing or thinking about sports or any activity with the "superstar" effect (i.e. winner-take-all fields like professional athletics, Wall Street, or pop culture) we tend to fall victim to retrospective determinism and attribute 'causes.''

My takeaway from both "Outliers" and "Talent Code" is that it's not that an athlete like Allan Bower is untalented — but rather that he is less uniquely talented than we think.

This is what Coyle describes with his Brazilian soccer school, Russian tennis academy, South Korean golf school; perhaps Arizona's Xtreme Gymnastics, et al.

For those of you interested in completing a trifecta on learning and mastery, I can warmly recommend "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin. Phenomenal book on learning and mastery by a former child chess prodigy who went on to become "soft hands" Tai Chi world champion.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

Jason: Nice post, I haven't read all of that but I am going to pick up that book on mastery.

Omegant: It's like the limiters in Xenogears...

[Larry Roseman]

Jason: Nice post, I haven't read all of that but I am going to pick up that book on mastery.

Yeah for sure. Ditto.

The author was a child prodigy in the subject of the movie "Seaching for Bobby Fisher".

Anyone can tell that from Amazon.

I also met him, I was told, years ago when I was visiting NYC and wandered into a park

where they were playing chess. Forget the park name but it was around 4th street. In any event,

I put a dollar or two down and was playing some hustler and some people were gathered around.

After some moves a kid there called me a putzer. That's NY for a joke or a fool on the board!

I was told not to mind him, that it was Josh, a big player.

Now it feels kind of special!

Interesting he migrated into Tai Chi from chess but not entirely surprised: both are really slow

[ToyStory]

TALENT MATTER A LOT.

In high school I wanted to be a profession skateboarder. I want it a lot. I worked inssanely hard. I was skating 4 hours from Monday To Friday before and/or after school and the whole day on Sunday and Saturday. Needless to say it didn't happen to me. I got good. and I got slightly above the average level due to insane amount of trianing BUT when I was skating for close to 4 years there wre others BETTER than me with only one year of experience. I can't blame myself for no trying hard enough. I did.

Also where you are born is part of genetic don't forget that too.

[Jason Stein]

Josh,

The "Art of Learning" had a huge impact on me because its author offers strong and practical approach to mastery in two radically different worlds — chess and martial arts. Waitzkin also ties his principles and ideas into real-world competitive situations, both extremely demanding, one physically and the other intellectually.

It really spoke to my experience of Yoga practice, gymnastics training, and now hand-balancing. It's also one of those books that makes me think, "Well, of course," because I've observed the processes he outlines in almost every discipline I've come across that has "master coaches" (a la Coyle) — Yoga, hand-balancing/equilibre, gymnastics, martial arts, O-lifting, etc.

A couple of its themes, off the top of my head, most of which will probably be familiar to anyone with a martial arts background:

Invest in Loss — this is a big one for me, as hand-balancing is inherently a process of investing in perpetual loss — you always (generally) have to come out of the handstand! Basically, continually seek out situations, partners, and people who will push you to fail or lose, then analyze the results.

Develop Intuition — Alternate deep and repetitive study with rest and relaxation — the unconscious needs to unpack through alternating deep and repetitive study at the highest possible level with periods of rest and relaxation.

Make Smaller Circles – Exaggerate basic steps in slow motion and internalize those lessons so the effect of those steps can be exaggerated with lesser effort over time and thus become more effective. Practice ideas or techniques until the essence is felt. (10,000 hours!)

Numbers to Leave Numbers — Internalize techniques until they feel natural; integrate technical information into what feels like natural intelligence (whether numbers, principles, patterns, variations, techniques, ideas) so it transcends the technical and feels natural and spontaneous.

This became quite a book report, but I was pretty impressed with it, and it helped sharpen and refine my own approach.

The book also, interestingly, made me realize those forces and persons in my life who helped me in the ways listed above — and those who didn't or weren't helping! — and appreciate their contribution.

best,

jason

[Jacob Marks]

Coach Sommer-

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.

I think 1st things first is that we use whatever its is that we are pursuing as coach says to develop the character of the student. I think over my short coaching career that it one of my toughest challenges is the fact that hard work has to be taught. In todays instant gratification society where external motivation run rampent, this is easier said then done.

That being said I have been a very strong believer in the power of goal setting. In the age bracket of 6-15 year olds it is very easy for these athlete to try......when I say try this mean there is probably an excuse ready for why the effort was 1/2 or the focus what not there ect......but in using goals it seems that hard work grows stronger from small achievement to small achievement...

Jason Selk explains it as Vision(longterm goal) Product Goals(Results) and Process Goal(the day in day out practice grind of hard work and doing everything you know to put yourself in the best position for sucess!)

Staying focused on the process is the hardest part because our mind want to gravitate to the score or place or Skill....

As far as talent goes I have seen dozens of kids with talent oozing from them who hit a brick wall when the process now involves hard work instead of skill and such coming so naturally. Like coach sommer said you have to have the right combination of the 2 like in Allans case and in my own student Joshuas who is relentl3ess in the pursuit of excellence!

[Joshua Naterman]

Coach Marks and Jason, those are two awesome posts.

I kind of feel silly saying just that much, but I don't think any more words can do anything but be distracting... those are excellent thoughts to keep in mind!

[Raul]

I have recently finished this book, and have read others that talk about Myelin (google it, but its the basically the material which thickens around the neural pathways, and therefore what scientists see as 'talent') and such. I found coaches input, as ever, valuable, but liked Jasons response, which touched upon the how an athlete views and thinks about things.

In Bounce Mathew Syed talks about focused training, and how top athletes are able to train efficiently and 'in the zone', making their gains in talent greater than others. I also believe its about exposure. My son is 9, and trained Capoeira in Brazil for a couple of years, but can do things way above the ability of kids here in the UK who train regularly. Why? In my opinion its cos his brain grew up seeing his elder brothers and uncles doing outrageous movements, and so his brain assimilates them so much more easily. I have watched him closely when learning a new movement, and his brain is so alert to what he sees. It seems like a natural gift as he picks it up, buts it not. Before he even trained Capoeira, there would be videos on the TV, or he would be taken to events and workshops to wait for his brother. He knows how this stuff should look, and feel.

I think this is a fascinating subject. I look forward to further research being released in the future.

Raul

[Joshua Naterman]

Raul: Absolutely. To a certain extent "talent" is a product of a child's environment and how they are raised, especially during the developmental years. The more complex movements they are exposed to the better off they will be. Capoeira, gymnastics, martial arts and dance are all excellent ways to expose the kids to complex movements and should ALL be used to do so, if possible and practical.

Adults are something of a different matter, but the same does apply: the more exposure you get the better off you are.

[Brendan Coad]

I just picked up the Art of Learning at the library and am already 1/3 of the way through it. Its very hard to put it down and I lost a bit of sleep last night because I didn't want to. Thanks for recommending it Jason.

[Dilraj Dhillon]

I think talent can be instilled in someone at a young age by exposing them to a high level of a certain activity at a young age. Regarding academics I prefer "study smart" rather than "study hard". Instead of studying for a math exam by grinding out problems for 2 hours you could make sure you clearly understand the concepts in 40 minutes and still do well.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think talent can be instilled in someone at a young age by exposing them to a high level of a certain activity at a young age. Regarding academics I prefer "study smart" rather than "study hard". Instead of studying for a math exam by grinding out problems for 2 hours you could make sure you clearly understand the concepts in 40 minutes and still do well.

Things like this don't always work out as you'd expect, but it is certainly a general truth that the younger you are exposed to some physical activity the better you will be at it and also that most peoples' study habits are a bit inefficient.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

### Warning: Strong opinion ahead! ###

I read Bounce over a year ago and it left me very dissatisfied!

- I feel the author is not the writer.

- It has the taste of a book written by a team of ghost writers under the editing powers of a marketing Guru.

- Syed is the front man, and not a very good one at that!

- The writing is so fluid as being insipid

- Nowhere is a personal opinion to be found, only a bagful of poorly quoted "latest" scientific research.

- The promotion of other books with a single word title is omnipresent - the mercantile quickly put together e-book fad of the 2000'ds - Taboo, Outliers, Overrated, The Talent Code, Emotion, blink, drive, illicit, etc... that authors used to drive science they did not understand to readers that could not understand it!

The work is clean as a copy/pasted high school paper, and wanting.

I felt cheated and taken for more of a moron than I really am! (seriously! )

Very grateful for the article posted in reference that takes Bounce apart!

Fred

[Joshua Naterman]

That's true... to be a consistent winner you have to have an animalistic, all-in, uncivilized attitude towards your competitors and it has to be there all the time. This probably sounds suspiciously like the description of an egotistical jerk, and there are honestly a lot of similarities. Champions don't have to act poorly in public or be impolite, but when it comes to competitions their one goal is to tear the competition to shreds. Completely arrogant confidence in one's abilities, born from victory and nourished by consistent practice and success, founded on proven performance and wielded as a weapon, daring anyone to try and be as good because they CAN'T be... because they don't have the talent, the drive, the raw animalistic inability to accept loss or to train without giving it everything you've got.

To a real champion, every competition is for real... from practice to the championships and everything in between. This is a common theme.

Sounds like this guy couldn't turn it on at will, or keep it on, but it's inside him. Perhaps he simply realized that if he kept it on he would become someone he didn't like... who knows? Not everyone is capable of being an animal when in uniform and a gentleman when in street clothes. Sometimes it's all or nothing, and sometimes people are afraid of the envy of others if they become too successful. Sometimes there are things going on that I don't even know exist, so I certainly don't have all the answers...

All I can say is that you have shared a really cool set of experiences, and thanks!

[Joshua Naterman]

Nice find! The RFD is primarily going to be based on the size of the alpha neurons supplying the motor groups and the sub-type of myosin heavy chains existing in the muscles. That's pretty much all genetic as far as I know. The levers involved would also have an awful lot to do with it. Definitely a complex interaction.

I mean, anyone and everyone can substantially improve what they currently have if they are not super highly trained but when you're talking about the difference between 11.0 and 9.7 in the 100... genes.

[Joshua Naterman]

If one wants to improve movements that are specific to a sport, they would be better off lifting heavy weights for strength and rehearsing the needed skills of the sport by performing the actions of the sport!

If you want one sentence that sums up what I have been learning over the past year or so, and that sums up what I try to explain with way too many words, here it is. Straight from the article you linked.

In GB terms, use your FBE to build the muscle you need. Use your FSP work to teach your body how to use this muscle.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

(...) the difference between 11.0 and 9.7 in the 100... genes.

Yep, including the infamous PED gene! :shock:

[Joshua Naterman]

(...) the difference between 11.0 and 9.7 in the 100... genes.

Yep, including the infamous PED gene! :shock:

HAHAHA!!! Yes, that's the most important one these days... virtually everyone is drugged. It's ridiculous.

[ryanjanus]

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.

Amen to that! I'm a professional musician, and my skin bristles whenever I hear someone say, "I could never do what you could do. I simply don't have the talent." How do you know? Have you studied with the teachers I studied with? Have you practiced what, when, and how I've practiced? Have you played in the same bands I've played in? Have you spent 20,000+ hours (and counting) of your life playing music? When you can answer "yes" to ALL these questions, then come back to me and tell me you have no talent. I bet a person who could actually answer "yes" to most of those questions would be pretty darn good, and we'd all look at him and say he has a lot of "talent."

[Graham Smith]

I think I read in Scientific American magazine some time back a study into child prodigies and where they ended up. The takeaway is that children who were praised for their ability never worked as hard as those who were praised for their effort. Those who were rewarded for havin ability never figured that they had to try too hard to nurture it, whereas those rewarded for effort enjoyed the effort and therefore excelled. The conclusion is that some are born with more inate ability than others, but the best results come from effort.

Coach is right in his post above. The vast majority of people will never be the best in the world by effort alone, but potential champions will ONLY be champions with intense effort. I have a very close friend who trained as a competetive swimmer, with some well known olympians. He trained at least as hard as those olympians, and is the best swimmer I have ever met, but at the end of the day, he just wasn't genetically on par with those that made the next level. Australia's Ian Thorpe had size 18 feet to help propel him through the water. If he didn't train hard, he would have just been some guy with big feet. If I trained that hard, I would be good, but not great. That's nothing to be ashamed about.

I'm also trying to make sure that I reward my kids for effort!

[Craig Mallett]

Fascinating subject! I'm going to throw a curve ball at this discussion just cos

There is a guy by the name of Dr Ian Stevenson who has spent his life trying to scientifically prove reincarnation. Thousands and thousands of studies, with strict controls to weed out fakes. Although he says he does not have conclusive proof (and I believe he now has a prodigy working in this field to further the evidence), the anecdotal proof is very consistent. Some very cool discoveries that he has made are those of the following of physical characteristics through the rebirth. So for example, someone has a memory of a previous life and being murdered with a knife and having their fingers cut off, and they were reborn in this life with deformities of the fingers, or possibly missing fingers. He has accurately matched previous medical records of injuries of the person from the "previous life" with birth marks of the person with the memories of the past life.

More relevant to this discussion, however, is that Dr Stevenson has hypothesised that personality traits carry on as well. He says this can account for many things that we do not have any understanding of at the moment, including things like irrational phobias and "talent".

Article: http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

From the article:

Omni: You've found children with intense interests in subjects having no relation to anything in their family background or up-bringing. And you’ve directly linked the phobias and addictions of children to traumas that transpired in the lives of people these children claim to have been. Are you talking about aspects of their personalities that heredity does not explain?

Stevenson: That's right. It's easy to see environmental influences, say, with such composers as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, all of whose fathers were fine musicians. But what about George Frederic Handel? His family had no discernible interest in music; his father even sternly discouraged it. Or take the cases of Elizabeth Fry, the prison reformer, and Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. Both had to fight for their chosen callings from childhood onward. One can find endless examples that are difficult to explain given our current theories. But if one accepts the possibility of reincarnation, one can entertain the idea that these children are demonstrating strong likes, dislikes, skills, and even genius that are the logical results of previous experiences. I have found some children with skills that seem to be carried over from a previous life.

I find this a fascinating area of study. Should it hold true, then "talent" could potentially become a meaningless concept. Someone like Alan who seems naturally more talented than the rest of us may simply just have had more practice in a previous life.

Unfortunately Stevenson and his protege Jim Tucker seem to be the only people actively researching this. Would be nice to see some more effort put in.

From a wiki article:

Although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another.[8][9] He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, consciousness may not be merely a by-product of the physical brain but rather a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical. Tucker argues that viewing consciousness as a fundamental, non-physical, part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the physical brain.[26] He provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness. [27] On the other hand Susan Huelga, a lecturer in quantum mechanics at the University Of Hertfordshire, notes that brain dynamics are highly complex, and she finds that there is no more evidence that quantum mechanics is relevant in this field than that it is relevant regarding whether or not God exists.[28]

wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker

[Mark Weaver]

Later, a lot of us ended up going to the same university. He first served a mission for his church and went to a community college for a year to get into the university - so we saw him three years later

Sounds like he belongs to my church.

Amen to that! I'm a professional musician, and my skin bristles whenever I hear someone say, "I could never do what you could do. I simply don't have the talent." How do you know? Have you studied with the teachers I studied with? Have you practiced what, when, and how I've practiced? Have you played in the same bands I've played in? Have you spent 20,000+ hours (and counting) of your life playing music? When you can answer "yes" to ALL these questions, then come back to me and tell me you have no talent. I bet a person who could actually answer "yes" to most of those questions would be pretty darn good, and we'd all look at him and say he has a lot of "talent."

I hear this all the time. Why do people automatically assume they can't do or learn something? Maybe they can't be the best in the world, or maybe they can. Maybe they don't have the drive Joshua mentions that leads them to become champions, or the right combination of talent and work ethic. But why is the default answer "I could never do that"?