<p>"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.</p>
<p>The recent research has been conducted by people like K. Anders Ericsson, the late Benjamin Bloom and others. It’s been summarized in two enjoyable new books: “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle; and “Talent Is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin."</p>
<p>I do believe that intense, continuous practice can lead to amazing, amazing gains. However, at least in some areas of endeavor, the ones who make it to the tip-top start with a seed of genius which comes to them as a gift from the gods.</p>
<p>I agree with skyhook. Some things cannot be taught or gained through practice.
I do think that gifts can be wasted, however. Talent alone will not rise to the top. Practice definitely can make the difference if the talent is there to begin with.</p>
<p>^ That’s understandable for subjects such as science, math, and being a virtuoso on an instrument but what about athletic ability, acting or the arts? I doubt that every professional athlete has an IQ over 115, but they are certainly athletic geniuses.</p>
That’s because you just made up your own little phrase: “athletic geniuses”. Genius is an intellectual rating. If you don’t have the intellect, you don’t get it.</p>
<p>I was referring to the theory of multiple intelligences. There are legitimately ■■■■■■■■ savants who happen to have extraordinary musical and mathematical gifts. They certainly do not have a high IQ. High IQ is correlated in being talented in certain areas, but not all. A high IQ is practically required to have win the Nobel prize, but then again a good voice in the first place is required to be a great singer, or good interpersonal skills are needed in the first place to be a great salesman or entrepreneur.
I do get what you’re saying. I’m not the first one to coin such a phrase. A genius is sometimes considered someone who is exceptional or gifted in any task. You are only referring to traditional genius.</p>
<p>Who knows if somebody like Mozart had a high IQ or not? He was certainly a genius, and he was able to achieve things at a very early age that others could not and cannot even with years of practice. So I have to say that while practice may be necessary for genius to produce results, it can’t be all about practice.</p>
<p>Besides Mr. Payne, it must be lonely at the top. You must feel like you’re living in Idiocracy and it’s understandable why you’re so bitter about that. My peon-like intellect mind cannot grasp how that must be like. However I offer my sympathies and condolences. :)</p>
<p>Well, music and art come, fundamentally, from the brain, Mr. Payne. Even you can’t deny that. Is it your contention is that every musical genius and artistic genius – or every great poet, for that matter – had a “genius level” IQ, or even an IQ above 115? If so, what’s your authority for that contention?</p>
<p>We’ve been having this discussion in our home. Practice alone, though, won’t create genius. No matter how much you may practice writing, it won’t make you Shakespeare. Aptitude matters.</p>