Horizontalste Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I've been reading Daniel Coyle's book The Talent Code this week & thought I'd share my thoughts with "you orrible lot". It's basically a theory of how we weren't actually just born to be great masters of our discipline ( be it music, art, sport on anything else ) but instead natural talent is only a small part of it & true greatness comes from hours of continuous failure in the practice room. Basically the more we make mistakes & correct them through "deliberate practice" the more Myelin our brains produce to link pathways & insulate them giving us better access to skill. Apparently "skill is insulation that wraps neural circuits & grows according to certain signals", this is a quote that's backed up scientifically in the book & the authors main argument against natural born skill. The author visits various talent hotbeds throughout the world to find out why the turn out so many exceptionally talented people in their respective fields & in my opinion his finding make perfect sense. If your into the theory behind "deliberate practice" then this book is worth a read & if you were planning on giving up because you didn't jump out the woom playing "hit me with your rhythm stick" then don't, there's hope for you yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JapanAxe Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Does the author reference peer-reviewed research carried out using double-blind tests, or is he just relying on anecdotal evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontalste Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 For the most part it's anecdotal & he goes on to say research is still in the early stages but the boffins are getting excited about it as historically white matter has been largely overlooked. In my opinion it's a credible argument based on the evidence he provides but like yourself I'd like more proof. It's an interesting read/theory if your into that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Rock Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Aka 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I've always been "naturally" good at a lot of things, but to be honest have never excelled at anything. I'd like to think the theory is correct because my lack of excellence could then be assigned to my laziness. But, if the theory is that your skill is consolidated by wrapping the neural pathways created by mistakes what happens if you're naturally talented and don't make mistakes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontalste Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 In the book he makes a connection with the 10000 hour theory & the relationship that has with age. Apparently at birth we are primed to learn (don't think we can argue with that) & Myelin production is at its greatest during our childhood, teens & into our early twenties. I can see how this is relevant & I'd imagine anyone who started playing later in life or anyone who's tried to learn a second language past 30 could probably relate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontalste Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 [quote name='Nicko' timestamp='1445603149' post='2892743'] naturally talented and don't make mistakes? [/quote] There are good examples of people who we think were naturally talented who made there fair share of mistakes on their way to Mastery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMX Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 [quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1445602529' post='2892735'] Aka 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration [/quote] You got a source for that, matey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzneck Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) [quote name='HMX' timestamp='1445603959' post='2892759'] You got a source for that, matey? [/quote] A light bulb moment: Thomas Edison? Edited October 23, 2015 by Jazzneck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 [quote name='Horizontalste' timestamp='1445603566' post='2892750'] In the book he makes a connection with the 10000 hour theory & the relationship that has with age. Apparently at birth we are primed to learn (don't think we can argue with that) & Myelin production is at its greatest during our childhood, teens & into our early twenties. I can see how this is relevant & I'd imagine anyone who started playing later in life or anyone who's tried to learn a second language past 30 could probably relate. [/quote] I was going to mention the 10,000 hour theory. You have to learn from your mistakes, just repeating them is no good. Even not making any mistakes in the first place is no good either. So you have to apply yourself and stretch yourself. Being naturally good at something and simply repeating what you're naturally good at wont make you any better. Which I guess is self evident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreek Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Check my sig... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrevorR Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Yeah, not read The Talent Code but it sounds like a very similar premise to Malcolm Gladwell's eminently readable "Outliers" which promotes the 1000 hours theory. It uses the Beatles training in Hamburg and an example... The book does cite psychological research but digests it nicely in a pop psych manner. It's a few years old now so I guess that the neuroscience in this area has come along quite some way since then. The myelin production tie-in is an interesting twist as a physiological basis for the improvement gained from practice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colgraff Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I understand that the book is, and I haven't read it, similar to Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" which argues (very persuasively) that no one ever makes it purely on their own. He says that innate talent is a very small part of success and circumstance surrounding birth, timing, family and opportunity are much more important. It is a cracking good read, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretmeister Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Harvard prof Stephen Pinker book " The Blank Slate" gives an over view of recent research of what is innate and what is learnt. Good book and very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) hmmmm.. just going on the detail in this thread and having had the opportunity of playing with a few top class players ..one of whom was pretty much the 1st call guy in his field in this country for quite a while and I can say that no one around here gets remotely close.... and that includes guys either on major world tours as we speak on have been on them in the not too distant past. (There are more than a couple who will crop up on the local circuit) I know what sacrifices he made in his formative years, but that isn't a unique situation.by any means. What he has innately ..coupled with a lot of hard work would take him far farther than many many many people who put in the same hours. Of that, I am convinced. How else did he end up as the No 1 call... if all it was was down to playing hours and why can't anyone with enough determination and application do it. I'd say, they can't. Edited October 24, 2015 by JTUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naetharu Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='Horizontalste' timestamp='1445603566' post='2892750'] Myelin production is at its greatest during our childhood, teens & into our early twenties. I can see how this is relevant & I'd imagine anyone who started playing later in life or anyone who's tried to learn a second language past 30 could probably relate. [/quote] I'm very very dubious of this kind of idea. I think there is a massive danger that it can dissuade people from trying because they believe that they are at a point that it has become technically impossible for them. I've heard arguments like this for years and I'm yet to see any real evidence aside from anecdotes and general hand-waving. I'm all for people doing proper measured research that is peer reviewed etc. etc. but until strong evidence comes in otherwise I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that it is stunning what people can pick up at all points in their lives. Just as a personal example, I was told that learning a second language at this point in my life would be massively challenging (I'm in my 30s) yet to be honest it was not too bad. I now read/speak German and Attic because I needed to know them for work that I wanted to do. Sure, it was hard work but I doubt any more difficult than if I was younger. The benefit of doing at this age was that I could bring a lifetime of experience to the table and focus my study in a manner that would have been much harder if I was younger - especially for learning Attic since it's not spoken. I've also heard the same sort of arguments presented to people trying to loose weight - told that due to certain 'changes' in their bodies due to having been over-weight that it is impossible to become lean. I've heard this backed up with pseudo-science from trainers more than a few times, yet people do manage to get fit all the time. Same when it comes to playing music. I'd hate for anyone to be put off or otherwise demoralized from learning bass or any other instrument because of bad information of this kind. Finding a proper practice routine and spending time learning the theory along with the practical skills is all important, at least in my opinion. Being a given age, however, I cannot see has any real impact at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeEvans Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I tend to think that for the purposes of everyday life, you can just work on the principle that if you practice loads, you'll get better, at any age and at any stage. Whether or not you will at some stage emerge as an international bass genius is not really worth worrying about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassTractor Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='JapanAxe' timestamp='1445601859' post='2892724'] Does the author reference peer-reviewed research carried out using double-blind tests, or is he just relying on anecdotal evidence? [/quote] Double-blind tests? You're nuts! That would discriminate those talented people who read the dots. On a serious note, IME talented people are those who need less information from others before being able to see the patterns and structures, and to build further on that information. They also need considerably less than those famed 10,000 hours, whilst others would need considerably more. Then again, I've never double-blinded or even simply blinded people with my research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tauzero Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I thought that myelin was there to incease the speed of nerve impulse propagation (basically, the nerve impulse skips over the bits of axon covered in myelin and goes from node to node) and it stops being produced in adolescence. I haven't studied physiology for 40 years or so though. Which talented musicians allowed their brains to be picked apart to check for myelin? Other than Ozzie, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayDownThaFunk Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 What is talent without success though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='LayDownThaFunk' timestamp='1445693253' post='2893473'] What is talent without success though? [/quote] Talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfretrock Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='LayDownThaFunk' timestamp='1445693253' post='2893473'] What is talent without success though? [/quote] What is success without talent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassTractor Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='pfretrock' timestamp='1445700164' post='2893568'] What is success without talent? [/quote] Good one. Well, statistically it might seem like it pays a lot better than success [b][i]with[/i][/b] talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayDownThaFunk Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 [quote name='pfretrock' timestamp='1445700164' post='2893568'] What is success without talent? [/quote] Stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.