More "Studies" on Practice vs Innate Ability

[Mandobart]

Another "study" about practice vs talent/innate ability. I use quotes because I'm a person trained in logical troubleshooting and the scientific method, neither of which I see demonstrated in most internet articles.

The authors compared ability vs number of reported hours of practice in sets of identical and fraternal siblings. Full study can be found in the journal Psychological Science.

I've always questioned the use of reported practice hours in this and the famous "outliers" study. My experience is there are two groups of practice-hours-reporters - those that don't want to admit how little they practice so they figure "gee I must put in about an hour or three every day." The second are those that don't want to admit how many hours they actually practice, so they say "no I never really practice."

In this excerpt of the complete study, it also states they measured ability by "how well people could detect differences in pitch, distinguish different melodies and recognize different rhythms." I know capable players who still don't really get intervals and can't play back what they just heard. I know BG and OT players who just can't get latin or jazz rhythm, despite all their practice or ability in other genres.

[JeffD]

The hitch in the analysis is that it is comparisons between people, even twins.

It attempts to answer the question "If I practice more will I be able to play like that person over there" or "if I practice more than you will I be able to play more than you?" Which, because of innate talent and differences in physiology can't be answered easily.

But who cares?

I think what every musician wants to know (or should be asking) is "if I practice more will I sound better than if I don't practice more?" and, for the most part the answer is yes.

I don't think its a linear relationship where so much practice always yields so much progress, and I don't think all practice regimes are equally effective, but I truly believe practice is never a waste of time, and that for the overwhelming majority of us more practice is more better.

(Practice is not a substitute for instruction of course. I am assuming that practice implies practicing doing it correctly. Doing it wrong is never advisable.)

If your goal is to play as good as <insert your hero's name here>, it would be better probably to get new genes, or start playing about ten years before you are born.

But if your goal is to get better than you are now, well these study results do not refute the idea that you need to practice.

[JeffD]

Another "study" about [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/musical-talent-gene-twin-study_n_5658872.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000037&ir =Parents"] My experience is there are two groups of practice-hours-reporters - those that don't want to admit how little they practice so they figure "gee I must put in about an hour or three every day." The second are those that don't want to admit how many hours they actually practice, so they say "no I never really practice."

I think you are right.

[sblock]

Just because one may not have born with as much "genetic potential" for some particular human activity -- in this case, music -- does not mean that one cannot become better, and perhaps even great, by applying one's self with dedication and effort! And there are countless examples of this. For that very reason, one should never use the excuse that "I lack talent" or "I have the wrong genes" (or whatever) to give up on something you love and wish to pursue. In many cases, folks with only moderate levels of talent (or whatever you want to call it) have been able to reach the very limits of their abilities, and that's all one can ever ask. That is NOT to say that some other folks aren't born with (or perhaps develop very early?) a good deal more potential than others. As I've argued before, it's not nature alone. It's not nurture alone. It's both. And these things don't fully compensate for one another, in the sense that a deficit in one cannot be fully balanced by a "surplus" of the other, in the vast majority of cases (but not all). You may have oodles of talent, but if you don't develop your 'gift' through sustained practice, you may not succeed. Conversely, some folks can practice hard for years but will never achieve the heights of some others. C'est la vie. But that's not sufficient reason not to develop in music. A well-lived life, I would argue, is one where you have explored your own potential (and if possible, to the max!) and reaped some of the benefits.

The neuroscientist in the twin study above (which showed that nature could, at least selectively, trump nurture when it came to musical development) put it this way:

"The idea that an externally imposed practice regime can and will lead to expertise seems to be wrong," said study researcher Miriam Mosey, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "But innate ability should also not be seen in a deterministic way, as, naturally, practice will (almost) always lead to an increase in ability (but not necessarily to high-level expertise),"

It helps to have both talent and experience. Not one or the other. But let's not kid ourselves, some folks have a bigger share of talent than others.

P.S. In basketball, it pays to be unusually tall and have superb eye-hand coordination. But not all tall, coordinated people are great basketball players. Still, it helps a lot! Who are we kidding?! There are darned few short folks playing successfully in the NBA, regardless of their coordination level. Still, there was Anthony "Spud" Webb, who could slam-dunk (and won the NBA contest), even though he was 5'7", and one of the very shortest players ever in the league (only two players have been shorter). But only two players under 6' tall have ever won the NBA slam-dunk contest. Genes count for a great deal.

[darrylicshon]

I started playing violin in 6 grade i wont say how long ago that was in 7 grade i went to a performing arts school for the violin stayed thru 12 i was able to site read really well , so i never pratice , the teacher never knew , i wish now that i did pratice cauce even tho you may have tallent if you pratice you do get better

[bratsche]

I've always questioned the use of reported practice hours in this and the famous "outliers" study. My experience is there are two groups of practice-hours-reporters - those that don't want to admit how little they practice so they figure "gee I must put in about an hour or three every day." The second are those that don't want to admit how many hours they actually practice, so they say "no I never really practice."

While I agree that exaggeration in both directions is quite likely, I find it interesting that you don't even imagine the possibility of a third group - those who answer the question as honestly as possible. Rather cynical view, if you ask me.

bratsche

[Hudmister]

Seems as though I've heard similar conversations about golf. Basically, if you have raw talent and practice with a serious focus, you will succeed. If you have little talent and never practice you will do less well.

[Jeff Mando]

While I agree that exaggeration in both directions is quite likely, I find it interesting that you don't even imagine the possibility of a third group - those who answer the question as honestly as possible. Rather cynical view, if you ask me.

bratsche

Recently, one of the large condom manufacturers conducted a study/survey of ##### size (not joking!) so they could find averages and offer more products. They went to Cancun during spring break because of the large survey sample. They had nurses do the measuring to keep everything legit. What they found when comparing the study to a previous study where men were allowed to measure themselves (honor system) was that the results of the previous study were exaggerated by 1/2 to 1 inch when compared to the new study. Cynical, you say....well, I guess pride is involved, too. I'm going to stop because it is too difficult to walk a fine line without making a Seinfeld joke......

[belbein]

They had nurses do the measuring to keep everything legit

Wait. You're assuming that because they were nurses --

Oh, never mind. I'm censoring myself before the moderators do.

[lorrainehornig]

My daughter started playing violin when she was eight-years-old. She had a burning desire to play violin since she was two-years-old when she heard violin music on TV and it caused her to cry. Her practice time was spotty at best but I am guessing she averaged 2.5 hours a week. She was always self-disciplined and I never had to tell her to prepare for her lessons and orchestra and she did so with what I would consider very little practice. She made first chair in her elementary orchestra in 4th grade and first chair upon entering Junior High and then Senior High. She made all-state orchestra when she was thirteen-years-old. She eventually dropped out of orchestra in order to pursue guitar and piano. She is now in her early 40s and music is still her passion. She has even started taking violin lessons again to learn various bowing techniques. From my experience with my daughter, I must say that I am a firm believer in innate ability. I also believe studies regarding practice to be flawed due to the human factor...that is, to say what they believe the examiner wants them or expects them to say. Of course, very controlled conditions could ensure practice time...but would probably inhibit test subjects and affect mastery. Of course, for most of us, reasonable practice time results in improvement over time...however just as an athlete who over-trains is at risk for burnout, so too is the musician.

[FLATROCK HILL]

They had nurses do the measuring to keep everything legit.

Maybe an honest attempt to keep everything legit, but the introduction of nurses to the equation may have had an unintended effect on the outcome of this study.

[Stephen Perry]

There's my group, or whatever outlier I am. I practiced piano with lessons for 5 years. Took a break with a smashed hand. Practiced and played more in high school. Light amount of talent, lots of will power. An hour or more a day. Then studied and practiced through much of the 1980s. Haven't practiced since, but I still play and improvise and sight read well enough. At my piano meetup there are folks who started as adults and claim to have practiced an hour a day for the last month. I'm honest and say something like "I sat down for 10 minutes and found this cool piece." And that's the practice I did. But I can perform just fine.

How can a study take that in account? How is a misspent youth slaving at the keyboard accommodated by questions about now?

[PseudoCelt]

Another "study" about practice vs talent/innate ability. I use quotes because I'm a person trained in logical troubleshooting and the scientific method, neither of which I see demonstrated in most internet articles.

Internet articles are written by journalists, so you can’t expect either logical troubleshooting or any scientific method. You seem to be confusing a short article written by a journalist about a study with the study itself.

The authors compared ability vs number of reported hours of practice in sets of identical and fraternal siblings. Full study can be found in the journal Psychological Science.

I've always questioned the use of reported practice hours in this and the famous "outliers" study. My experience is there are two groups of practice-hours-reporters - those that don't want to admit how little they practice so they figure "gee I must put in about an hour or three every day." The second are those that don't want to admit how many hours they actually practice, so they say "no I never really practice."

The authors of the study address this point to an extent. From the paper: “Self-reported practice estimates have been shown to be reasonably reliable, with correlations ranging between .6 and .9 (de Bruin, Smits, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2008; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993).”

In this excerpt of the complete study, it also states they measured ability by "how well people could detect differences in pitch, distinguish different melodies and recognize different rhythms." I know capable players who still don't really get intervals and can't play back what they just heard. I know BG and OT players who just can't get latin or jazz rhythm, despite all their practice or ability in other genres.

Although the text you quote doesn’t appear in the published study, it is a reasonable description of the tests they did, which measure the ability to discriminate between different pitches, melodies and rhythms, tasks necessary for music and in which musicians tend to outperform non-musicians.

The capable players you know, even if they can't play well by ear, must be able to distinguish between different pitches and recognise a tune or they would not be "capable" musicians. Likewise, the fact that BG/OT players with ability in their own genre can’t "get" Latin or jazz rhythms suggests that they can discriminate between different rhythms, ie. they can recognise the difference between rhythms they do get vs. the ones they don’t. Recognising rhythms and being able to play them is not the same thing.

Patrick

[PseudoCelt]

How is a misspent youth slaving at the keyboard accommodated by questions about now?

The participants were not just asked about what they do now. From the paper:
"Participants were first asked whether they play an instrument (or actively sing). Those who responded positively were questioned about the number of years they practiced during four age intervals (ages 0–5 years, 6–11 years, 12–17 years, and 18 years until the time of measurement) and how many hours a week during each of those intervals they practiced. From these estimates, a sum-score estimate of the total hours played during their lifetime was calculated, with non-players receiving a score of zero."

[Randi Gormley]

... maybe they were male nurses? c'mon guys. equality and all that.

This and the recent very long discussion on talent vs hard work have fascinated me for the past few weeks -- thanks! Just thought I'd say that.

[ombudsman]

I like to read articles like this, but like Mandobart pointed out, there are common problems with them. Correlation is not causality, and generally speaking no peer reviewed paper is going to make a loose claim of causality, but the writers that are trying to summarize the findings for the general public often do not understand this. The way they read scientific papers is a lot like how my bosses' boss reads my emails or listens to me explain a technical matter; immediately afterwards, he repeats a one line summary that ignores all of the caveats and detail and embellishes a selection of it into whatever he wanted to hear.

Also headlines are commonly written by editors or as a staff decision rather than by the author of the article, so they have the same problem compounded, because they only read the article and not the study.

It's not hard to read something like this and find something to confirm whatever your preferred viewpoint is. For example, if you take this quote -

""The idea that an externally imposed practice regime can and will lead to expertise seems to be wrong," said study researcher Miriam Mosey, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "

No offense, but some people seem to be reading it as if it said this (in bold) only:

"The idea that an externally imposed practice regime can and will lead to expertise seems to be wrong," said study researcher Miriam Mosey, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

while I see it and these words are highlighted in my mind:

"The idea that an externally imposed practice regime can and will lead to expertise seems to be wrong," said study researcher Miriam Mosey, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

Wherever you stand, it seems to me that those two words change everything about what this person is saying. I have never felt an "externally imposed" - as in, from a teacher or a school using some sort of pre established method of teaching the material - is in any sense a guarantee of any eventual ability. An internally imposed practice regime is the only thing I have ever seen work, and it works very well indeed for those that have that motivation. People that are interested sometimes accept and respond to an external teaching method with a corresponding internal method, but that is not really the same thing as being taught a method. We're talking about active vs. passive concepts of learning. I'd be surprised if anyone would disagree with that.

[jimbob]

I don't have a lot of data but do have two sons. Both like golf and play some. One son is a "natural"...good swing, strikes the ball well, would be really good if he had time and made effort to practice. The other son is like me...not very good at it. Even with practice, the game just doesn't come naturally. I think raw talent exists and people who have the raw talent and put in the effort are the best performers in any arena. Practice can overcome some lack of raw talent, but raw talent is certainly a gift given to some and not others. I think....

[farmerjones]

Not pointed at anyone here or anybody in particular:
I don't care what you sound like in private. But for everybody else's sake, please practice.


Oh, and use a metronome sometimes.

[sblock]

Well, ombudsman is correct about at least one thing: the popular press, often in an attempt to simplify -- or just helpfully interpret -- matters for the general public, often gets stuff wrong. In this case, the widely reported story about "Miriam Mosey", supposedly a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, managed not only to muddy the waters, but ALSO managed to spell her name wrong! If you go to the Psychological Journal and try to find the original scientific report under that name, you won't find it. Also, if you go to Karolinska's web page and try to search for her, you won't find anyone! It took a bit of sleuthing to set the matter straight (thanks to Kaarina Sternrudd at KI).

Anyway, the correct name is Miriam MOSING (not Mosey!) and she works in the lab of Fred Ullen at KI. Here is the abstract from her recent paper (a twin study, combining genetics and psychometrics), "Practice Does Not Make Perfect." You can download the rest of it from here, if you're interested: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early...56797614541990

PRACTICE DOES NOT MAKE PERFECT

The relative importance of nature and nurture for various forms of expertise has been intensely debated. Music proficiency is viewed as a general model for expertise, and associations between deliberate practice and music proficiency have been interpreted as supporting the prevailing idea that long-term deliberate practice inevitably results in increased music ability. Here, we examined the associations (rs = .18–.36) between music practice and music ability (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination) in 10,500 Swedish twins. We found that music practice was substantially heritable (40%−70%). Associations between music practice and music ability were predominantly genetic, and, contrary to the causal hypothesis, nonshared environmental influences did not contribute. There was no difference in ability within monozygotic twin pairs differing in their amount of practice, so that when genetic predisposition was controlled for, more practice was no longer associated with better music skills. These findings suggest that music practice may not causally influence music ability and that genetic variation among individuals affects both ability and inclination to practice.

Now, as to obusdman's reinterpretation of the author's quote found in the popular press, in which he chooses to place great emphasis on "externally imposed" practice, and then draws a distinction between "external" and something that he calls an "internally imposed practice regime." He's argued in another thread that "internally imposed" regimes can somehow overcome or compensate for things like heredity/talent/musical genius (call it what you like -- we all know what's being discussed). Very clearly, based on my careful reading of their work, the authors of this paper would disagree completely with ombudsman's assertions.

In fact, I have concluded that that is clearly not at all what Mosing was trying to say! It doesn't matter whether a practice regime is "externally" or "internally" imposed: the point is that heritable changes make a huge difference in the measured performance, to a degree that is nearly irrespective of the level of practice. Furthermore, I would argue that trying to make some distinction between "external" and "internal" influences is quite impossible, and therefore largely meaningless, since we all learn, ultimately, by making internal changes (this is a matter of definition, in fact, since these changes happen in our brains and bodies), regardless of the source of the influence. Furthermore, ombudsman himself just argued that "external" influences can sometimes lead to "internal" impositions followed by individual progress, so this truly becomes a distinction without a difference.

Anyway, the Mosing (not Mosey) study is both interesting and provocative. When some trait, or traits, are found to be 40-70% heritable, that says an awful lot. I was surprised myself at the strength of the effect they measured, in fact. I'd always expected there to be one (and there is already ample supporting evidence from other sources) but not one this stong!

[JeffD]

Not pointed at anyone here or anybody in particular:
I don't care what you sound like in private. But for everybody else's sake, please practice.


Oh, and use a metronome sometimes.

Yea, if not for your sake, please practice for those for whom you play.

[ombudsman]

Now, as to obusdman's reinterpretation of the author's quote found in the popular press, in which he chooses to place great emphasis on "externally imposed" practice, and then draws a distinction between "external" and something that he calls an "internally imposed practice regime." He's argued in another thread that "internally imposed" regimes can somehow overcome or compensate for things like heredity/talent/musical genius (call it what you like -- we all know what's being discussed).

In the (admittedly unlikely) event anyone wants to know what I think about these topics, I would suggest they read my posts, rather than the creative reading by my official Passive Aggressive Mandolin Forum Stalker (TM).

Very clearly, based on my careful reading of their work, the authors of this paper would disagree completely with ombudsman's assertions.

Do you often find yourself telling people what other people would think about things that they have not read ?

It doesn't matter whether a practice regime is "externally" or "internally" imposed: the point is that heritable changes make a huge difference in the measured performance, to a degree that is nearly irrespective of the level of practice.

Furthermore, I would argue that trying to make some distinction between "external" and "internal" influences is quite impossible, and therefore largely meaningless, since we all learn, ultimately, by making internal changes (this is a matter of definition, in fact, since these changes happen in our brains and bodies), regardless of the source of the influence. Furthermore, ombudsman himself just argued that "external" influences can sometimes lead to "internal" impositions followed by individual progress, so this truly becomes a distinction without a difference.

Ah yes, the classic strategy of smothering by semantics. Take a breath, dude.

If it "doesn't matter", then why do you think she said "externally imposed" ? Was it some sort of typing accident ? If she thinks this distinction is worth stating, and I agree with her, while you disagree, then doesn't that logically mean you aren't agreeing with what she is saying (or aren't understanding it) ?

[sblock]

Yow. PAMFS is a pretty awkward acronym, don't you think? Besides, I am hardly stalking you, obudsman. If you look, you'll see that I was the one who posted first to this thread (and also the other one) -- before you, not after you! So would that constitute some kind of "pre-stalking" or "anticipatory stalking"?! Seems like a contradiction in terms to me. But hey, I'm just responding to some of the more outrageous things you've said, which you are admittedly very passionate about, but which I think lack any genuine basis in science.

Anyway, this is getting a bit silly. You can engage in whatever type of selective reading you like, and disparage the messenger again (me), but I think the meaning of Mosing's paper is very adequately explained in her Abstract, which I posted -- these are her own words, not mine. Folks here can read it for themselves and see if they come away with anything that even remotely resembles your re-interpretation that "internally imposed changes" can trump nearly everything else. That's not at all what she's trying to say to us! In fact, Mosing very clearly does not hold with your unorthodox views on this subject (and neither do I), because she argues that heredity differences make an enormous, measurable contribution to musical ability, and in a way tends to trump practice. And she actually measured it (you'd demanded to see "evidence" in an earlier post: well, here you have some). Hence, her article's title, "Practice Does Not Make Perfect."

At some level, I think you surely must understand that. Now, you may not agree with any of it yourself (that much, I get), and you are certainly entitled to hold whatever view you like, but let's not try to put different words in her mouth, as you have. Especially ones she did NOT say, like "internally imposed practice regimes". No, she was NOT making some kind of subtle, unspoken distinction here between "external" and "internal" -- it's you who are. Read the rest of her original paper in context (I have). One cannot come away with the interpretation that we all possess uptapped "internal" abilities that we might tap into, and which, by doing so, will make us perform as well certain others, including virtuosos. Now, that may be (close to) your view of things, but it's clearly not hers. And it's not supported by her recent data, either.

I signed off the other thread on this, when you started getting so bent out of shape. And now, I propose to sign off this thread for a while as well, to let you cool off. All I want is for those readers who have an interest in this topic to get access to the original scientific literature, if they so desire, in addition to just the press releases and popular treatments. And I supplied that link in my post #19. I also want readers to know that your ideas about accessing untapped "internal" regimes are not a part of mainstream psychology, and they do not represent widely held views on how learning -- and accomplishments -- actually take place.

[ombudsman]

I signed off the other thread before when you started getting so bent out of shape. And now, I propose to sign off this thread for a while too, to let you cool off.

There might be a little projection going on there, son. But thanks for the gesture, and the giggle.

When you come back, maybe you can get around to that question about what it is you think she meant by "externally imposed" ? I mean, it's not like you are averse to writing stuff about this subject, so I hope that's not an inappropriate request.

[OldSausage]

There might be a little projection going on there, son.

This is going great!

[Dobe]

My 2 cents:
Practice =good
Innate ability = absolutely true, varies from person to person.