Mastering a New Skill

[Marc Berman]

A video is worth a thousand words

[randybrown]

We all know that some have a particular knack for making music. We've seen it. We also know that the "10,000 Hour Rule" has some merit.

We also probably know that some musicians simply had no better way to make it out of their particular circumstances. Hard work and perseverance worked for them.

So, there's no one path to follow, and no one excuse for not becoming the best musician that you can.

[Explorer]

"It's easy to believe that elite performers must be naturals who possess a gift that can't be taught. But what does the science say? Could the idea of innate talent just be a myth?"

We all know that some have a particular knack for making music. We've seen it. We also know that the "10,000 Hour Rule" has some merit.

We also probably know that some musicians simply had no better way to make it out of their particular circumstances. Hard work and perseverance worked for them.

So, there's no one path to follow, and no one excuse for not becoming the best musician that you can.

Randy has it right. Even the book Outliers, which discusses the 10K Hour Rule, has Gladwell acknowledging that the rule mainly only applies to practiced mental activity, and not to, say, how high someone can jump or how fast one can run.

As Carl notes...

The nature vs nurture thing (talent vs effort) has mostly come down to that it is both. There are almost no people with absolute positions on this in biology today. The serious study is on the interaction of the two.

I remember being fascinated by music, and playing on my one-octave Fisher Price xylophone. Some music was wider than the instrument and had parts that had to be "folded," and/or had parts in between the bars, sometimes helped by shifting the starting pitch. When I finally received a little organ with those in-between notes, I played it more. I remember figuring out how the chord buttons had a bunch of pitches stacked.

And when we got a piano, it was great, until I was forced into lessons. I had no interest in them, but when everyone was out of the house or distracted, I'd try to recreate the sounds from the piano in that movie "The Sting."

I know I definitely put in many hours as a child, but what's interesting is that I don't remember deciding to create anything. Instead, I'd be copying what I had already heard.

I sometimes think about those kids who diligently learned to play through levels of Super Mario Brothers. They had positive and negative reinforcement, and were highly motivated, but their mental effort on video games might not have paid off later the way my obsession with my xylophone and organ did.

[tiltman]

Yup, lots of good points made above, nature vs. nurture. I'm a Veterinarian and my wife is a Psychologist and we used to have lively discussions about this...
I believe that what it comes down to is this:

Nature=natural talent= falls on a spectrum. some people are at the upper end and can do certain things easily - others are at the lower end and will never be able to do it (ie - even in my youth I could not "dunk" a basketball...).

Nurture=environment= how hard you work at it. some people really take to something, have a strong interest and work really hard at it, others don't.

Where it comes together - Nature and Nurture - is where the magic can happen. If someone on the high end of the talent spectrum (Nature) really enjoys something and/or is encouraged to pursue it (Nurture) they are highly likely to be successful. My understanding is that Chris Thile was home-schooled in a household that valued playing acoustic music = Nature and Nurture.

I like think that I have a modest amount of "talent" on the mandolin. It's a hobby so I don't work that hard at it and I play pretty well. If I didn't have a career that I enjoy...who knows. Bill Monroe chose to play mandolin rather than farm or work in a tire factory up North - I'm glad he did.

Kirk

[Dave Sheets]

IMHO, its hard work and the right environment. In addition, from an evolutionary biology perspective its plausible that some forms of knowledge persist and are passed on. Given neuro-plasticity the structure of our brains change overtime as a consequence of what we study and how we spend our lives. It seems conceivable that these neurological traits can be passed on (and accumulate) over generations. Stated differently, what we may interpret "natural talent" might better be thought of as knowledge or skill "earned" by previous generations. .... maybe.

This is a concept called Lamarckian evolution. Worth a quick google search.

[Andy B]

In my experience people who are extremely successful in any activity tend to be monomaniacs who work at it incessantly. But it is also my sense that those people often (but not always) are exploiting a reservoir of innate ability, although I admit that here it can be hard to distinguish cause and effect. It is noted that prodigies tend to be most common in music, mathematics, and chess, and there are many stories of very young children who exhibit extraordinary talent in these areas before they have had time for substantial practice. But not all chess champions were child prodigies.

[Carl Robin]

So-called "nature" and "nurture" are both involved to some extent, but motivation is the key ingredient. Some people have OCD, a disorder where focus and and persistence are misplaced, unhealthy. Put that focus and persistence to good use, and it becomes commendable. I would call this a reservoir of innate ability. Apply it where you are motivated.