Can Hard Work outperform Talent?
Yesterday, I came across this recent publication in the Association for Psychological Science, written by Hambrick and Meinz*. Quite successfully, the authors illustrate their arguments on the oh-so-debatable, "talent" vs "hard work" for success and performance. The first to introduce this debate scientifically was Dr. Ericsson from Florida State University in 1996. To remind you or inform you if you haven't heard, Ericsson's theory is based on the concept that one needs 10,000 hours in order to acquire expert performance in a field of science, music, art, sport or other complex domains.
(more: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html)
I will not overload you with technical terms and complicated graphs but I will just discuss a little how perplex this matter is. Based on their own research and on a series of experiments, Hambrick and Meinz, conclude that basic abilities (i.e., "talent") can predict success but acquired characteristics (i.e., "hard work") may become more important at higher levels of task performance.
Borrowing the above figure from the same paper, it looks like at Low Domain Knowledge or low level of acquired characteristics (i.e., low level of hard work, blue line), the higher the basic abilities (i.e., "talent") the higher the success in task performance. And at High Domain Knowledge (i.e., high level of hard work, red line), a lot of "talent" (i.e. far right) does not impose a great difference in performance compared to zero "talent" (i.e. far left).
In simple language, if you work hard (red line) and have zero "talent" (far left), you will perform at (b) level. If you work hard and have a lot of "talent" (far right), you will perform at (a) level. Hambrick and Meinz show that (a) and (b) are not detrimentally different and argue that zero "talent" and a lot of hard work (b) can out-perform a lot of "talent" and not a lot of work (c).
There are many parameters however, that the authors have not mentioned or perhaps they talk about in other publications. Take as an example sports. "Hard work", is not only about the amount of hours of practice. It is extremely difficult to estimate the degree of personalized hard work in a sport that involves not only hours of practicing but also hours of improving technique and improving areas of weakness that are unique to the individual. Also, it is extremely difficult to define basic abilities, or "talent" (note that I always put in quotes the word "talent"). Science may have demonstrated some degree of heritability to specific sports but there are so many other complex parameters, like personality, psychology, mental toughness, etc. that may define the word "talent".
Where is the truth?
I personally wouldn't like to take one route or another. Science has yet to define basic abilities ("talent"), define acquired characteristics ("hard work") that vary within individuals and within disciplines, and demonstrate the degree of correlation between basic abilities and acquired characteristics ("talent" and "hard work").
Till then, one thing is generally accepted:
- Hard work leads to success (success may vary from individual to individual)
BUT
- Talent alone does not lead anywhere.
Train hard, Fuel right!
*David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz, Limits on the Predictive Power of Domain-Specific Experience and Knowledge in Skilled Performance, Association for Psychological Science (2011): XX(X):1-5
Web link: http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/10/5b176194-ba9a-498d-87c3-c51bc0b1c66b.pdf
(more: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html)
I will not overload you with technical terms and complicated graphs but I will just discuss a little how perplex this matter is. Based on their own research and on a series of experiments, Hambrick and Meinz, conclude that basic abilities (i.e., "talent") can predict success but acquired characteristics (i.e., "hard work") may become more important at higher levels of task performance.
Borrowing the above figure from the same paper, it looks like at Low Domain Knowledge or low level of acquired characteristics (i.e., low level of hard work, blue line), the higher the basic abilities (i.e., "talent") the higher the success in task performance. And at High Domain Knowledge (i.e., high level of hard work, red line), a lot of "talent" (i.e. far right) does not impose a great difference in performance compared to zero "talent" (i.e. far left).
In simple language, if you work hard (red line) and have zero "talent" (far left), you will perform at (b) level. If you work hard and have a lot of "talent" (far right), you will perform at (a) level. Hambrick and Meinz show that (a) and (b) are not detrimentally different and argue that zero "talent" and a lot of hard work (b) can out-perform a lot of "talent" and not a lot of work (c).
There are many parameters however, that the authors have not mentioned or perhaps they talk about in other publications. Take as an example sports. "Hard work", is not only about the amount of hours of practice. It is extremely difficult to estimate the degree of personalized hard work in a sport that involves not only hours of practicing but also hours of improving technique and improving areas of weakness that are unique to the individual. Also, it is extremely difficult to define basic abilities, or "talent" (note that I always put in quotes the word "talent"). Science may have demonstrated some degree of heritability to specific sports but there are so many other complex parameters, like personality, psychology, mental toughness, etc. that may define the word "talent".
I personally wouldn't like to take one route or another. Science has yet to define basic abilities ("talent"), define acquired characteristics ("hard work") that vary within individuals and within disciplines, and demonstrate the degree of correlation between basic abilities and acquired characteristics ("talent" and "hard work").
Till then, one thing is generally accepted:
- Hard work leads to success (success may vary from individual to individual)
BUT
- Talent alone does not lead anywhere.
Train hard, Fuel right!
*David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz, Limits on the Predictive Power of Domain-Specific Experience and Knowledge in Skilled Performance, Association for Psychological Science (2011): XX(X):1-5
Web link: http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/10/5b176194-ba9a-498d-87c3-c51bc0b1c66b.pdf
Very interesting topic which has been on my mind quite a few times. It seems it is of universal value as one can find examples in many facets of life. For example, when I was doing my PhD research at USC, there were plenty of graduate students of average "talent" but most of those who worked really hard went on to have successful careers. Another example from a more spiritual place is a famous quote of Pattabhi Jois, the founder of ashtanga yoga, "practice, practice, practice and all is coming"!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. As I wrote above though, in the case of sports. especially the ones in which technique is fundamental and detrimental for success, random practice cannot get you very far. It has to be guided by a specialist (who are rare to find) and it has to be tailored to the individual.
DeleteI totally agree. It is widely recognized that practice should be fit to each particular individual, be specific, according to the special requirements of each sport and guided by a knowledgeable coach. It is rare to find a good specialist because there are many coaches out there who have a lot of practical experience but have failed to keep up with the latest research results. This is possible only through continuing education.
ReplyDeleteThis is correct. Although being a good coach requires a blend of many abilities. Continuing education is a good feature but not necessary. There are many examples of successful coaches who never had a relevant education in physiology, or exercise science yet they deeply understand the fundamentals of human performance, they work their athletes really hard, they inspire, they know how to make the best out of their athletes, they have lead many "non talented" athletes to the top. Examples of those coaches are Alberto Salazaar or Craig Troy-look them up. I actually may write something touching on the aspect, what makes a good coach good?
ReplyDelete