In the last several years something called deliberate practice has gotten a lot of press.  The 10,000 hour rule and the ten year rule have become part of our lexicon.  Here is a link to a video by Malcolm Gladwell on genius that is related but not exactly the same thing being described in this article.  I’m including it because I thought it was very interesting.  You might have to be a nerd to enjoy it. 

To me this is all a good news / bad news / good news story.  The good news is that with enough deliberate practice, anyone of normal ability may be able to become world-class in their chosen field.  The bad news is that it takes 10,000 hours or more of the right kind of practice.  The good news is that with the right kind of practice you can start improving right away.  You don’t have to wait to become world-class to see the benefits.

My favorite source for all this is a book by Geoff Colvin: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else.  It’s a practical book that gives you a method for implementing deliberate practice.  I thoroughly enjoyed and gained insight from this book.

Talent is Overrated

I do agree that talent is overrated.  The evidence is clear on that.  But some people, including Geoff Colvin, go so far as saying it is irrelevant.  I don’t think so.  OK, Michael Jordon was cut from his high school basketball team.  Michael Jordon worked harder than everyone else and was the last person to leave the practice court, even as a pro.  Maybe that is what separated him other basketball players with natural talent, but seriously does anyone believe that if Michael Moore practiced basketball for 10,000 or even 1,000,000 hours he would be another Michael Jordon?  Clearly Michael Jordon was born with some natural athletic ability that most of us don’t have.

It has been pointed out that some chess grandmasters have below average IQ’s.  I find this very difficult to believe, but I will accept it has been confirmed.  Thus talent is overrated in chess players.   However, I don’t think it is a coincidence that the greatest chess player of all time, Gary Kasparov, has a measured IQ of 190.  That puts him in the 99.999999 percentile.  He is not even one in a million, he is one in a hundred million.  Bobby Fischer’s IQ was 185.  Those are cream of the crop geniuses.  Yes, they still had to practice deliberately to develop their skills, but they clearly had natural talents that most of us don’t.  They started way ahead of me.

So What Should You Do?

I think the concepts of deliberate practice can be put to good practical use by everyone and that benefits can be derived without 10,000 hours of practice.   You don’t one day go from average to world-class.  You become better, then good, then exceptional, and maybe then great.  Not surprisingly, if you want to separate yourself from the crowd, you are going to have to work hard.

The Elements of Deliberate Practice

“Deliberate practice is characterized by several elements, each worth examining.  It is activity designed specifically to improve performance, often with a teacher’s help; it can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously available; it’s highly demanding mentally, whether the activity is purely intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities, or heavily physical, such a sports; and it isn’t much fun.”  — Geoff Colvin

It is designed specifically to improve performance

The key point is designed.  Just repeating what you do over and over is not going to cut it.  Deliberate practice is designed to develop.  Deliberate practice stretches you beyond your current abilities.  You are out of your comfort zone and away from you already do so well.  Colvin insists you will probably need a teacher or coach in the early going.

It can be repeated a lot

This doesn’t require a lot of explanation.  You have to practice in your stretch zone (described above) a lot.  If you want to be a great writer, you have to write a lot.  If you want to be a great violin player, you have to practice several hours a day.  This is where the hard and not-so-much fun work comes into the picture.

Feedback on results is continuously available

The bottom line is that you have to see the results of what you are doing or it won’t matter.  Some activities like sports have fairly objective feedback on results.  Other areas like business or the arts might need some interpretation.  This is where a coach or teacher can be invaluable.

It’s highly demanding mentally

Deliberate practice requires intense focus and concentration.  It is mentally exhausting and thus you can’t do it for more than an hour or two without a break.  If you are mindlessly practicing some repetitive motion or mental activity, you are not practicing deliberately.

It’s usually not fun

There is nothing inherently enjoyable in deliberate practice.  This is what prevents most people from engaging in it for very long.  I think there may be some activities that you can do as deliberate practice and still enjoy it.  Writing may be one of those activities, but the mental exertion required to do it right and the repetitive nature of the practice sessions almost guarantee it is not going to be the most enjoyable thing you do in your day.

I hope this article stimulated your interest in the subject.  Like all aspects of human psychology, behavior, and performance I personally find it fascinating.  If you really want to be great at something, the evidence clearly shows you will have to put in your time.  If you are interested you should pursue the many available resources:

The article that started it all:
http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf

Geoff Colvin’s article:
Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

Geoff Colvin’s Book:
Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

Other Books:
The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How.
Outliers: The Story of Success

What do you think?  Leave a comment and join the conversation.

Get Free Updates to The Rat Race Trap by Email here or via a reader in the top left sidebar.  I would love to have you on board.

This is the classic nature vs. nurture debate.  It is a topic that fascinates me and one in which I have now reached my third major, and I hope, final position.  I was spurred to write this because of something Glen said over at PluginID with his latest post: Personality Development: Be Who You Want to Be.

He said:

“I don’t think I like the idea that our personality and specifically our behaviors are largely proven to be based around our genetic make-up.”

Way back in the 70’s I was nurture all the way.  I believed we were born tabula rasa (blank slate) and that we were built by our environment and our choices.  Back in those days nurture ruled the debate.  There really wasn’t much of a debate at all.  That’s what everyone thought.

By the end of the 90’s, nature had slam dunked nurture into the waste bin of history.  The evidence was overwhelming.  Even though I didn’t like it, I was resigned to the fact that we were largely a product of our genes and the interaction between those genes and the environment.  I’m very scientific and the evidence was powerfully convincing.  I chose to believe the evidence and not my wishes that it not be so.

Now as we draw to the end of the 00’s (boy that sounds weird to say), I have a new position.  It is not simply 50/50 nature/nurture.  I have decided, and I didn’t read this anywhere – it just slowly dawned on me, that there are two questions.  The answer to the first is nature, and the answer to the second is neither nature nor nurture.

Question 1: Are humans as a population largely the product of their genes?

In many ways, I am sad to report, the answer to this question is yes.  I’m not going to argue the point here, but there are many resources on the Internet as well as a wealth of books that argue that fact persuasively.  This is one case where statistics do indeed prove the fact.  One of my favorites is now a classic of sorts even thought it was published only seven years ago: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Studies show that identical twins adopted at birth, raised apart, and never knowing each other are extremely similar.  Biological siblings adopted at birth, raised apart, and never knowing each other are about as similar as biological siblings raised together in the same family, but they are less similar than identical twins.  Unrelated siblings adopted at birth and raised in the same family are not much more similar than people randomly chosen from the street.  Children adopted at birth and raised apart from their biological parents are about as similar to those parents as are children raised by their biological parents.

This was all shocking to me and difficult to accept when I first read about it.  It seemed to slam the door shut to much of our free-will.

This is just one small area and it goes on and on.  The evidence converges from many different directions and is almost irrefutable, at least with our present knowledge.  But this is all missing my main point, which is the answer to question 2.

Question 2: Are individuals a slave to their particular genes?

Here I believe we get an entirely different answer.  My answer is an emphatic NO.  You can’t prove this statistically and it is a much more subtle argument, but it is a position that has allowed me to reconcile my personal experience and observation to the powerful scientific evidence referred to in question 1.

You may think this answer contradicts the first answer, but it does not so let me explain.  It may be indeed true that with large populations genes rule.  But that is a statistical fact about the whole and does not take into account individual variations.

For example, you may study 1,000 pairs of identical twins adopted at birth and raised apart.  You may come up with a personality correlation coefficient of .70  (I don’t know what it is, that’s just a number I threw out).  But within that set of 1,000 pairs, you could have a number of twin pairs that in fact are dramatically different from their identically genetic sibling.  Even with that, the average correlation coefficient remains very high.  So as a rule, identical twins may be very close, but that does not mean they have to be.  And this my friends is the crux of the matter.

It is my opinion that we tend to follow our genes.  The overwhelming majority of individuals just go with the flow of their natural tendencies. I think that is a fact which has been clearly demonstrated.  Let’s face it, people are lazy.  But that does not mean we are slaves to our genes.  That does not mean we cannot overcome them.  Here is  just one example that I think most people will readily understand.

Weight – this is an area where opinions run high, but it is clearly something under the control of our behavior.  There are individuals who can eat like a horse and never put on excess weight.  There are others who without doubt have to be very careful or they balloon up rapidly.

I tend to the slim side genetically and thus it is much easier for me to lose weight than most other people.  In fact, I had to abuse my body horribly to get fat.  Had I spent those 30 years eating normally and being normally active, I would have been a fairly slim person.  Instead I had to lose over 70 pounds to get back into shape about 10 years ago.  I immediately started the abuse again and went back up slowly, and it took a long time to overcome my genetic tendency to be slim both times.

I know other people who tend to be heavy and pack on the weight.  And yet, through consistent effort they have gotten themselves into decent shape.  A couple of them have achieved superior fitness.  There are literally millions of example of both directions.

Still, if you study the genetic tendencies of the population as a whole, you will find that, as a whole, the population is ruled by its genes for weight.  Within that whole, there are millions of example of people overcoming their genetic tendencies.  The same thing would apply to all genetic tendencies to greater or lesser degrees depending on the trait.

The conclusion here is that you are not a slave to your genes.  You are responsible.  Just because most people don’t bother to overcome their genes, doesn’t mean that they or you are a slave to them.  Yes, it may be easier for me to lose weight and keep it off than it is for you, but we both can do it.  Just because nature dealt you a different hand does not mean it is not within your power to change, nor does it absolve you of your responsibilities.  There is without doubt many genetic traits that make it easier for you to do something than it is for me.  I can’t even draw decent stick people and my wife draws naturally and easily.  However, if I put my mind to it and tried, I could learn to draw like her.

You can do whatever you want so get off your butt and do it.  Stop blaming your genes for your problems because that is not the whole picture.  You can do it, you have just chosen not to because it is hard.  This may take away your convenient excuse, but I choose to look at it the other way.  To me, the fact that we can overcome our genetic tendencies opens up a world of boundless possibility.

Get Free Updates to The Rat Race Trap by Email here or to a reader in the top left sidebar. I would love to have you aboard.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.