If you concentrate on one thing?

[semi-pro waster]

While I don't believe that you can excel at everything you try, I believe there are a number of careers/skills where you can become pretty good if you put in enough practice - you'll never be as good as someone with natural ability and application but certainly decent.

There are some things that no matter how much time and effort I put in I will never be anything much above average in but I'll continue to do them because I enjoy them.

It's also worth remembering that just because a skill is unusual and you may be great at it doesn't automatically mean you'll be able to make much of a living from it - you could be the greatest Bolivian nose-flute player in the World and it seems unlikely there's enough of a market in it to support yourself if you live in say Great Yarmouth.

 

[Dabbles]

It's supposed to prepare us for the world of work. All it really prepares us for is that we're going to be told what to do by people we think are ********* for the rest of our lives.

Some would say it prepares us perfectly for the world of work!

 

[Deleted member 77746]

^^ there is plenty Bolivian nose-flute players on here though? You not saw the video thread where people are doing it?

 

[Calabi]

Of course theres genetic variability and all that. And some people may be predisposed due to having a better sense of smell or, stronger ears. But the advantage is not going to be so great as to throw out any competition(perhaps unless your Usain Bolt, but then even he can falter)for someone that works hard and tries.

And yes there is autistics and children, but then the children dont seem to perform so great when they are adults(and tall people whatever).

Whats even the likelyhood that these people, that are predisposed for something, are going to find that one thing they are really good at?

Mastery does no happen by itself. Our brain doesnt decide if we are good at maths or music or science, someone shows us it, gives us encouragement or denigration.

Your brain could be completely built wrong for music but you could be pretty good at it(look at Barry Manilow and Celine Deon). The person whom is not supposedly natural at a subject could bring a new perspective on that subject.

Personally I think people whom sing badly are doing so because they are naturally bad they are just lettin themselves be ignorant, you can see they dont even try.

People are very fluid in my opinion. You can be good enough if you study one thing, maybe not the best, but close.

 

[TheCenturion]

Of course theres genetic variability and all that. And some people may be predisposed due to having a better sense of smell or, stronger ears. But the advantage is not going to be so great as to throw out any competition(perhaps unless your Usain Bolt, but then even he can falter)for someone that works hard and tries.

And yes there is autistics and children, but then the children dont seem to perform so great when they are adults(and tall people whatever).

Whats even the likelyhood that these people, that are predisposed for something, are going to find that one thing they are really good at?

Mastery does no happen by itself. Our brain doesnt decide if we are good at maths or music or science, someone shows us it, gives us encouragement or denigration.

Your brain could be completely built wrong for music but you could be pretty good at it(look at Barry Manilow and Celine Deon). The person whom is not supposedly natural at a subject could bring a new perspective on that subject.

Personally I think people whom sing badly are doing so because they are naturally bad they are just lettin themselves be ignorant, you can see they dont even try.

People are very fluid in my opinion. You can be good enough if you study one thing, maybe not the best, but close.

Your post doesn't really support your argument that natural ability doesn't exist.

 

[semi-pro waster]

^^ there is plenty Bolivian nose-flute players on here though? You not saw the video thread where people are doing it?

Damn, I picked completely the wrong example there.

Of course theres genetic variability and all that. And some people may be predisposed due to having a better sense of smell or, stronger ears. But the advantage is not going to be so great as to throw out any competition(perhaps unless your Usain Bolt, but then even he can falter)for someone that works hard and tries.
Snipped for space

The advantage can be so great that it renders competition basically pointless. The 100m is fine for demonstrating this point, Usain Bolt has run 9.58 in this event, that's a full 0.11 faster than anyone else - ever*. And in 100m terms that is absolutely huge, the record tends to be broken by hundredths of a second over quite a long period of time or to put it another way between 1999 (previous record) and 2008 it dropped by 0.07 seconds, it took almost 10 years to do that and then Usain Bolt managed to take over 0.1 of a second from it in a year - that's natural ability right there. He may also be on huge quantities of drugs and there's no doubt someone who works hard and is talented will do better than someone who is merely talented but never applies themselves but to suggest natural ability isn't a huge factor in certain sports is not one I can support.

*And if he doesn't manage to get himself disqualified the rest are essentially running for second place, look also to Michael Johnson for another athlete so far ahead of his field he appeared to be on another plane entirely.

 

[LordSplodge]

Even 10+ years ago when I was at secondary school, the focus was getting you through GCSE. The careers advice classes I barely remember as they were 30 minutes long and so few.

There was no career advice when I was at school. To be honest I don't think it is essential, most people don't really decide their final career at school anyway.

In Year 5 (or Year 11 to you youngsters) they taught us how to focus on exams but for the previous years they actually taught us, you know, the actual subject.

Oh course this was more than 10 years ago!

 

[alx]

Your post doesn't really support your argument that natural ability doesn't exist.

Obviously natural ability exists to a certain degree, but there's been some interesting studies which have shown that people who become truely world class at a subject/activity are the ones who have put the most practise hours in.

I can't seem to find the article now, but it was interesting to see that once someone was 'good' at something, it was basically a matter of putting the hours in to become world class.

Although with regards to sport where physical attributes are more important the technical side this may not always apply.

 

[krooton]

Obviously natural ability exists to a certain degree, but there's been some interesting studies which have shown that people who become truely world class at a subject/activity are the ones who have put the most practise hours in.

Which they only did because they had the natural ability to do it well.

People all "get" different things, and if you don't "get" something, you cannot force it, and someone else who does "get" it will perform better and be more likely to put in the hard slog and eventually attain greatness.

 

[TheCenturion]

Despite what everyone is saying, I don't think that focusing on one single thing is the best way to master that thing. Like I said, it's all about balance.

England women's cricket captain also studied physics at Oxford.
All of the academically successful people at my school do more than just sit in their rooms reading text books. They're the ones in the band, orchestra, sports teams, drama productions, community service etc.

 

[alx]

Which they only did because they had the natural ability to do it well.

People all "get" different things, and if you don't "get" something, you cannot force it, and someone else who does "get" it will perform better and be more likely to put in the hard slog and eventually attain greatness.

Yeah, but the point about this study was that it was done at a well renowned music school in Berlin, where all the students accepted were already very talented.

The study found that the students that went on to be world class practised more than the ones who just ended up very good.

 

[TheCenturion]

Yeah, but the point about this study was that it was done at a well renound music school in Berlin, where all the students accepted were already very talented.

The study found that the students that went on to be world class practised more than the ones who just ended up very good.

But isn't that a given

Practice + talent > talent

And

Practice + talent > Practice

But that doesn't necessarily mean the 'value' of practice is greater than that of talent.

 

[alx]

But isn't that a given

Practice + talent > talent

And

Practice + talent > Practice

But that doesn't necessarily mean the 'value' of practice is greater than that of talent.

I guess the point I'm arguing is that this study showed that practise triumphed over talent given a basic competence in the task.

Here is the study: http://www.musicthinktank.com/mtt-open/10000-hours-of-practice-makes-perfect.html

 

[krooton]

I guess the point I'm arguing is that this study showed that practise triumphed over talent given a basic competence in the task.

Here is the study: http://www.musicthinktank.com/mtt-open/10000-hours-of-practice-makes-perfect.html

But you can't really measure talent, unlike practice which is easily recorded.

Show me someone with no innate talent that becomes world class through practice alone and I'd be surprised. That person just wouldn't be able to compete with those who have talent also practice, and would also hit a wall before some people who are just talented would.

If you are tone deaf and can't identify the key a song should be sung or played in, no amount of practice will correct that. Just like a colour blind person cannot become a world class painter of still life images.