Comments on: Talent Is Overrated notes http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/ 1920s-30s-style Blues Tue, 15 May 2012 20:40:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tim http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-14266 Tim Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:39:00 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-14266 Wow - I am finding it hard to read the comments left by your readers, as it seems that they want to refute the findings of the book without actually considering the evidence that was laid out so carefully in it. It felt like they were insulted at the conclusions of the book, and therefore had to seek to undermine them. I thought that the book was excellent in laying out a consistent, challenging and understandable set of evidence for the development of high performance skills in many areas of expertise. The difficulty that I had in reading the book was recognizing how unlikely it would be that I would be able to undertake the kind of deliberate practice required in any area of my life to become truly great at it. But this isn't stopping me from doing what I can to distill what I can from it and apply it as far as I can. There are too many books out there that make claims without any evidence - this is not one of them. It is worth reading by anyone who wants to understand the mechanics of getting better at stuff - I find it hard to believe that people exist who don't fit that category in some way. Wow – I am finding it hard to read the comments left by your readers, as it seems that they want to refute the findings of the book without actually considering the evidence that was laid out so carefully in it. It felt like they were insulted at the conclusions of the book, and therefore had to seek to undermine them.

I thought that the book was excellent in laying out a consistent, challenging and understandable set of evidence for the development of high performance skills in many areas of expertise. The difficulty that I had in reading the book was recognizing how unlikely it would be that I would be able to undertake the kind of deliberate practice required in any area of my life to become truly great at it. But this isn’t stopping me from doing what I can to distill what I can from it and apply it as far as I can.

There are too many books out there that make claims without any evidence – this is not one of them. It is worth reading by anyone who wants to understand the mechanics of getting better at stuff – I find it hard to believe that people exist who don’t fit that category in some way.

]]> By: Ruben http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-11611 Ruben Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:48:22 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-11611 One great thing that I felt that is lacking behind these books is the MARKETING and the PUBLICITY these "Great Performers" recieved knowing that there are a lot of people out there, that are way better. The team and the vision they have for themselves and the imagery they sell for others can have an effect on people. Also they lack strongly on the TEAM they have caring abour them. This books talks about only about ONE single person with planned practice, although it talks about coorporations, it doesn't deepened strongly on the fact that these great performers have an entire team behind them. If the 10 year rule is strong enough, then at 40 years anyone (that have more than 10 years working on a planned basis) could be a great performer, when we already know it is not true. So the book, is great for having a partial view of what great performance means and have scientific approach which is good, but in the reality, not everyone was born is the talent to perform it, not even working extremely hard Cheers Rubens One great thing that I felt that is lacking behind these books is the MARKETING and the PUBLICITY these “Great Performers” recieved knowing that there are a lot of people out there, that are way better. The team and the vision they have for themselves and the imagery they sell for others can have an effect on people.

Also they lack strongly on the TEAM they have caring abour them. This books talks about only about ONE single person with planned practice, although it talks about coorporations, it doesn’t deepened strongly on the fact that these great performers have an entire team behind them.

If the 10 year rule is strong enough, then at 40 years anyone (that have more than 10 years working on a planned basis) could be a great performer, when we already know it is not true.

So the book, is great for having a partial view of what great performance means and have scientific approach which is good, but in the reality, not everyone was born is the talent to perform it, not even working extremely hard

Cheers
Rubens

]]> By: Bruce Salem http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-3887 Bruce Salem Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:43:20 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-3887 Just an after thought on what I wrote above. The issue that is most glossed over in books written for business people about the people they manage is forming goals, and that relates to talent where goals were formed long before some business-types encounters someone whose abilities he may or may not call talent. It is because the business person does not recognize talent; he only sees a possible fit with HIS goals. And that is where Colvin's idea falls apart. People become famous, or get recognition, or get hired, or get rich, NOT because they are talented, but because the average idiots in the world see value in what they do. The lesson of history is that most of whom we recognize from the past who have contributed to us with what we would call talent go unrecognized by their contemporaries and if we are to encourage that as a result the very last people whose judgement we ought to trust are results-driven business people. They don't know anything; their word is not to be trusted at all. It takes time for the truth to become visible and emphasis on short-term ROI is the last way to find out. Just an after thought on what I wrote above. The issue that is most glossed over in books written for business people about the people they manage is forming goals, and that relates to talent where goals were formed long before some business-types encounters someone whose abilities he may or may not call talent. It is because the business person does not recognize talent; he only sees a possible fit with HIS goals. And that is where Colvin’s idea falls apart. People become famous, or get recognition, or get hired, or get rich, NOT because they are talented, but because the average idiots in the world see value in what they do. The lesson of history is that most of whom we recognize from the past who have contributed to us with what we would call talent go unrecognized by their contemporaries and if we are to encourage that as a result the very last people whose judgement we ought to trust are results-driven business people. They don’t know anything; their word is not to be trusted at all.
It takes time for the truth to become visible and emphasis on short-term ROI is the last way to find out.

]]> By: Bruce Salem http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-3886 Bruce Salem Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:26:24 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-3886 I just glanced at this book, it was mis-shelved in the computer section; it belongs in Business and Management, which is the main problem I have with its ideas. Aside from the fact that Colvin seems to completely misunderstand the magnitude of the achievement of an 11 year old Mozart to write seven symphonies and get the function of the Augmented Sixth Chord established, and that the message of concerted practice at anything is obvious, it is the audience the book is directed to that bothers me the most, the very goal-oriented results-driven who distract the people who work with them from creativity and the support it needs. It seems to me that the most important factor in talent is a zen quality to be single minded in attention to the craft and to not care or be distracted either by what others want or say, least of all the average idiot who manages others. America will revert to a second class power because of its focus on results rather than its encouragement of talent. The latter will find better soil elsewhere, and not in Asia, but in Europe where it thrives because of a better toleration and not a short term ROI, that spoils things here. Cheap and Chintz will not reward Patience. I just glanced at this book, it was mis-shelved in the computer section; it belongs in Business and Management, which is the main problem I have with its ideas. Aside from the fact that Colvin seems to completely misunderstand the magnitude of the achievement of an 11 year old Mozart to write seven symphonies and get the function of the Augmented Sixth Chord established, and that the message of concerted practice at anything is obvious, it is the audience the book is directed to that bothers me the most, the very goal-oriented results-driven who distract the people who work with them from creativity and the support it needs. It seems to me that the most important factor in talent is a zen quality to be single minded in attention to the craft and to not care or be distracted either by what others want or say, least of all the average idiot who manages others. America will revert to a second class power because of its focus on results rather than its encouragement of talent. The latter will find better soil elsewhere, and not in Asia, but in Europe where it thrives because of a better toleration and not a short term ROI, that spoils things here. Cheap and Chintz will not reward Patience.

]]> By: chezztone http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-921 chezztone Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:12:33 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-921 Norm -- Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, we all think that innate talent exists -- that's what makes this book so revolutionary and so interesting. I gave a very very brief summary of it here. Please read the book and then see if you are convinced! I want to hear your comments again after you read it. Thanks again. And keep practicing! Norm — Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, we all think that innate talent exists — that’s what makes this book so revolutionary and so interesting. I gave a very very brief summary of it here. Please read the book and then see if you are convinced! I want to hear your comments again after you read it. Thanks again. And keep practicing!

]]> By: Norm Willis http://stevecheseborough.com/2009/06/28/talent-is-overrated-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-913 Norm Willis Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:10:11 +0000 http://stevecheseborough.com/?p=413#comment-913 Hi Steve, Very interesting book and review. The point that deliberate practice and critique are needed to become good at something seems obvious. I disagree with the author that innate talent doesn't play a role. Yes, Tiger and Wolfgang got headstarts from committed parents, but there are probably an incredible number of kids who had similar advantages in some area, yet never realized that potential. One can argue that it may just be motivation rather than talent that makes one great and not another; however, that wouldn't explain the occasional savant who, on their own, begin playing an instrument (usually piano) at an incredibly early age and become expert even though they have trouble with basic day to day life. I think dedicated directed practice can help anyone, but innate talent (to some degree at least) and a parental or similar head-start can lead to greatness. Regards, Norm Hi Steve, Very interesting book and review. The point that deliberate practice and critique are needed to become good at something seems obvious. I disagree with the author that innate talent doesn’t play a role. Yes, Tiger and Wolfgang got headstarts from committed parents, but there are probably an incredible number of kids who had similar advantages in some area, yet never realized that potential. One can argue that it may just be motivation rather than talent that makes one great and not another; however, that wouldn’t explain the occasional savant who, on their own, begin playing an instrument (usually piano) at an incredibly early age and become expert even though they have trouble with basic day to day life.
I think dedicated directed practice can help anyone, but innate talent (to some degree at least) and a parental or similar head-start can lead to greatness.
Regards, Norm

]]>