Practice, Practice, Practice

Parents Forum
101

<p>
[QUOTE]
Brilliance is as brilliance does, and what may look like brilliance to one teacher (who doesn't know what the student's outside school context looks like) may look like the result of consistent hard work to another teacher (who coaches the hard work or who knew the student before the hard work paid off in developed brilliance).

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>You are quite right that teachers are not necessarily good at recognizing brilliance or noticing how much hard work a student puts in outside of class. But that is irrelevant to my case. </p>

<p>What I intended to illustrate is that MIT recognizes the difference between "consistent hard work" and "brilliance" and that the latter is not necessarily the consequence of the former. Instead, the form suggests that these are quite distinct qualities. The ideal applicant, I would assume, is one who combines the two. As I've said, I do not negate the need for work to develop talent. Without discipline and practice, innate talent will not amount to very much. It will be wasted--which is different from saying it does not exist.</p>

102

<p>I think the form is pretty clear that "grade consciousness" is not a desired characteristic among applicants to MIT, but it is far less clear to me that either hard work or brilliance is favored by the way the question is worded, for the good reasons you mentioned that both are important. MIT doesn't even issue grades on the transcript for freshmen, but it certainly offers up courses that require both brilliance and hard work to thrive in.</p>

103

<p>Indeed. The point I was making, however, is that MIT sees hard work as being distinct from brilliance--as you do in your comments about MIT courses requiring both hard work and brilliance. Neither Allmusic, reflectivemom nor I denigrate the importance of practice. We just see it as distinct from natural talent.</p>

<p>I just skimmed through an article by Ellen Winner which appeared in American Psychologist in 2000, "The Origins and Ends of Giftedness" in which she critiques Ericsson. Let me know what you think of it.
<a href="http://www2.bc.edu/%7Ewinner/PDFs/Winner%20Origins%20and%20Ends%20of%20Giftedness.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.bc.edu/~winner/PDFs/Winner%20Origins%20and%20Ends%20of%20Giftedness.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

104

<p>Extremely interesting article (and I have read Ellen Winner's book entitled "Gifted Children" before). A great deal of it resonated with me completely and yes, I look forward to Tokenadult and I/Edad's responses to sections such as this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
While Ericsson and his colleagues consider the stories of early (pre-training) achievements of child prodigies to be unreliable, there are simply too many such reports, and these reports are too consistent with one another, for them to be easily discounted. In addition, these reports do not only come from potentially biased parents, but also from careful case studies of young prodigies (cf. Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Milbrath, 1999; Winner, 1996a). And if exceptional abilities emerge prior to intensive instruction and training, then these abilities are likely to reflect atypical, innate potential.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And another:</p>

<p>
[quote]
First, giftedness in mathematics, visual arts, and music is associated with superior visual-spatial abilities, and children with mathematical gifts show enhanced brain activity in their right hemisphere when asked to recognize faces, a task known to involve the right hemisphere (O'Boyle & Benbow, 1990; O'Boyle, Alexander, & Benbow, 1991). Thus, giftedness in these domains may involve enhanced right- hemisphere development.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Finally, the article concludes, as Marite, RM and I have said all along, that there is a role of genetics and the family who nurtures these talents, as well as the talented child's own perseverence and hard work (their "practice"), but that none of these contributors alone "create" the innate talent.</p>

<p>This is what I see, in my own personal and professional life.</p>

105

<p>Thank you Marite for posting the article by Winner. It is often hard to find published research which supports my experience (and yours and Allmusic's). And, as we have seen on this list, too many do not accept the anecdotal evidence we present. </p>

<p>Fortunately for my son, his early teachers recognized his uniqueness (before I did) having similarly gifted children of their own. I, due to my inexperience with kids and lack of exposure, thought all children were doing the same things my son was doing. </p>

<p>I, like Allmusic, also read her book, Gifted Children, many years ago. Obviously, we were both looking for confirmation/explanation/understanding.</p>

106

<p>I also read Ellen Winner's book once I started wondering whether S was exhibiting signs of giftedness (as opposed to being slightly more advanced) and what to do about it.
By the way, she is married to Howard Gardner.</p>

107

<p>I read Winner's book right after it was published. Winner's (then? current?) husband Howard Gardner was one of the persons ganging up on Ericsson in the seminar transcript I mentioned in post #48 in this thread. I'll give a close read to the article Marite kindly linked to and reply again. </p>

<p>But here are some informational questions, meanwhile. Does Winner have any children of her own? What are the recent activities of the child she mentioned in her book as a paradigmatic example of a child with a "rage to learn," namely Michael Kearney, the "Accidental Genius"? Who posting in this thread is well acquainted with a professional musician (someone who makes his or her living from performing music) who has absolute pitch?</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
It is often hard to find published research which supports my experience

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Have you read much of the published research on confirmation bias?</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
Who posting in this thread is well acquainted with a professional musician (someone who makes his or her living from performing music) who has absolute pitch?

[/quote]
I know a few professional musicians, but I've never asked them if they have absolute pitch.</p>

<p>Here's a wikipedia entry on absolute pitch:

[quote]
Absolute pitch, or perfect pitch, is "the ability to attach labels to isolated auditory stimuli on the basis of pitch alone" without external reference.[1] Possessors of absolute pitch exhibit the ability in varying degrees. Generally, absolute pitch implies some or all of the following abilities:</p>

<p>Identify and name individual pitches played on various instruments
Name the key of a given piece of tonal music
Identify and name all the tones of a given chord or other tonal mass
Sing a given pitch without an external reference
Name the pitches of common everyday occurrences such as car horns
Individuals may possess both absolute pitch and relative pitch ability in varying degrees. Both relative and absolute pitch work together in actual musical listening and practice, although individuals exhibit preferred strategies in using each skill.[2]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's why you can't know a toddler or pre-schooler has it. They have to identify the pitch by name, not just be able to reproduce it on a piano or sing it.</p>

<p>You can see in some violinists that they can just grab the violin & tune it, while others need a reference note from a piano or the concertmaster to properly tune.</p>

110

<p>More from WIkipedia:
[quote]
Nature or nurture?
Many people have believed that musical ability itself is an inborn talent.[18] Some scientists currently believe absolute pitch may have an underlying genetic basis and are trying to locate genetic correlates;[19] most believe that the acquisition of absolute pitch requires early training during a critical period of development, regardless of whether or not a genetic predisposition toward development exists.[20]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can any of you musicians explain to this non-musician what the heck this means?
[quote]
Inadequately trained absolute pitch possessors can find it quite difficult to play in tune with an orchestra which is not tuned to standard concert pitch A4 = 440 Hertz (442 Hz in some countries), possibly because their comprehension of musical pitch may be categorical rather than spectral.[31]

[/quote]
</p>

111

<p>StickerShock:
I'll try. Actually, I don't know about the "spectral" part, but I think my own comprehension of musical pitch must be categorical. I don't remember discovering that I had absolute pitch; it's just something that has always been there. As a pianist, my sense of pitch is firmly rooted in the key of C. To use it, for example, with a clarinet, I have to first mentally convert a given note (let's say C for simplicity) to its corresponding pitch on a clarinet, B flat. Not long ago, I was accompanying a singer on a synthesizer, but the musical score was too high for her. I offered to quickly transpose it from F to D (a few notes on chords and I could have played it by reading intervals rather than notes), but the electronic music wizards in our group assured me I could transpose on the synthesizer with the punch of a button. It probably would work just fine for a person without absolute pitch (I'm guessing I should say categorical absolute pitch), but as soon as I started hearing the music in D, my hands automatically moved to the correct keys to play the music in D. I simply could not keep my hands in F while I was hearing it in D. I think this must be comparable to the example you mention of a musician with absolute pitch trying to play along while hearing music that is not "tuned" to A440.</p>

112

<p>Son can do the very same. He can tell what key any song or tune or piece is in after only a couple notes. </p>

<p>I think people who transpose easily, as ReneeV describes, typically "hear" music differently. Some musicians never transpose music easily, and must rely on Sibelius, or some such program.</p>

<p>As to TokenAdult's question, I have no idea how many professional musicians have perfect pitch, although I suspect a number of them do. </p>

<p>Once again, what becomes of people born of great ability or talent is anyone's guess....we were simply positing on the etiology of the talent, which I think is wholly different than the future of said individuals (although one hopes that most of them realize their gifts, sadly, many do not).</p>

113

<p>ReneeV: I kind of thought the categorical part involved instant ability to transpose. I live next door to an amateur musician who claims that this is something that his band mates who did not have formal training have difficulty with. Now, in my d's band, there are a mix of classically trained + traditional kids with those who have only learned by ear in the Irish traditional way. All can instantly transpose to accompany a guest singer. </p>

<p>I'd still like to know what the spectral part means!</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
Does Winner have any children of her own?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allmusic, reflectivemom and I have children. They've been dismissed as anecdotes. So... Would Winner's children, if any, not fall, umm.., under the rubric of "anecdotal evidence?" As do Bach, Mozart, Newton, Leibniz, Leonardo... They do not "prove" anything. As far as "research" is concerned, they might as well not have existed. And yet, that is the whole point, isn't it, to establish the existence of talent, which, by its very definition is EXTRA-ordinary. </p>

<p>And let me repeat, talent without disciplined practice will not amount to much, if anything. But practice produces proficiency, not talent. That was the difference between Salieri and Mozart. I'll wager that Salieri was even harder-working, more disciplined than Mozart. But Salieri was journeyman musician, competent, even popular. I've even listened to some of his music after Amadeus came out: he was no Mozart.</p>

<p>Let me repeat also: I would do everything to encourage a student to work hard and to achieve more. More proficient, more knowledgeable? Certainly. More successful? Most probably. And that is usually what is asked of most students and adults. For most parents and teachers, it is also enough. But there is a downside to this attitude as well: the belief that if one does not achieve at a certain level, it is all one's fault, it is due to lack of practice, it is due to laziness, it is a failure of character. Such attitude can produce very negative results as well as positive ones.</p>

115

<p>Marite, I don't think anyone is dismissing your kids. It's just the nature vs. nuture argument. My kids have demonstrated the same musical precociousness as Allmusic's son. We just have a different opinion on how that precociousness came about. Reasearch hasn't established any conclusive evidence, I would say.</p>

116

<p>Yes, our anecdotal experiences have been dismissed. We have told you what we saw in our sons when they were very young, without benefit of any lessons or practice, and some here still contend that there really is no such thing as innate talent.</p>

<p>All I can say is that you really cannot understand this, I guess, unless you have one of these children.</p>

117

<p>Stockershock: our kids have indeed been dismissed as anecdotes--as have all the famous mathematicians and musicians I've mentioned. </p>

<p>idad. # 24
No evidence has emerged which would suggest there is such a thing as talent.
idad#26
Anecdotes are often compelling, but research into expert performance finds that even with child prodigies, it is practice that differentiates them from their peers.
idad#58
Actually, the research on talent has examined the so-called outlier, the recognized "gifted" individual. What has been found is that even the "oneness" is a function of deliberate, guided, practice. There is simply no evidence for talent, hard as it is to accept. Most instructive is the analysis of the difference between the great and the near great. The great tend to have about 2000 more hours of practice than the near great, and maintain a higher level of practice throughout their careers.</p>

<p>And not just in this thread; hence Ellen Winner's comments which Allmusic excerpted in post 104:
While Ericsson and his colleagues consider the stories of early (pre-training) achievements of child prodigies to be unreliable, there are simply too many such reports, and these reports are too consistent with one another, for them to be easily discounted. In addition, these reports do not only come from potentially biased parents, but also from careful case studies of young prodigies (cf. Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Milbrath, 1999; Winner, 1996a). And if exceptional abilities emerge prior to intensive instruction and training, then these abilities are likely to reflect atypical, innate potential.</p>

<p>This indeed comes down to the nature vs. nurture argument; and for the moment, scientific evidence is swinging back toward the nature side of the argument, without dismissing the importance of nurture. Since I have two kids who have the same set of parents and genetic endowment, but are diametrically opposed in their abilities and interest and have been since a very young age, I have to attribute some of that of nature. Nurture, of course, comes into it, in the form of practicing what they sowed an aptitude and liking for to begin with.</p>

<p>This is not an argument for the total unimportance of practice. It is an argument for the existence of innate abilities that need to be nurtured through practice to be fully realized. And the need not to kid ourselves that hard work alone will turn our kids into Einstein or Mozart.</p>

118

<p>Whatever, Allmusic. My kids could reproduce notes on a piano by age three, too. Or sing in perfect pitch as soon as they learned to talk. But I just happen to believe that it was musical exposure that developed that talent. If we didn't have a piano in the house, or me singing to them throughout the day, or plenty of music playing all the time, I don't believe that would have happened. Just as there is a window of opportunity for language acquisition, I believe that holds true for musical ability. Disagree if you wish, but jeesh...don't take it so personally!</p>

119

<p>Stickershock:</p>

<p>We do play music all the time. But we only acquired a piano when S1 clearly showed an aptitude for music. I still have a picture of him, ecstatic at 9 months after we gave him a toy piano. But he quickly realized that it did not have all the notes a real piano would have. We sheepishly went out and bought a real one. Of course, if we had not nurtured his love of music, it would perhaps have died stillborn. But we saw it, and decided, like a plant, that it needed watering.
S2 was raised in the same musical household, plus piano by then. He asked for one year of piano lessons to be with big brother and then lost interest totally. S1 never asked a for a math book. S2 had a nose for them in bookstores. We nurtured his love of math by indulging it--asd, as with S1's love of music, it came after we noticed it.</p>

120

<p>"Have you read much of the published research on confirmation bias?"</p>

<p>So, in addition to dismissing our children as "anecdotes", there is also the dismissing our search for research which supports/explains the experience we have with our children as "confirmation bias". Interesting tactics.</p>