Genius and Hard Work

[spiderweb]

For instructors, I humbly offer you some thoughts.

For me, I find it far easier to perform the worlds most difficult and intricate music on stage in front of demanding and sophisticated audiences, than teaching a slow learner. I've taught for nearly 30 years, and I've learned a few things, so I thought I'd pass along to the perhaps newer teachers.

What is the difference between Genius and Average, or high and low talent? The short answer, in one word is this: "time."

I'll frame that by demonstrating the extremes. I have had students who lacked in every sense: they couldn't keep a beat, couldn't hear if they were playing out of tune or not, disregarded dynamics, and most of all, just didn't understand that music was a language, and that they were supposed to be communicating something to me. I have also taught a couple of actual geniuses in my life. Extraordinary. I give them a piece of music, and play it. They play it right back to me, exactly as I did. I barely had to give any instruction beyond talking about stylistic approach or background on the composer. (Incidentally, it is because of this sort of student that I now believe in reincarnation--it is the most rational explanation to me!)

Most students, of course, fall in between these two extremes, and that's where the bulk of our work is. I'm getting ready to write a pedagogical book on cello teaching (I'm sure at least 14 or 15 will be sold!), but my best advice is this: break it down. Select a small element, and break it down into component parts.

After that, it is up to the student. I remember being at New England Conservatory of Music, one of the great music schools of the world, and complaining to my teacher that my buddy only had to practice 3 hours to get done what needed to be done, while I had to do 6 hours. My teacher said, "So what? So, your friend got a car and you got a bicycle. You'll both get there."

Beethoven was NOT a genius. If you look at notebooks, you'll see how he tried many, many versions of a particular melody--some of them downright silly.

Mozart was a bonafide genius. He would let a symphony "brew" in his mind for a few days, then write it down in a rush--in PEN--with no mistakes.

It took me longer than normal to get my PPL, and longer than normal to get my IR, but I got there, because my teacher broke it down, I worked methodically and assiduously, and I trusted that I would be able to do it!

 

[Henning]

Everything in the universe started as information in the ether and is ordered into our universe through space time. The purpose of the universe is as a big processing plant that turns hydrogen into more information (the input into the universe is hydrogen from which everything is forged In stars with the elements they create during their death). A processor typically has a purpose that is denoted by it's rarest and most valuable output. As far as we can see, that would be life. The only thing that life produces is thought, thought is information and can be gathered from outside the body (note an EEG is non invasive, they stitch pick ups on your scalp).

Since what we are is what we think, and what we think is added to the information ether, reincarnation is a given, although it may just be bits and pieces being reordered at random rather than a complete package. Since the ether exists outside the order of our universe which is governed by space time, you can be created of information from any time and place in the universe including the future which may be why some people are great inventors and 'forward thinkers'.

 

[spiderweb]

Everything in the universe started as information in the ether and is ordered into our universe through space time. The purpose of the universe is as a big processing plant that turns hydrogen into more information (the input into the universe is hydrogen from which everything is forged In stars with the elements they create during their death). A processor typically has a purpose that is denoted by it's rarest and most valuable output. As far as we can see, that would be life. The only thing that life produces is thought, thought is information and can be gathered from outside the body (note an EEG is non invasive, they stitch pick ups on your scalp).

Since what we are is what we think, and what we think is added to the information ether, reincarnation is a given, although it may just be bits and pieces being reordered at random rather than a complete package. Since the ether exists outside the order of our universe which is governed by space time, you can be created of information from any time and place in the universe including the future which may be why some people are great inventors and 'forward thinkers'.

That was just wow!

 

[Henning]

That was just wow!

It puts a new perspective on "We live in the world we create" doesn't it...

 

[RyanShort1]

Everything in the universe started as information in the ether and is ordered into our universe through space time. The purpose of the universe is as a big processing plant that turns hydrogen into more information (the input into the universe is hydrogen from which everything is forged In stars with the elements they create during their death).

1. Were you there?
2. How do you know that is true?

LOL...

In response to the OP - very true. Slow learners take LOTS of patience, but you can teach them a lot if you are patient, and they have time and money. The problem is when they start comparing themselves with other students, or they think you are milking them for money, or...

Ryan

 

[denverpilot]

Mix that with the quantum mechanics concept of "observation changes the outcome of the experiment" and things get very strange, very quickly.

 

[Henning]

1. Were you there?
2. How do you know that is true?

1. We were all there and are still there because there is no 'when' in the ether... We are part of the ether as the ether is part of us.

2. The Ether Bunny told me so...

 

[RyanShort1]

1. We were all there and are still there because there is no 'when' in the ether... We are part of the ether as the ether is part of us.

2. The Ether Bunny told me so...

I know someone who was there, and He has a different version.

Ryan

 

[Henning]

I know someone who was there, and He has a different version.

Ryan

Did He tell you so or did you read it in a book somewhere? Consider that God may very well be the ether?

 

[Alexb2000]

Student Pilot: I just can't get my landings down. Everyone else seems to be able to do it in a few hours.

CFI: Well you need to call on the Ether to guide your hands and feet.

Student Pilot: The... ETHER?

CFI: Yes the Ether, within the ether is all flying knowledge unbounded by our perception of time. The only thing that life produces is thought and that is in the Ether.

Student Pilot: So I should land with my eyes closed calling on the ether?

CFI: You can, of course it will probably end this meaningless life, but your information will be part of the ether. Consider that parts of your information may be reincarnated into the next Bob Hoover. That should make you feel a lot better about your landings.

Student Pilot: Ummm, OK. Well I guess I'll just keep practicing the way I was doing it.

CFI: Let's call this an hour of ground.

 

[Gubbins]

Sorry, there is no ether. Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887? Nice story though

 

[ChrisK]

A very wise music instructor once told me that genius without work ethic most always succumbs to work ethic in time.

I think that this theory has application beyond music.

 

[ClimbnSink]

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Good write-up. Excellent analysis. Thanks.

 

[TMetzinger]

For things that require skill, I fully agree. Barring some significant defect, a person can develop skills to a very high level.

However, in my own experience in the music and art world (Berklee College of Music, Ben I wonder if we were in Boston at the same time 1983-88?), there are some things, like improvisation, that require something more.

The role of the teacher is to help a student reach his/her full potential. Some folks have higher potentials in certain areas than others. We need to be honest with students on this, and not discourage them nor encourage them falsely.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Everything in the universe started as information in the ether and is ordered into our universe through space time. The purpose of the universe is as a big processing plant that turns hydrogen into more information (the input into the universe is hydrogen from which everything is forged In stars with the elements they create during their death). A processor typically has a purpose that is denoted by it's rarest and most valuable output. As far as we can see, that would be life. The only thing that life produces is thought, thought is information and can be gathered from outside the body (note an EEG is non invasive, they stitch pick ups on your scalp).

Since what we are is what we think, and what we think is added to the information ether, reincarnation is a given, although it may just be bits and pieces being reordered at random rather than a complete package. Since the ether exists outside the order of our universe which is governed by space time, you can be created of information from any time and place in the universe including the future which may be why some people are great inventors and 'forward thinkers'.

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

 

[wabower]

That's not exactly what it says. Instead, it says that their research has discovered that that the good ones have put in their 10k hours of practice. It doesn't say anything about those who have practiced that much and still aren't worth a shlt. Evidence that these "practice forever but never get better" individuals exist in great numbers can be proven by visiting any golf pratice range.

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

 

[dell30rb]

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

Just not true. Some people have a knack for things, and some don't.

 

[Dr. O]

Ya, ya, ya Henning... So now I live in a designer universe?
What about Schroedinger's cat? Which universe does it live in?

OK, just jerking your chain - I neither agree nor disagree with your postulation as I know nothing about the information sharing dynamics of bare protons at velocities of millions of degrees...

As for the OP - I know what you mean... I am a music lover with no talent - oh yeah, I can get an instrument to make sound but that is about it... But, we were at a dinner party... The hostess had a local fella bring in a piano and play during the cocktail hour... Her three year old daughter is there all dressed up and well behaved (for a 3 year old) and she is fascinated by the piano player... She hangs on the keyboard rail, on her tip toes, both hands clutching the end and her chin resting on the wood and watches him so intently she almost forgets to breath... I notice this... When the meal is served on the patio we all go outside... I get a phone call (I'm on call 24/7) and I go inside to take it (before cell phones)... As I am going back outside I hear piano chords and I look into the living room and there is the 3 year old standing at the piano - her head is barely above the keys and she is sounding out the chords that she saw him play... Her little hand won't span the keys so she is using both hands to strike a cord and she is getting them mostly right and when she hits a dissonant chord she gropes around on the keys until she corrects it... After I get out to the dinner (mine is now cold) the hostess says, my, that was a long call...
Oh no, I reply, I was watching your daughter play the piano...
She looks puzzled and says, she does not know how to play the piano, she is only three...
She does now, I said - and mom went scooting inside...
I heard later the child was considered a prodigy and went off to a prestigious university music program at a very young age...
I think about talent like that and I think about my plodding efforts in life (sigh)

 

[jab3racer]

That's not exactly what it says. Instead, it says that their research has discovered that that the good ones have put in their 10k hours of practice. It doesn't say anything about those who have practiced that much and still aren't worth a shlt. Evidence that these "practice forever but never get better" individuals exist in great numbers can be proven by visiting any golf pratice range.

Agreed. IIRC the 10,000 hour metric was referring to someone "mastering" a complex task (playing an instrument, flying, painting, etc...). This of course does not count for those that "just don't get it"

 

[Jeanie]

Ben, you are right of course... Breaking actions into components and smaller bits is a very clear way to develop a skill.

Reincarnation/rebirth, well, that's another discussion altogether .

 

[Skip Miller]

Just not true. Some people have a knack for things, and some don't.

Yes, you do need the raw material. Brain power or physical dexterity. But Gladwell's thesis is that this will not bloom into world record talent (somehow measured) without the 10,000 hours of relevant and intense practice. Note this practice is required to achieve greatness, not goodness as noted above.

-Skip

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes, you do need the raw material. Brain power or physical dexterity. But Gladwell's thesis is that this will not bloom into world record talent (somehow measured) without the 10,000 hours of relevant and intense practice. Note this practice is required to achieve greatness, not goodness as noted above.

-Skip

Now that I agree with. A diamond needs polishing.

 

[Everskyward]

With the exception of aerobatic pilots or the like I don't think anyone practices flying to the extent that high-level musicians practice their craft which probably also accounts for the lack of flying "geniuses".

 

[dell30rb]

With the exception of aerobatic pilots or the like I don't think anyone practices flying to the extent that high-level musicians practice their craft which probably also accounts for the lack of flying "geniuses".

There probably are flying "geniuses" out there but if you are flying transport etc.. there are no good ways to set yourself apart from the pack.

I raced motorcycles and I knew a guy who started riding and one year later he was kicking my ass on the track and one year after that, was winning everything in sight. He rode 2-3x a week like the rest of us. I had been riding for 7 years and racing for 4 when he picked it up.

 

[Henning]

There probably are flying "geniuses" out there but if you are flying transport etc.. there are no good ways to set yourself apart from the pack.

I raced motorcycles and I knew a guy who started riding and one year later he was kicking my ass on the track and one year after that, was winning everything in sight. He rode 2-3x a week like the rest of us. I had been riding for 7 years and racing for 4 when he picked it up.

Different people have different talents. The 10,000hr rule is for people of average talent and I agree with that although I think it's a bit high. Higher inherent talent in a person will reduce that number until you get to the prodigy level like Mozart and the like where they can observe once and repeat. Conversely people with lower talent will take longer to get to a lower level of ability all the way to those that will 'never get it'.

Most everybody has things where they have greater talent and no talent. I will never be a 'great' musician or painter no matter how much I would love to be and practice, but I can look at any machine, figure out how it works, how to fix it and how to operate it within a very short time and could since I was a little kid.

 

[Everskyward]

There probably are flying "geniuses" out there but if you are flying transport etc.. there are no good ways to set yourself apart from the pack.

The thing is, the goal in flying transport is to make it as unobtrusive and bland as possible. You don't necessarily want people saying, "Wow what was that?!"

I'm trying to think of a music equivalent. Musak?

 

[Henning]

The thing is, the goal in flying transport is to make it as unobtrusive and bland as possible. You don't necessarily want people saying, "Wow what was that?!"

I'm trying to think of a music equivalent. Musak?

Exactly, a 'genius pilot' in the transport world never spills a cocktail in the back, they go completely unnoticed because their genius is in avoiding things of note.

 

[denverpilot]

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

That assumes the person has had instruction on HOW to practice. Practice makes permanent. Practice doing something wrong for 10,000 hours, it's going to take a lot of work to tear it apart and fix it.

 

[alfadog]

Sorry, there is no ether. Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887? Nice story though

Then this information is imprinted on dark matter. See, you cannot "disprove" thoughts like Hennings, any more than you can "prove" them. And you make a big mistake if you think "science" describes everything real. Science only describes that small subset of reality that is falsifiable.

For myself, I agree with the OP (if serious); I believe in reincarnation.

 

[spiderweb]

I love all these responses!

 

[alfadog]

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

Yes, "good" at something. If that is all you are looking for. Not "genius", IMO. Perhaps that 10k hours would make someone competent at reproducing the mechanical aspects of genius, i.e. someone that can paint like a master, but it will not make them a master if the "spark" is not there. And for piloting, reproducing the mechanical aspects is certainly good enough.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

With the exception of aerobatic pilots or the like I don't think anyone practices flying to the extent that high-level musicians practice their craft which probably also accounts for the lack of flying "geniuses".

Maybe, but try hovering next to a cliff over surf in gusty winds trying not to make pink paste of the swimmer dangling on a cable among the trees and rocks just for practice, so you can do it for real at night in the rain. I would agree that line pilots and charter operators may settle into a groove, but anyone working close to the ground, (ag pilots, fire fighting, infrastructure patrols etc.) know that proficiency isn't just for style points, it's survival.

 

[jhausch]

but my best advice is this: break it down. Select a small element, and break it down into component parts.

After that, it is up to the student.

I can only suggest adding: Provide space and time along the way for small victories.

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe, but try hovering next to a cliff over surf in gusty winds trying not to make pink paste of the swimmer dangling on a cable among the trees and rocks just for practice, so you can do it for real at night in the rain. I would agree that line pilots and charter operators may settle into a groove, but anyone working close to the ground, (ag pilots, fire fighting, infrastructure patrols etc.) know that proficiency isn't just for style points, it's survival.

That is true. I learned how to fly a helicopter years ago but I only got to the point of being proficient enough to pass the tests. I would kill myself today...

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I am like only 0.9% of the population.

I show up to the racetrack appearing to have all of the things a Lotus has . . . .

But my times around the track are that of a Pinto.


It is very strange. I'm not retarded or anything, but just really good at some stuff and sucky at other things.

 

[MAKG1]

One of Malcolm Gladwell's books covered this. Claims the difference is practice time not talent. 10,000 hours of practice to be good at something, pretty simple.

I've heard that in several contexts. Problem is, it isn't true. We've all seen people for whom something new is much easier than it is for us. We all have innate talents.

I'm a musician myself. I have to work at it, but I can improvise decently and play in tune, on time, with good tone, and correct dynamics, usually. Most of us know people who can't play in tune with any amount of practice. And very occasionally, one finds a "natural" with perfect pitch, for whom playing out of tune is painful. Some of those who have it (and I'm not one) claim perceptual differences from the rest of us. Such as, "seeing" a tone with a shade of color.

 

[denverpilot]

That's not exactly what it says. Instead, it says that their research has discovered that that the good ones have put in their 10k hours of practice. It doesn't say anything about those who have practiced that much and still aren't worth a shlt. Evidence that these "practice forever but never get better" individuals exist in great numbers can be proven by visiting any golf pratice range.

Wayne! Welcome back!

Agreed.

There's one thing an instructor (of non-aviation things, but it still applies) told me.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent.

Practicing wrong will make you do it consistently wrong.

 

[denverpilot]

Holy hell. My "genius" just responded to a thread from 2012. LOL.

I left a search result up on the screen... And thought I was on the new posts screen.

 

[mcmanigle]

As long as this thread is being reincarnated (ha), some recent research out of Princeton analyzed the 10,000 hour "rule" and found that practice accounts for about 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions (including data on fighter pilots). So, important, but not the most important.

The original paper is here and a summary here.