Talent vs. Study

[Chris Stratton]

Interesting article in Scientific American that seems as applicable to the study of dance as to the things it was written about.

http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

Basic arguments seems to be that precocious development is often mistaken for talent. And that true expertise is developed not just by practice, but by in-depth study of the art, in particular to build systematic knowledge - not just bits of information, but a web of relations between them.

[delamusica]

so can an accomplished musician often reconstruct the score to a sonata heard just once

Um, ha. Right. Often.

Mmmhmm.

This guy lost his credibility for me right there.

[Chris Stratton]

I don't like that particular example, but the one of the ideas seems to be that experts build an ability to, in effect, "compress" knowledge in reference to the usual way that one things leads to another, so that they can reconstruct it based only on when it does something novel.

I think we do this in dancing all the time, when we refer to some new figure as being something familiar with a novel change... but as merely experts-in-training, we might need more exposure to recognize that. The idea of the article is that with enough training, one learns to spot the important things instantly. I note my ability to do that watching live dancing has developed markedly in the past few years, I suspect in large part due to watching a lot of video slowly, then to getting in the habit of mixing watching with brief experiments at recreating the essence of what I've seen.

I thought this passage was particularly explanatory of something that is widely seen in the dance world, too:

Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time.

[delamusica]

Yeah, I was mostly kidding with my last comment.

I still don't know, though. I firmly believe that no matter how much technical knowledge you have, it's not going to make you "a dancer" or "a musician" or even "a mathemetician" or "a chessmaster."

It's not something that I can really argue, but a gut feeling that I have. Yes, people who are the best in their field put a great deal of study and work and sweat into what they do.

But anyone can work. The greats have something more.

[Chris Stratton]

But anyone can work. The greats have something more.

They know how to work effectively, or were supervised in doing so during the foundation years?

[Larinda McRaven]

And in the dance realm... they have bodies that are often built to deliver a better result and stand up to the wear and tear.

[delamusica]

I meant *something* that can't be achieved through work. A spark. I don't know how to describe it.

Like have you ever watched a couple dance and just been drawn to look at them in a crowd, even when their technique is not the best? Or listened to an untrained singer who moved you more than a professional, technical wonder ever has?

That's what I meant.

[WorksForShoes]

I've often wondered if innate abilities (talent) serve as the impetus for motivation, study, and eventual success but are not the reason for that success. So, a person may be hard-wired to view things mathematically and be comfortable with numerical expressions of reality, which means math is pleasurable, they pursue it, they challenge themselves, and they become an expert mathematician or physicist. Mathematically talent is not the reason for expertise.

In the same way, this article would suggest that the desire to become an "expert" dancer could spur us onward to study not just at a comfortable level but at a challenging one, causing faster progress, more experience, and ultimately a level of expertise. It certainly reconfirms my belief that it is not enough to seize dance opportunities just because I want to dance (although that is fun), but to include plenty of challenge.

That said, I agree that in artistic endeavors there is always room for something inborn--a connection of joy between the partners, a tendancy to tilt the hand just so in a pleasing way, or a body type that is beautiful in motion, that is hard to explain but lovely to perceive. But that doesn't mean these things absolutely have to be present in order to reach a high level.

Or, maybe I"m just nuts.