Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 86 guests, and 12 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    Amelia Willson, jordanstephen, LucyCoffee, Wes, moldypodzol
    11,533 Registered Users
    October
    S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30 31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/practice-makes-perfect-if-your-genes-play-along.html
    Practice Makes Perfect, If Your Genes Play Along
    By Peter Orszag
    Bloomberg
    Aug 20, 2013

    Quote
    Like many others who read Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” when it came out five years ago, I was impressed by the 10,000-hour rule of expertise. I wrote a column (for a different publication) espousing the rule, which holds that to become a world-class competitor at anything from chess to tennis to baseball, all that’s required is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

    David Epstein has convinced me I was wrong. His thoroughly researched new book, “The Sports Gene,” pretty much demolishes the 10,000-hour rule -- and much of “Outliers” along with it.

    The practice-makes-perfect theory is certainly inspiring. In 2009, and after reading Gladwell’s book and some of the associated research, a 30-year-old man named Dan McLaughlin decided to quit his job as a photographer, determined to practice golf for 10,000 hours and turn pro -- even though his previous experience consisted of just two trips to a driving range as a child. He now practices six hours a day, and is scheduled to hit 10,000 hours in late 2016.

    Epstein’s book suggests that McLaughlin better have a backup plan, because, while real elite athletes have put in plenty of practice time, their aptitude is enhanced by their genes.

    Genetic Clues

    If 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is necessary and sufficient for world-class performance, Epstein asks, why do some people reach the master level in chess after 3,000 hours while others require 23,000? The average number of hours needed for many pros may be about 10,000, but it varies widely.

    The reason for the variation is genetic, Epstein says. In one study, researchers at Indiana University, University of Minnesota, Texas A&M University, Washington University, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and Laval University in Quebec measured changes in VO2 max, an indicator of aerobic capacity, in people who followed a strict exercise regimen. About 5 percent of participants boosted their VO2 max levels by an astonishing 40 to 50 percent. Another 5 percent, however, saw almost no gain at all, and the rest fell in between.

    The clincher was that, although a subject’s rate of improvement had little to do with how fit he or she was to start with, members of a family showed somewhat similar gains. The rate of improvement varied 2 1/2 times as much between families as within families, highlighting the importance of genes in determining how much improvement occurred. As one of the researchers told Epstein, “Unfortunately for the low responders in these studies, the predetermined (genetic) alphabet soup just may not spell ‘runner.’”

    The research does not suggest that genes are dominant and training is irrelevant; instead, it says that the benefit from training is partially driven by genetics, so that a combination is required for top performance.

    What's true for sports is also true for academics. Intelligence sets an upper bound on what people can learn, and how much they study and how well they are taught affects how close they get to that bound.

    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Quote
    As one of the researchers told Epstein, “Unfortunately for the low responders in these studies, the predetermined (genetic) alphabet soup just may not spell ‘runner.’"

    LOL
    What a succinct summary.


    Become what you are
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Yup-- the idea is more correctly stated as "many hours of dedicated practice are necessary-- but not sufficient-- to produce mastery."



    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Z
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Z
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    It would be cute if it works out into a slick stack of necessary but not sufficient attributes that each roughly accounts for a single standard deviation jump. Pro athlete is probably like a +4 or +5 SD thing.
    So it might go:
    +1 SD for right age cohort
    +1 SD for genetic endurance
    +1 SD for genetic right size
    +1 SD for sufficient practice
    +1 SD for opportunity (great childhood coach, facilities whatnot)

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Yup.

    That's exactly how I think about this model.


    In some domains, the range of what it takes (in terms of 'practice' to mastery, and even what "mastery" means) is much narrower.


    I venture that this seems to be the case in many academic and performance disciplines. 6-16K hours = "necessary" for, say, professional expertise in math, neurosurgery, or music... but definitely insufficient for all but a handful, when one looks at the general population.

    I think that innate genetics plays a far larger role than mere hours of devoted practice ever will.

    I am/was never going to be a ballerina. Never. Wouldn't have mattered how many hours I spent at a studio, nor how talented my teachers were.


    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,259
    Likes: 8
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,259
    Likes: 8
    Thinking along these same lines... possibly physical education classes in schools could encourage students to recognize that various body structures may lend themselves to excellence in different areas... tall kids may be more inclined to excel at basketball... having short/petite kids receive lower grades because they cannot successfully compete against tall kids is absurd, and may penalize kids for genetic factors over which they have no control.

    Similarly, not all kids will run the mile swiftly, but may be great dancers or have superior hand-eye coordination. The key to encouraging kids to enjoy lifelong fitness is to help them find and accept their strengths.

    Same underlying principle applies academically. No one should feel bad because they need higher math or lower reading. The endgoal should ideally be helping everyone find their strengths.

    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 1,032
    N
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    N
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 1,032
    "Some kids have it, some kids don't," as my brother's high school math teacher once said. It's the same thing I realized when I went to work at a radio station many years ago -- I picked everything up in a couple of weeks, but the guy who was the program director had been on the radio for 15 years and still stunk. If you've got it, you can pick whatever it is up in very little time, but if you don't, it doesn't matter how long you do it, you'll never be any good. If you've got some seeds of "it", lots of practice can make you serviceable at something, but probably not great. Now, if they had wanted me to learn to MAKE music instead of playing it on records, it wouldn't have mattered how long they gave me -- I'm not musical, and I never will be, and 10,000 hours of practice would not help.

    I have a Dilbert cartoon in my desk collection:

    Dilbert: "Studies show it takes ten thousand hours of practice to be great at anything."

    Dogbert: "I would think a willingness to practice the same thing for ten thousand hours is a mental disorder."

    Dilbert: "That makes me feel better about my mediocrity."

    Dogbert: "You're welcome."


    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Help with WISC-V composite scores
    by aeh - 10/28/24 02:43 PM
    i Am genius and no one understands me!!!
    by Eagle Mum - 10/23/24 04:11 PM
    Classroom support for advanced reader
    by Heidi_Hunter - 10/14/24 03:50 AM
    2e Dyslexia/Dysgraphia schools
    by Jwack - 10/12/24 08:38 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5