Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Brooks: How Do You Become A Genius? Practice, Practice, Practice

By Big Tent Democrat

Contra the racially tinged views championed by Andrew "Fifth Column/Bell Curve" Sullivan, Charles Murray and other racialists, David Brooks trots out the old "How do you get to Carnegie Hall joke? Practice, practice, practice." Brooks writes:

What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had — the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there. The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.

[MORE . . .]

. . . If you wanted to picture how a typical genius might develop, you’d take a girl who possessed a slightly above average verbal ability. It wouldn’t have to be a big talent, just enough so that she might gain some sense of distinction. Then you would want her to meet, say, a novelist, who coincidentally shared some similar biographical traits. Maybe the writer was from the same town, had the same ethnic background, or, shared the same birthday — anything to create a sense of affinity. This contact would give the girl a vision of her future self. . . .

. . . Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this process. This research takes some of the magic out of great achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. 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. As Coyle observes, it’s not who you are, it’s what you do.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is no doubt that I want to believe this is true. It fits with my own desire for an egalitarian world. But it also fits my common sense. So much of who we are is based on what we are taught to expect we can do, taught what we can do and expect we are capable of.

For years and years I have fought with people, many of them of good faith even, regarding their religious like faith in "intelligence tests" and "scientific studies." I am a beliver in science. Provable observable science. Science with controls and truly rigorous methods.

What many proponents of "intelligence tests" never accept, I think because they don't want to accept it - is that human experience is simply impossible to rigorously and truly reliably test in a precise, scientific method. Look, Coyle and his colleagues may have done good work - and they may not have. I admit my desire to see their work accepted, tested and proven. But I have no illusions. The mysteries of humanity remain beyond us in too many ways. I wish more folks could accept that.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 01, 2009 (boomark / email).