<p>^^LOL!</p>
<p>Simba: 'The “alas” was truly gratuitous. I’m happy with the kids I’ve got. And I better be!
Still, when it comes to practice vs. innate talent, some of it may be a chicken and egg question. My kid saw doing math as pure pleasure, not practice or penance (how’s that for alliteration?) Doing vocabulary sentences, now, that was more like pulling teeth.</p>
<p>It would be stupid to think that there aren’t people out there with a genetic predisposition in some area or another. I’m pretty good at math/science but awful at philosophy and English. I see my friends all shine in one area or another, many are good at their sports, others at their jobs, still others are good speakers or would make a good comedian. </p>
<p>The place I see where that it is genetic predisposition though is in my sport. The only stroke at swimming I’m good at is breastroke and it’s only because my feet can turn in a weird way that helps immensely with my breastroke kick. I can lead any kicking practice, but during a freestyle set I’m always at the back of my lane. Other kids on the team couldn’t do breastroke to save their lives but are very good in other strokes. Some kids are naturally talented, some kids aren’t, and my coach has talked to us about it before. We had one girl make Olympic trials but my coach said that it was only because she worked really hard at swimming and this other girl on our team is naturally better, and it’s true as the other girl is now faster, has her Olympic trials cuts, and will likely swim for Greece in London. I worked extremely hard at swimming but only ended up at a DII school, while I watched others goof around and do really well anyways.</p>
<p>I’m not good with semantics. What is genuis, versus gifted, versus talented? Is there a continuum, or are they synonyms?</p>
<p>My kids are musicians. My first two both started piano lessons when they reached second grade. Both practiced the same amount (a required amount set by me). The first had played for 3 years when the second started. Within a month the piano teacher was shaking his head over my second son in wonderment. Oldest continued playing through high school, and was named a regional “outstanding performer.” Technically proficient, and playing at a high level, he was talented and musical. Second child, within a month, showed himself to have some unusual ability, an innate connection with music in his soul that folks could hear almost from the beginning. </p>
<p>He occasionally has peers who tell him or us, “I could have been that good if I’d practiced like he does.” (Referring to his accomplishment on a different instrument.) We’ll never know if that is true. My eldest had the practice, and reached a very high level of performance, but there is something different with the second S, something that took it up a notch. The words talent, genuis, gifted, prodigy - have all been used with him at one point or another - but there has also been thousands of hours of work. If he stopped lessons at that first month, I’m not sure folks would still be as impressed.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if genuis is associated with high IQ, my eldest comes closer.</p>
<p>binx–similar here. My eldest, a girl, took piano and practiced diligently but achieved only modest success (then realized she was much better at art anyway). Second child, a boy, would practice irregularly but immediately played better than his sister. He was a “natural.” She found this scenario extremely annoying!</p>
<p>“Genius” I think applies to only a select few. Gifted & talented are used more loosely. And it depends on the circles you run in. At the conservatory, obviously everyone is gifted/talented but there is a range from moderately to extremely. </p>
<p>At home, in their individual high schools, they might have been looked on as geniuses…but it’s all relative.</p>
<p>I have impression genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
Depending on your field- certain amount of intelligence and right time right place is required, but much depends on effort as well as talent to make it work.</p>
<p>It also helps immensely if someone is around to handle the extraneous details that those who would be geniuses, don’t have time for or even notice- because as they say " the debil is in the details"</p>
<p>For example- because of my learning differences or extreme right brain dominance, I make connections that mystify others, but * because *of the right brain dominance ( and because I don’t have a personal assistant 
) things I overlook trip me up.</p>
<p>( I can also totally understand Kelly McGillis’ decision to " be done with men", the older I get, the more they mystify me)</p>
<p>
[In</a> Defense of Women - Introduction](<a href=“http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/defense/Introduction.html]In”>http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/defense/Introduction.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d find it disturbing for Mike Tyson to held up as an example of genius.</p>
<p>Hard work is superior over talent in my opinion. Talent cannot be aparent without a skill developed. That being said, most straight “A” students will have easier time with one subject than another. The point is that they still achieve “A” in their hardest subject, if they have that goal. Do they have general talent for studying? One can say so, however, they just work much harder at something that is hard for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is disturbing that the Unabomber, who had profound mathematical ability was a genius.</p>
<p>I just read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, which is about this very topic. He has an interesting take on geniuses and success – that it is aptitude (something innate) combined with opportunity (this is where luck comes in), and practice (the 10,000 hours) that produces the kind of meteoric success we’ve all heard about (he mentions Mozart, the Beatles, Bill Gates, Bill Joy, among others). What I found particularly interesting is how important opportunity and practice are – innate talent alone will get you nowhere. He quotes many interesting studies (including the one quoted by the Times, I think) to prove his point – meaning, it’s not all anecdotal (like most of the comments here!). I found myself being mostly convinced, but still think it’s pretty mysterious. Just because someone like Bill Gates, with similar aptitude or intelligence, is presented by the same opportunities (access to state of the art computers in the early 70s), and puts in the same hours of practice, doesn’t mean that he will have the same success. Maybe that mysterious component is personality?</p>
<p>Excellent point 3021. Many ppl are still attached to the concept that genius sets one at a higher level than others. Very wrong. Goleman helped popularize EQ to round out the equation. But still, hard work and ethics are important (yes, mathematical genius without morals = unibomber).</p>
<p>As a kid, I was assessed with a high IQ, but I dropped out of college, wandered about, and it took me a long time to get grounded and round out my own life. The IQ helps solve mathematical and scientific problems, but it did not bring success. It is only a fraction of the equation. I think that is what most are saying.</p>
<p>We need a new term for someone who works hard, is ethically/morally grounded and is smart… That is what we should promote for our kids. I would not wish for anyone’s kid to be intellectually gifted but not have a moral grounding and a good work ethic. All three are needed.</p>
<p>There is no correlation between being an intelligent and accomplished person and being a good and moral person.</p>
<p>There is no reason to equate genius with success or morality. Nor is a hard worker necessarily moral and ethical.
There have been a number of mathematical geniuses in history. There’s only one Unabomber.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Unabomber is not alone and nobody can prevent genius or just good / hard working on an outside person to be sicko inside, even the one who is raised in a family with other completely normal siblings.</p>
<p>The original question though was what separates genius from the merely accomplished. It seems that it is not that important and being genius will not quarantee success. There are savants with super human abilities and some of them are enourmosly successful, but they cannot even live independently, not being able to tie shoes and feed themselves. Would anybody like to be such a person? However, they are happy in their own world. These are truly geniuses with abilities that science cannot explain yet.</p>
<p>While I agree that practice makes a genius - the reason for that practice is usually that the person has enough aptitude that it’s fun and rewarding. mathson wouldn’t have spent hours computer programming starting in second grade if he hadn’t had a brain that could deal with that kind of abstract thinking early. My younger son tried it, because he actually had things he’d like to program, but thought the process was boooring. Older son didn’t have goals - he liked the process.</p>
<p>Agree that you have to have the desire or inclination along with the ability. You would think that ability would naturally produce inclination but I’ve seen people where this is not true.</p>
<p>One problem for lots of those born with very high IQs is that things are very easy for them & they lose interest in a lot of things. When these extremely bright kids put their minds to it & effort at it, they achieve amazing things but it can be difficult helping them figure out a balance. They generally do what is of interest to them for the pure love of it, like mathson, not because they’re “supposed” to and it can be difficult for them to decide to apply themselves to things that they don’t find “of interest.”
My nephew is in the doghouse because he scored the highest on the SAT for the entire state for the 7th grade with JHU talent search but has had his grades go from As & Bs to Bs & Cs. He’s brilliant and lazy which makes his parents crazy! He has sibs who struggle and are earn good grades through major sweat equity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cure for “brilliant but lazy” is giving kids challenging work. This quote is a perfect example of that. Non-brilliant kids who work hard can earn good grades. Brilliant kids who blow off work get lousy ones, especially in k-12 when half the grade comes from showing effort. We had this problem with S2 and solved it (as well as incipient discipline problems) by working with the school to allow him to skip several grades in math.</p>
<p>Any one saw the hockey game between Washington and Pittsburgh last night? There is no way that practice is all there is that separates Ovechkin from the rest of his teammates. I am sure training, passion, and opportunity are important, but so is his pedigree. His dad, I believe was a professional footballer, and his mom Tatiana (?) was voted the greatest basketballer of Russia. Starting at 19 when she was named captain until her retirement, I don’t believe her “team” lost a game. (Thinking about it, I saw her played point guard in the Montreal Olympics.)</p>
<p>When I saw Ovechkin played last night, I was curious how he managed to create space for himself, how he knew where the puck is going to go, and how to get away from the close checking…etc, etc. You simply cannot teach this stuff. It has to be there all along.</p>
<p>Yea, but not all schools will work with kids & families to allow for these options. This nephew & his brother both had to repeat kindergarten because of the elite private school birthdate rule, which just exacerbated the problem. Both are underperforming.</p>