Hard Work Versus Natural Talent

David Brooks of the New York Times points out new findings that show genius is more ordinary than we think, having more to do with countless hours of practice rather than a natural gift. Two recently published books, The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle and Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, argue this very point.

The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft," writes Brooks

There are no substitutes for truly dedicated, hard work. Even though it may not be fun, exiting or "cool," a consistent work ethic is most likely more valuable than a natural born talent. Without progressive cultivation of that talent, the gift would simply be wasted.

I personally would rather be recognized for something I've earned rather than something that was given to me. Whenever I hear: "I guess you were born with it," I always feel like hours of practice are being overlooked and demeaned, as if that particular talent would continually "wow" without constant re-use and examination.

There's no denying that genetics can play its part in great accomplishment (Michael Phelps, for example), but there's a lot to say of lifestyle. Phelps trained for the 2008 Olympics every day on a 12,000 calorie diet. He didn't win eight gold medals just because he was built to swim, though that surely helped. He won them because of a rigorous training routine. That routine would bore just about anyone to death, but it was needed to keep him physically and mentally in shape to break several records.

Both of the aforementioned books argue that the method of practice is what matters most. Coyle has an Amazon video explaining what's known as "Deep Practice," which is practice done very slowly. Colvin argues that analyzing results from trial and error is the best method to learn from mistakes and systematically improve skills.