|
|
The notion that geniuses such as Shakespeare, Mozart and Picasso were "gifted" or possessed innate talents is a myth, according to study by a British psychologist. After examining outstanding performances in the arts and sport, Professor Michael Howe and colleagues at Exeter University concluded that opportunities, encouragement, training, motivation, self-confidence and -most of all - practice determine excellence.
The theory represents a radical break with traditional beliefs, but has been applauded by academics worldwide. It has significant implications for teachers and parents, not least because children who are not thought to be gifted are being denied the encouragement they need to succeed.
The authors took as their starting point the "wide spread belief that to reach high levels of ability a person must possess an innate potential called talent". They said it was important to establish whether the belief was correct because it had social and educational consequences affecting selection procedures and training. Talent is a myth; it is hard work that brings success, contends a British psychologist in a new study. This article by John Clare in The Daily Telegraph, analyses studies by a few that break traditional beliefs about the concept of innate talent. However, studies of accomplished artists and mathematicians, top tennis players and swimmers reported few early signs of promise prior to parental encouragement.
No case was found of anyone reaching the highest levels of achievement without devoting thousands of hours to be exceptionally talented, whether in music, mathematics, chess or sports, required lengthy periods of instruction and practice. Mozart produced his best work only after a long period of training. It was not until he had been immersed in music for 16 years that he first produced an acknowledged masterwork.
The early biographies of prominent composers have revealed that they all received intensive and regular supervised practice sessions over a period of several years," the study said. "The emergence of unusual skills typically followed rather than preceded a period during which unusual opportunities were provided, often combined with strong expectations that a child would do well. "The persistent myth that some people reach high levels of performance without devoting numerous hours to practice, owes much to the fact that practicing activities are usually outside the casual observer's view."
Research had shown strong correlation between the
level of performance of student violinists and the number of hours they
practiced. Even people who were not thought to have special talent could,
after training, reach levels previously considered attainable only by gifted
individuals. Research had shown that cocktail waitresses could regularly
remember as many as 20 drink orders at a time, far more than a control
group of university students. "It is conceivable that people who are employed
as waiters gravitate to such jobs because of an in-born memory skill,"
the study said. "But the findings make it far more likely that employees
excel in recording orders because of on-the-job practice.
" In sport, differences in the composition of certain
muscles were thought to be reliable predictors of differences in athletic
performance. However, the differences in the proportion of slow-twitch
muscle fibers that are essential for success in long-distance running are
largely the result of extended practice in running, rather than the initial
cause of differential ability," the study said. It said reasoning about
talent was often circular: "She plays so well because she has a talent.
How do I know she has a talent? That's obvious, she plays so well." Some
children did acquire ability more effortlessly than others did but that
did not mean they were gifted.
"Substantial numbers of today's musicians reach
standards of performance that would have been rare in Mozart's time, when
they would have regarded as special talents," the study said. "Similarly,
substantial numbers of serious amateur athletes are capable of marathon
times for which Olympic Gold Medals were awarded early in the present century.
"This again points to the importance of opportunities and learning experiences,
rather than innate gifts. "It even raises the possibility that levels of
performance in children that would have been regarded as indications of
innate talent in prior generations might be seen as indicating a lack of
talent in a child today."
Categorizing children as innately talented is discriminatory,
the authors say. "Preventing people from pursuing a goal because of the
unjustified conviction of teachers or parents that certain children would
not benefit from the opportunities given to those who are deemed to be
talented." By the same token, a false belief that one did not possess the
necessary talent could affect a person negatively. Talent was a myth and
it was time it was demolished, say the authors, but they add that it would
be wrong to assume that any diligent child could excel at anything, especially
in the absence of expert teaching, encouragement, and unusual motivation.
Opponents of Prof. Howe's theory said practice and other factors were no doubt important contributors to outstanding performance, but not enough to explain great creative works. "Talent is essential," said David Feldman and Tamar Katzir of Tufts University, Massachusetts, "If anyone can prove that the works of these individuals can be explained without recourse to a construct like natural talent, we will concede that talent does not exist: "Mozart, Picasso, Shakespeare, Martina Hingis, Pavarotti, Ramanujam, Judit Polgar and Micheal Jordan. Practice indeed…"
