Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Training beats Talent

I have believed this for many years, and I believe very strongly that the same is true not just for academic subjects but for musical talent and training as well.

It's right in line with everything I've seen over the years. The "growth mind-set" is something I've seen in every good student I've ever worked with. (It's also something I see in myself. I've had a far more successful musical career than many people of greater talent, simply because I work hard.)

And now, there's some research on the subject:

The Secret to Raising Smart Kids

Yes, I believe in that as well. I have the talent for music but for many years in the area of playing the piano, it went uncultured and did help but just a little. After moving here, I got a new teacher and she saw my talent, took it and helped it grow at the same time pushed me to my limits, sometimes over the edge to see what I was capable off.

It was'nt so much of the talent but more of the extremely intensive training that I've had since I started piano under her. If i never moved here I guess i would have somehow reached this stage but not that soon and my pieces that I play would'nt be as refined and clean.

Anecdotal research from what I can tell. Yes, enduring (or even having a talent to endure) boring mundane work WILL get you somewhere in a system where boring mundane work is rewarded. That's the only message I get from this 'research' and yes, plenty of it goes on in music.

Actually, not. I'm very familiar with Carol Dweck's work, and she is respected in the field as a careful methodologist. In many of her studies, mastery vs. entity (what she calls helpless here) orientation is a measured variable, and thus those studies are limited in their ability to infer causality. However, she has also done studies where they have experimentally manipulated orientation, and randomly assigned participants to condition, and these studies support the correlational research. But it's careful empirical research and not at all "anecdotal." (She's writing the current article for a lay audience, so she sprinkles it with a lot of examples just to make her point, but it's based on empirical work.)

Kreisler, I tried hard to champion the "hard work" side in the talent vs. hard work thread, but the talent side appears to have won out. I guess I'm still convinced that hard work is by far the more important ingredient.

Kreisler,

Thank you for the link to "The Secret of Raising Smart Kids".

I checked out some of Carol Dweck's writings. Here is a quote from an interview: Tell that to the schools I've taught in. Learning was kicked out as league tables came in.

You and I, Monica, are on either side of a great divide. I have watched for decades as each new 'paradigm', 'theory', 'model', was foisted on classroom teachers - each one leaving practitioners more and more disempowered in its wake. Have you ever heard of Paul Hirst? He was the biggest thinker in the setting up of our post-war education system. I have sat in a seminar where he totally recanted his theories. Theories that have blighted millions of children's lives. 'My new theory...' he began.

there you go again, Kreisler!

Many thanks for this excellent article reference.

No one would argue that public education has been mis-managed, particularly in parallel and irresponsible 180 degree swings witnessed in the UK, The Netherlands, the United States and countless other "advanced" nations. However, that does not seem to me to be a valid reason to reject research results.

In marketing, some of the most difficult segmentation exercises are on consumer attitudes. In the social sciences I can understand the difficulty of attaching conclusions based on "mind sets", much less designing solid educational policies on these. Nevertheless, I found the article compelling and very usable in terms of designing National educational programs, corporate human resource management policies and support for aspiring performing pianists.

Well I've read page two - The better results for 'those who feel effort is more important' goes without saying in, as I have said, a system that rewards effort over imagination.

I never said "hard work" wasn't important, just that I felt the "talent side" was being given short shift.

On the other thread I suggested 50-50. Might that bring us a bit closer?

Could it be that innate talent(s) steer one towards whatever avocation that makes the unavoidable required work more fulfilling and less like "work?"

Or steers you AWAY altogether?

In fact, would anyone like to guess how many times the word imagination appears in this 5 page net-article?

The problem with statements such as what started this thread I think is two fold.

Firstly, the statement itself is so vague as to nearly be meaningless. What is the quantitative measure for "talent"? I think everyone will agree that generally, if you practice something, you will get better. So you have people with different levels of talent that will allow them to improve at different rates. So lets say that you are going to try to measure this. You establish a baseline ability (B), and then you measure "improvement" by practice as the rate in which a person improves (V). So a more "talented" person will likely have a higher B and a higher V. Lets say a "less talented" person starts at B/2 and their ability to improve for a given amount of practice is V/2. It follows that if the lesser talent practices 5x the amount of the more talented person, that it is very possible for them to catch and surpass the "more talented" person. I understand this is a gross simplification, but I don't see where there is any real argument here? There will always be outliers of course. Seems to me that this only really becomes an issue if you speak of "potential".

Secondly, people have made mention of "success", and again, this is a very vague measure. Successfulness doesn't necessarily relate to ability, so exactly what are we measuring here?

Labelling Talent and Improvement as variables and then plugging them in to a simple linear euqation model to calculate who is best simply doesn't wash.

Firstly these things aren't mathematically equation variables and can't be easily meaused, and even if they could the relationship certainly wouldn't be linear.

Genius, talent, intelligence et al. - sometimes an individual just "knows" or just "can" and other individuals just "don't get it" or "can't", and no amount of work/practice will ever change that.

Wow! You wait ages for a scientist then two come along at once! Thanks guys (girls?).

Actually the equations were to illustrate a point, not to represent reality. Obviously peoples abilities don't improve at a linear rate, but you can find a best fit line over a reasonable period of time to create some general observations. Plus I stated that there are always outliers, those that are "exceptional" and those on the opposite end of the spectrum. Even then you can plot a line that has either an extremely steep slope or extremely flat.

But anyway, my point was simply that as a general rule, hard work _can_ (not necessarily will) equalize performance assuming the "more talented" party is not working at a high enough rate to keep the "less talented" person from surpassing them. And that this seemed pretty evident and obvious.

If you're referring to me:

Young persons response: I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Old fogey response: I'm not a scientist, but I do play one on tv.

"As a general rule, hard work can equalise performance".

This statemenet is simply not true. Hard work most certainly can and does improve ability but in absolutely no way can you try to infer or conclude that if everyone does a different amount of work to compensate for different levels of starting ability that everyone will end up the same. That is clearly nonsense.

I think a more accurate general rule would be that the harder you work the better you will get.

When one looks at world-class pianists, most people would say they're talented. If these piansts and taken one month of lessons, then never played again, they would likely not be up on stage.

I think talent is only 'potential talent,' until it is brought out, developed, nurtured and allowed to grow. How much of this potential is eventually realized is dependent upon training, time, persistence and hard work.

I believe its a term used for people who are on the extreme end of the learning curve spectrum. They are able see what others do not and do what others can not and do both with far greater speed and efficiency than the rest of us. Personally, I think their brains are just wired differently than the average Joe.

Those that recognize they have this gift have a choice. They can either use it to their advantage or choose to waste it. They either recognize they can if they want to, or choose not to want to.

The latter is sad.

I have no doubt that hard work will get you much further than a mediocre effort. All other things being equal, can hard work alone and no talent produce the same results as talent (you're not born with) combined with hard work? Unfortunately, I don't think it can.

I wish I were talented, but I'm not. Hard work will just have to do.