Talent is not innate. It is developed.

 INTRODUCTION

There is an age-old belief that Talent is inborn, i.e., it is genetically inherited, or God gifted. However, since the mid-1800s, this belief has been questioned, sporadically, in various academic conversations. Such conversations intensified over the past couple of decades, peaking during the four years between 2006 and 2009. During those four years, distinguished scientists and best-selling authors published valuable contributions on this subject.

 As it happens, all of them take the same view, which is a contrarian view. They debunk the age-old popular notion that 'Talent is innate'. Instead, based on their case studies, they argue in favor of the contrarian hypothesis that 'Talent is not innate. It is developed'. They contend that it is developed through hard work providing certain constituents are present.

In what follows, in the first part of the article, I cite two representative case studies out of the many case studies done by those scientists and authors. (I do not cite all their case studies to avoid making this article unwieldy). Based on the evidence of their case studies, they argue in favor of the contrarian hypothesis and identify three constituents that they believe are essential for Talent to be developed.

Their argument is convincing. However, I find that their case studies are restricted to only one Talent, as opposed to multiple talents demonstrated by an individual. I ask myself what about an individual demonstrating Himalaya-sized multiple talents that remain unsurpassed through several centuries? If such an individual were not born with those talents but worked hard to develop them, the evidence would be hugely convincing.

 So, I undertook a case study on such an individual.  In the second part of the article, I present my case study. It provides further evidence in favor of the same contrarian claim that 'Talent is not innate. It is developed'. 

In the third part, I cite some more recent and continuing research that support the contrarian theory but doubts whether the three constituents listed by the earlier researchers are sufficient. The continuing research is homing into two more constituents, but the result is not conclusive yet; it is work in progress.

 In the fourth and final part of the article, I list some of the dangers that are inherent in the belief that Talent is innate. Then I draw a set of conclusions.

 Definition of Talent

In this article, I use the word 'Talent' to signify 'world-class expertise'. I also use the two words, 'Talent' and 'Genius' synonymously. I do not make any hierarchical difference between the two. They both denote 'world-class expertise'.

ACADEMIC CONVERSATION

 Anders Ericsson

Coming to the scientific conversation on the subject, Anders Ericsson collated and edited papers written by several eminent scientists in the 'Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance' (Ericsson, 2006). This handbook, a nine-hundred-page tome, is currently the definitive text on the subject.

 Based on their case studies, Ericsson et al. reject the age-old belief and contend that Talent is not innate. Instead, it is developed by hard practice providing such practice is carried out in the presence of three essential constituents. These constituents are: (i) sustained and dedicated practice, (ii) under the tutelage of an eminent mentor, and (iii) within a conducive environment.

Aside from editing, Ericsson has also made significant contributions to the handbook by way of his own valuable papers. He quantified that at a minimum 10,000 hours of practice is required to develop world-class Talent.

 Malcolm Gladwell

Ericson's idea of 10,000 hours of practice is subsequently popularized as the '10,000 Hours Rule' by the bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell. His book 'Outliers' (Gladwell, 2008) debuted as number one on the New York Times bestsellers list. To put it in perspective, if you train, for example, for twenty hours a week, in ten years, you will put in 10,000 hours of practice. To reinforce the contrarian hypothesis of Ericsson et al., Gladwell also cites several of his own case studies, including studies on the backgrounds of the Beatles and Bill Gates. However, I will not narrate those case studies here to avoid making this article too long.

 Geoff Colvin

Another best-selling author is Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large for Fortune magazine.  In his book 'Talent is Overrated' (Colvin, 2006) reports several of his own case-studies, two of which I narrate below to demonstrate the point.

Wolfgang Mozart

Colvin studied the life of Wolfgang Mozart. Wolfgang's father Leopold Mozart was himself a famous composer and teacher of music who specialized in teaching music to children. Leopold started coaching Wolfgang from the tender age of three. By age eight, Wolfgang had started composing what was claimed to be his own musical pieces and earned him the moniker of wunderkind or child prodigy.

But Colvin argues that Wolfgang's early pieces borrowed heavily from the works of other composers of the era including Johann Christian Bach with whom Wolfgang had studied. This was Wolfgang's learning process in which he learned music like everyone else by emulating and imitating the works of other composers. Wolfgang Mozart composed his first serious musical piece, Piano Concerto Number Nine, at age twenty-one. But by then, he had already put in eighteen years of hard musical training under a live-in mentor, which in his case was his father. Thus, it was not with any justification that he earned the moniker of wunderkind or child-prodigy.  

Tiger Woods

Moving from music to sports, Colvin also studied the life of Tiger Woods. A similar pattern of hard work, (rather than God-given gifts), also appears in the life of Tiger Woods. His father, Earl Woods, was a teacher who had a passion for golf. He gave son Tiger his first golf club when he was only seven months old—it must have been a tiny toy club! By age two, however, Tiger is at the golf course practicing regularly. By age nineteen, Tiger becomes a member of the famed Walker Cup Team of the United States. But by then, he had already been practicing golf for seventeen years. He did so under the demanding tutelage of his father and other coaches hired by his father from the time Tiger was four years old. 

Daniel Coyle

Lastly, author Daniel Coyle in his book 'Talent Code', which also reached the New York Times bestsellers' list (Coyle, 2009) also made several case studies. His studies include one on Brazilian football in the pre-Pele era. Still, again, I am not going to describe that because that would make this article unwieldy.

 However, what is of interest is that Coyle stresses that Talent is developed by making mistakes and rectifying those mistakes. The aspiring experts push themselves to the edges of their ability, make mistakes, fix those mistakes, learn from those mistakes, and in the process become practiced and perfect. This is what Coyle calls 'deep practice', which others call dedicated practice.

Summary of the academic conversation

Let me summarize the entire academic conversation narrated above. As it happens, Ericsson et al., Gladwell, Colvin, and Coyle, all make the same argument. They debunk the age-old notion of innate skill and contend that world-class expertise is developed at the convergence of three constituents, namely, (i) enormous amount of dedicated practice, (ii) supervised by an eminent mentor, and (iii) performed in a supportive environment. Further, they argue that to develop world-class expertise, you require at a minimum 10,000 hours of practice, and it is much easier if you start young. A confluence of these constituents is extremely rare, and for that reason, Talent is also rare.

MY CASE STUDY – MICHELANGELO AND HIS FOUR TALENTS

In this context, I have done an independent case study. I have studied an individual who demonstrated as many as four different Talents, that remain unsurpassed through five centuries to this day. The subject of my case study is none other than Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, or simply Michelangelo. He was simultaneously a sculptor, painter, architect, and poet extraordinaire, (that he was also a phenomenal poet is not widely known). His expertise in those four domains has remained unsurpassed to this day.

In what follows, I will first recall the prodigious Talents of Michelangelo. I will do so by briefly revisiting, one each of, what I believe is, his most significant piece of work respectively in sculpture, architecture, and painting. Then I will talk about his poetry. This will bring into immediate focus his extraordinary, almost God-like expertise. I will then walk you through his arduous training process. And argue that he developed those skills through demanding work, fulfilling those three conditions, and did not get them as gifts from God.            

The David

Sculpture

First, in the domain of sculpture, I unhesitatingly choose the statue of David as Michelangelo's best sculptural work. Michelangelo started sculpting David at age twenty-six and finished it at age thirty. He carved every part of David, from the crown of his head to the toes of his feet, to such absolute perfection that the statue in its entirety delivers one single visual impact that never fails to mesmerize the viewer at the first gaze. In this human form, I believe, Michelangelo sculpted not just David but the sheer moral energy depicting the quintessential Renaissance man of his own times. This nude male figure in marble has never been surpassed or equaled either before or after Michelangelo.  

Cupola of St. Peter's

Architecture

Next, in the realm of architecture, the magnificent ovoid cupola of the St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City designed by Michelangelo is the most renowned work of Renaissance architecture. Michelangelo designed this ovoid cupola on the foundation and pillars constructed per Bramante's earlier design that had envisaged a spherical cupola. Michelangelo demonstrated excellent engineering acumen in converting it to an ovoid cupola to reduce the thrust on the supporting sixteen pairs of columns. He created a cupola so perfect in its proportions that other later domes have emulated but not quite equaled it yet.

Creation of Adam

Painting

Thirdly, in the sphere of painting, if one were to select only one painting by Michelangelo, it will be undoubtedly the Creation of Adam – the fresco at the center of Sistine Chapel ceiling. Here God breathes life into Adam through a spark between their fingers that nearly touch but not quite—depicting a subtle level difference between God and man—which has been copied by other artists millions of times. It has remained a milestone in High Renaissance art and has an iconic standing equaled only by Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but never surpassed.

Poetry

That Michelangelo was also a poet extraordinaire is not commonly known. He wrote over 300 sonnets, madrigals and other poems that reveal his innermost feelings about love, death and redemption (Salow, 1993). Here are a few lines from his poem 'Love's Justification' translated from original Latin into English by William Wordsworth:

 His hope is treacherous only whose love dies

With beauty, which is varying every hour,

But, in chaste hearts uninfluenced by the power

Of outward change, there blooms a deathless flower,

That breathes on earth the air of paradise.

Latin scholars rank his poems in the same genre as the Iliad and Odyssey, both attributed to Homer (Symonds, 1904). Michelangelo did not take any training in poetry writing from any mentor, he developed this himself. I guess, being well-trained in the expressions of emotions in sculpture, architecture, and painting, he readily found the insight to harness and express those emotions into poetical words. Because poetry is yet another artistic expression of the same feelings of love, life, and death.

Such was the creative power of the man—simultaneously a sculptor, architect, painter, and poet—depicting almost God-like expertise in each of these four art forms! But how did he get there? Were they inherited by birth, or God gifted, or developed? For an answer, let us look at his life and childhood.

 Life and childhood

Michelangelo was born in 1475 to a failed banker father. After the premature death of his mother when he was not even six years of age, Michelangelo was lodged at early infancy by his father with foster parents. A marble cutter and his loving wife in a marble quarry in Tuscany—which is the home of Carrara marble—were his foster parents. Michelangelo became an apprentice stone cutter at the tender age of six! He later came to consider Carrara as the best marble for making sculpture.

Did Michelangelo inherit his Talents? When he was already a celebrity, Michelangelo famously said, 'Along with the milk of my nurse I received the knack of handling chisel and hammer, with which I make my figures'. Mind you, he said 'milk of my nurse' not 'milk of my mother', because his mother never breastfed him as she was chronically ill. With a failed banker as father and a mother who never breastfed him, it is implausible that Michelangelo inherited his Talents from his parents. If not inherited, were his Talents god gifted? Let us examine his developmental process further.

 After apprenticing as a marble cutter for several years under his foster father, Michelangelo continued his rigorous training for many years after that. At thirteen, he trained under Domenico Ghirlandaio, a master painter of that period in Florence. At fifteen, he apprenticed under Bertoldo Giovanni, a famed sculptor in Florence. At seventeen, Michelangelo attended the Humanist Academy, founded by Lorenzo the Medici, or Lorenzo the Magnificent, where he learned philosophy, history, and humanism. At eighteen, he studied anatomy by dissecting human cadavers at Santo Spirit Hospital in Florence. The experience accounts for his detailed knowledge of human anatomy that he displayed in his carvings of David and other human forms.

At age twenty-six, when he commenced sculpting the David, he had already put in twenty years of extremely rigorous practice. Michelangelo was addicted to work and worked long hours. I have estimated that during those twenty years, he will have put in a minimum 40,000 hours of practice—or, in other words, four times the required 10,000 hours. Also, he trained under those famed mentors and did so in the feverishly conducive environment of Italian High Renaissance. Thus, Michelangelo was at the confluence of all three factors at their best. That is how he was able to develop nearly divine expertise so that in his lifetime he was often called Il Divino ('the divine one').

What did Michelangelo, Il Divino, think about his own unsurpassable Genius? He famously said, "If you know how much work went into it, you wouldn't call it Genius". Those days, Genius meant it was God gifted, it still does in popular perception. But Michelangelo clearly disagreed with that notion. Because he had earned it by hard, dedicated practice. It was not handed down to him by God.

With this, I could rest my case that Talent is not innate, it is developed through hard work. However, I wish to invoke another world-class expert, another colossus like Michelangelo, not in the domain of creative arts but in the realm of physical sciences. He is Albert Einstein. He too famously said, "I have no Talent. I am only passionately curious". Thus, Einstein also denied having any Talent in the sense of being endowed with a god gifted aptitude for physics. Instead, he too, had worked hard to earn his expertise. 

With this I rest my case: 'Talent is not Innate. It is developed'.

NEW RESEARCH – MORE THAN THREE CONSTITUENTS

Having rested my argument as above, I wish to add that the discussion has not stopped yet. Some behavioral scientists continue to argue that there could be other constituents, other than the three mentioned above, that are required to make a world-class talent.

New research, from psychological scientist Brooke Macnamara of Princeton and his colleagues, offers the counterpoint to this recent trend (Hotchkiss, 2014). They argue that the amount of practice accumulated over time does not seem to play a significant role in skill development.  This applies to domains such as music, games, sports, professions, and education.

They say, ‘There is no doubt that deliberate practice is important, from both a statistical and a theoretical perspective. It is just less important than has been argued.’ For scientists, the important question now, is what else matters? They have quantified the impact of dedicated practice on expertise. They put it between 18-26% depending on expertise—chess (26%), music (18%), sports (18%).

Macnamara and colleagues speculate that the age at which a person becomes involved in an activity may matter. Additionally, they contend that specific cognitive abilities (such as working memory) may also play an influential role. The researchers are planning another meta-analysis explicitly focused on practice and sports to better understand the role of these and other factors. Thus, the argument continues.

THE DANGERS OF BELIEVING TALENT IS INNATE

Before ending this article, I wish to raise a big red flag for those who believe that Talent is innate (Gopnik, 2015). The red flag is that such belief comes with huge dangers that are listed below:

Ø  The idea of innate Talent is hugely seductive. Because it is a subterfuge for not stretching oneself, but instead letting go.

Ø  Believing in innate academic Talent has consequences, almost all bad.

Ø  Women and minorities, who are generally less confident, to begin with, tend to doubt whether they have that mythical magic brilliance and get discouraged from trying fields like math or philosophy.

Ø  The idea is even worse for confident boy-genius types. Students who think they are innately smart are less likely to accept and learn from mistakes and criticism.

Ø  If you think success is the result of hard work, then failure will inspire you to do more. On the other hand, if you are the over-confident genius type, and failure is an existential threat to your very identity, you will try to deny it.

CONCLUSION  

• Talent is not innate. It is developed.
• Ø  Talent is developed at the confluence of three constituents:

o   Dedicated practice for 10,000 hours.

o   Done under the tutelage of an eminent mentor(s).

o   Done in a conducive environment.

• Ø  New research is trying to establish that there could be two more constituents:

o   Start early in life.

o   Cognitive abilities.

• Ø  Believing that Talent is innate is dangerous because it is a subterfuge for not stretching oneself, but instead letting go. There are other dangers, as well.

v 

REFERENCES

Colvin, G. (2006). Talent is Overrated. Kindle Edition.

Coyle, D. (2009). The Talent Code. New York: Bantam.

Ericsson, A. K. (2006). Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. Little, Brown and Company.

Gopnik, A. (2015, February 4). Retrieved from Wall Street Journal: http://alisongopnik.com/Alison_Gopnik_WSJcolumns.htm#04Feb15

Hotchkiss, M. (2014, July 9). Princeton University. Retrieved from Research at Princeton: http://research.princeton.edu/news/features/a/?id=13174

Salow, J. M. (1993). The Poetry of Michelangelo: An Annotated Translation. Yale University Press.

Symonds, J. A. (1904). The Sonnets of Michelangelo Buonarroti. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.