The Talent Code

[chefjeff]

From Talent is Overrated

key word in this attribute is designed. In the example of my pathetic routine on the driving range, I was designing my own practice activity, even though it’s clear that I’m completely unqualified to do so. The mechanics of hitting golf balls have been studied for decades and are extremely well understood by those who have made it their profession, but I have virtually none of their knowledge. It’s the same in almost every field: Decades or centuries of study have produced a body of knowledge about how performance is developed and improved, and full-time teachers generally possess that knowledge. At least in the early going, therefore, and sometimes long after, it’s almost always necessary for a teacher to design the activity best suited to improve an individual’s performance. In some fields, especially intellectual ones such as the arts, science, and business, people may eventually become skilled enough to design their own practice. But anyone who thinks they’ve outgrown the benefits of a teacher’s help should at least question that view. There’s a reason why the world’s best golfers still go to teachers.

Colvin, Geoff (2008-10-04). Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (p. 67). Portfolio. Kindle Edition.

One of my teammates laughed at me when I told him I was getting a lesson. He said, "You don't need a lesson, you shoot better than most (in league), plus you've had lessons before." My first thought was, boy does this guy need to get out and see what good pool is! He has no clue.

I suggested that he come with me and take the lesson, too, but he just gave me a look that said, "I'm not as stupid as you are wasting unnecessary money."

When the student is ready the teacher arrives. I don't know who said that, but it seems to be true.

Jeff Livingston

 

[BasementDweller]

Waking This Thread Up

I still haven't read the book but it's on my list. I was reviewing his web site and I came across this paragraph:

http://thetalentcode.com/

"Rule: Try Sh*t
Practicing the same thing over and over in exactly the same way seems like a smart thing to do. Problem is, it’s usually not. Studies show that variable practice — where you move around, experiment, try new things and see how they work — is far more effective than “blocked” practice with no variance. A good example is basketball free throws, where practicing from variable distances produces skill far faster than practicing from the same distance every time.

The reason this works is that embracing variability helps us sharpen our control — our ability to make small, crucial changes to adapt our performance to the situation. When we make a habit of experimenting — when we try sh*t, and do it systematically — we are increasing our ability to modulate our performance."


The part I highlighted above was something I've sort of noticed here recently. In the past I have been known to set up the exact shot over and over again and keep shooting it. But something about that process never seemed right. When you do that it seems like you allow yourself to skip steps. For instance, when you are shooting a particular cut shot over and over, after just a couple of shots you no longer go through the process of aiming, not to mention other aspects of your PSR. However, if you take that shot and instead of shooting the exact same shot over and over, you now move the object around just a bit (enough so now you have to go through the aiming process again) it appears to me to be more beneficial.

So when I came across that paragraph on his website it sort of validated this thought that's been running through my head.

I'm eager to read this book.

 

[chefjeff]

This article is for those who play on teams Here's an excerpt from it....

...The one problem I have on my team is having the athletes get over the fear of making a mistake. We do great in practice, but during a tournament, the more “important” the game, the more they regress to predictable, safe playing.

To overcome this, we discussed as a team a few weeks ago that the March 17 tournament would be a “throw-away”. We didn’t care about the outcome. If players played aggressive they would never be in danger of being subbed off, no matter how many mistakes they made. Everyone bought into the system and was willing to give it a try, except for about half of my parent group. They had a hard time accepting the fact that we were going to let the girls figure it out and let them “go for it” on every ball regardless of the score or the stakes.

As we started the day, we had serves going out and wide. But the team was relaxed and having fun. If they didn’t get a great spike in one rally, they tried even harder the next time. They saw that by making positive errors, often the other team would still go for the ball and touch it, giving us a point. As the day progressed, they were becoming more confident. I had athletes who had never attempted jump serving, trying it and succeeding. Our play was getting more aggressive as the day went on and we were constantly winning.

We made it to the semi-finals and all of my doubting parents were congratulating me on the genius of the approach to the tournament. They couldn’t believe how well their daughters were playing, and it was just getting better. I cautioned them and reminded them that the focus has to be on the process, not the outcome, and that even if we were in last place, it would still have been a worthy strategy for all the teaching it provided. We played with the most aggression and intelligence we have ever done. We hit from everywhere on the court. It was beautiful to watch....​

Here's the rest of the story:

http://thetalentcode.com/2013/03/20/how-to-overcome-fear-of-mistakes-one-coachs-story/


Jeff Livingston

 

[lfigueroa]

This article is for those who play on teams Here's an excerpt from it....

...The one problem I have on my team is having the athletes get over the fear of making a mistake. We do great in practice, but during a tournament, the more “important” the game, the more they regress to predictable, safe playing.

To overcome this, we discussed as a team a few weeks ago that the March 17 tournament would be a “throw-away”. We didn’t care about the outcome. If players played aggressive they would never be in danger of being subbed off, no matter how many mistakes they made. Everyone bought into the system and was willing to give it a try, except for about half of my parent group. They had a hard time accepting the fact that we were going to let the girls figure it out and let them “go for it” on every ball regardless of the score or the stakes.

As we started the day, we had serves going out and wide. But the team was relaxed and having fun. If they didn’t get a great spike in one rally, they tried even harder the next time. They saw that by making positive errors, often the other team would still go for the ball and touch it, giving us a point. As the day progressed, they were becoming more confident. I had athletes who had never attempted jump serving, trying it and succeeding. Our play was getting more aggressive as the day went on and we were constantly winning.

We made it to the semi-finals and all of my doubting parents were congratulating me on the genius of the approach to the tournament. They couldn’t believe how well their daughters were playing, and it was just getting better. I cautioned them and reminded them that the focus has to be on the process, not the outcome, and that even if we were in last place, it would still have been a worthy strategy for all the teaching it provided. We played with the most aggression and intelligence we have ever done. We hit from everywhere on the court. It was beautiful to watch....​

Here's the rest of the story:

http://thetalentcode.com/2013/03/20/how-to-overcome-fear-of-mistakes-one-coachs-story/


Jeff Livingston

It's a great book. I also like reading Richard Restak who has written books like "Mozart Brain and the Fighter Pilot" and "The New Brain." In one he wrote about how you should be cautious and careful when practicing, but should take chances when you are competing.

Lou Figueroa

 

[chefjeff]

From this website:



...De Groot assembled a panel of four players: a grandmaster and world champion, a master, a city champion and an average club player. He enlisted another master to come up with different chess-piece arrangements taken from obscure games and then did something very similar to what Starkes would do with athletes 30 years later: He flashed the chessboards in front of the players for a matter of seconds and then asked them to reconstruct each scenario on a blank board. The differences that emerged, particularly between the two masters and the two nonmasters, were "so large and unambiguous that they hardly need further support," De Groot wrote.

In four of the trials, the grandmaster re-created the entire board after viewing it for three seconds. The master was able to accomplish the same feat twice. Neither of the lesser players was able to reproduce any board with complete accuracy. Overall, the grandmaster and master accurately replaced more than 90% of the pieces in the trials, while the city champion managed around 70% and the club player only about 50%. In five seconds the grandmaster understood more of the game situation than the club player did in 15 minutes....


This comes from the middle of an article about how masters asses the situation at hand quickly and accurately vs. an lessor player.

I'm wondering (and will try out asap) if I can look at a pool table layout for a few seconds then accurately recreate that layout on paper. Maybe this would be a good exercise for us pool players?

One thing I used to do was walk around the table a lot more. I had to to really know what the lie of the balls was so I didn't come to a shot and discover that it really wasn't what I thought it was. Now, I don't do that as often as I know from one angle where the balls really lie. Does this mean I'm better because I make faster assessments of the table layout?

Seems kinda strange but that article seems to make the case.

Here's the talent code site article that linked to the above one. http://thetalentcode.com/2013/08/13/how-to-be-creative-starring-jackson-brownes-teakettle/#comments

Thoughts?

Jeff Livingston

 

[Neil]

From this website:



...De Groot assembled a panel of four players: a grandmaster and world champion, a master, a city champion and an average club player. He enlisted another master to come up with different chess-piece arrangements taken from obscure games and then did something very similar to what Starkes would do with athletes 30 years later: He flashed the chessboards in front of the players for a matter of seconds and then asked them to reconstruct each scenario on a blank board. The differences that emerged, particularly between the two masters and the two nonmasters, were "so large and unambiguous that they hardly need further support," De Groot wrote.

In four of the trials, the grandmaster re-created the entire board after viewing it for three seconds. The master was able to accomplish the same feat twice. Neither of the lesser players was able to reproduce any board with complete accuracy. Overall, the grandmaster and master accurately replaced more than 90% of the pieces in the trials, while the city champion managed around 70% and the club player only about 50%. In five seconds the grandmaster understood more of the game situation than the club player did in 15 minutes....


This comes from the middle of an article about how masters asses the situation at hand quickly and accurately vs. an lessor player.

I'm wondering (and will try out asap) if I can look at a pool table layout for a few seconds then accurately recreate that layout on paper. Maybe this would be a good exercise for us pool players?

One thing I used to do was walk around the table a lot more. I had to to really know what the lie of the balls was so I didn't come to a shot and discover that it really wasn't what I thought it was. Now, I don't do that as often as I know from one angle where the balls really lie. Does this mean I'm better because I make faster assessments of the table layout?

Seems kinda strange but that article seems to make the case.

Here's the talent code site article that linked to the above one. http://thetalentcode.com/2013/08/13/how-to-be-creative-starring-jackson-brownes-teakettle/#comments

Thoughts?

Jeff Livingston

Yes, it does. Although it may not be readily visible in your "ranking". What it means, is that you are more readily able to asses the layout, and what needs to be done to solve the "puzzle". Your rhythm will be better, hence you will make a few less mistakes than you did before. Thereby, your confidence goes up a little more, also equating to a little less mistakes. It's another piece of the puzzle that you now have towards completing the entire picture.

 

[Houstoer]

Great link; thanks much ! I especially liked Jeff Bezos..if you're team is bigger than what you can feed with two pizzas you need to make it smaller. great stuff !

 

[chefjeff]

This article really got to me today.

I've always thought that motivation was internal while inspiration came from the outside. Anyone can get inspired watching a real talent do his job, but I always thought that motivation came solely from the inside out.

Yet, the article says:

...But in fact, as the psychologist Carol Dweck and others have shown, this idea is mostly wrong. Motivation is largely social; fueled by our interactions with the people around us. In other words, motivation is less about what’s in your heart, and more about how you connect with your social circle....

And he follows up that with these items for engineering one's own motivation:

...Those moments are powerful because they’re fundamentally unpredictable. They can’t be scripted by a coach, or inspired by mere words. They’re more like social lightning bolts, high-voltage connections between people that happen when you least expect them.

That said, I think it’s possible to engineer these moments by paying attention to the design of our learning spaces. Because while these lightning bolts may be uncontrollable, the odds of them happening are increased if you follow certain rules. For example:

1) Design for openness. Don’t separate the stars from the rest of the group; instead, provide space for lots of mixing of various skill levels, whether it’s in the office, the classroom, or the locker room.

2) Build in free time. In our hyper-busy world, we tend to be allergic to unstructured time. Yet these moments — when someone sits idly by a window and stares in rapture at a brilliant performer — are exactly when this sort of connection happens. So let it.

3) Be quiet. So many coaches, parents and teachers feel like they need to be talking in order to motivate their learners. But it’s exactly the opposite. Words shatter the spell...

I especially appreciated a comment from below the article:

Heike Larson says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:49 am

Wow! This is exactly what we see happen in our Montessori mixed-age classrooms. They are open–the three-year-olds work side-by-side with the five- or six-year-olds, who to them are masters that are just a step or two ahead of them. We often see younger children standing quietly, hands be hind their back, observing an older student at work. Later, when the teacher introduces an activity, say, associating sounds with the Montessori Sandpaper Letters, she may discover that the child has already mastered the activity, by watching and imitating the older child. And we place a huge emphasis on teachers observing first, and only getting involved when needed. This focus on observation, on fading into the background, gives children the space to they need to try out new things, to learn from the inspiration of others, and to have the freedom to try, make mistakes, and grow themselves.

Jeff Livingston

 

[pt109]

Somehow, I think Da Vinci belongs in this thread....
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=LWasw_hmkn0GZ4H5CWlX2A&bvm=bv.53899372,d.aWM

...here is a video...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=Hr4u7XCgytKjYqcRa7UP_A&bvm=bv.53899372,d.aWM

Thanx, Jeff
I've had this thread on subscribe since day one....
...and I get friends to read it

 

[JB Cases]

This article really got to me today.

I've always thought that motivation was internal while inspiration came from the outside. Anyone can get inspired watching a real talent do his job, but I always thought that motivation came solely from the inside out.

Yet, the article says:



And he follows up that with these items for engineering one's own motivation:



I especially appreciated a comment from below the article:



Jeff Livingston

Motivation can be internal and external. In either the Talent Code or Talent is Overrated imitation was cited as a huge key to building skills. Looking up to those who have mastered something and trying to copy them is a huge step towards mastery. External motivation though comes from the praise and status you get from others for being good at something. Internal drive has more to do with self expression and the art behind the task.

If a sport then it's a drive to not only master all the moves but to invent new ones. If in a mechanical profession the drive to make things more efficient.

Most early societies did not separate students into levels by age. The younger ones learned directly from the older ones.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)

Most early societies did not separate students into levels by age. The younger ones learned directly from the older ones.

True. For example, I was lucky enough to have gone to two one-room country schools where several classes were in one room together with just one teacher, so we had no choice but to learn from the older students. I learned to read and write and climb trees, play dodgeball, baseball, football, sledding etc. from the older, wiser classes. It was very similar to this one:

I also thought of Efren Reyes saying somewhere that he watched amateurs play because he many times learned something from how they approached a situation on the table. They'd do something that he'd have never thought of and then he used that new info to help his strategies. So, it isn't only the older children that we learn from (yeah, from whom we learn ).

This is (just) one reason I'd like to see more good quality spectator areas around pool tables.

Jeff Livingston

 

[jimmyg]

True. For example, I was lucky enough to have gone to two one-room country schools where several classes were in one room together with just one teacher, so we had no choice but to learn from the older students. I learned to read and write and climb trees, play dodgeball, baseball, football, sledding etc. from the older, wiser classes. It was very similar to this one:

I also thought of Efren Reyes saying somewhere that he watched amateurs play because he many times learned something from how they approached a situation on the table. They'd do something that he'd have never thought of and then he used that new info to help his strategies. So, it isn't only the older children that we learn from (yeah, from whom we learn ).

This is (just) one reason I'd like to see more good quality spectator areas around pool tables.

Jeff Livingston

“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”

Pablo Picasso

 

[JoeyA]

I still haven't read the book but it's on my list. I was reviewing his web site and I came across this paragraph:

http://thetalentcode.com/

"Rule: Try Sh*t
Practicing the same thing over and over in exactly the same way seems like a smart thing to do. Problem is, it’s usually not. Studies show that variable practice — where you move around, experiment, try new things and see how they work — is far more effective than “blocked” practice with no variance. A good example is basketball free throws, where practicing from variable distances produces skill far faster than practicing from the same distance every time.

The reason this works is that embracing variability helps us sharpen our control — our ability to make small, crucial changes to adapt our performance to the situation. When we make a habit of experimenting — when we try sh*t, and do it systematically — we are increasing our ability to modulate our performance."


The part I highlighted above was something I've sort of noticed here recently. In the past I have been known to set up the exact shot over and over again and keep shooting it. But something about that process never seemed right. When you do that it seems like you allow yourself to skip steps. For instance, when you are shooting a particular cut shot over and over, after just a couple of shots you no longer go through the process of aiming, not to mention other aspects of your PSR. However, if you take that shot and instead of shooting the exact same shot over and over, you now move the object around just a bit (enough so now you have to go through the aiming process again) it appears to me to be more beneficial.

So when I came across that paragraph on his website it sort of validated this thought that's been running through my head.

I'm eager to read this book.

I think it is important to shoot the same shot over and over so that you can identify the different problem areas of your entire repertoire. Shooting shots from different distances or with increasing difficulties won't fix poor alignment, skewed aiming, a defective grip, stance, stroke, a bouncing cue ball, etc.

Once you have identified your inconsistencies and corrected the problem areas, you can go on to progressive drills which fits in with what the book suggests.

Try Shit= Having fun and that's a good thing.

JoeyA

 

[chefjeff]

The TC website has an article about this site:

https://giveit100.com/

You can go to the giveit100 site and practice something for 100 days, video each day and let the world know how it's going for you.

It would be interesting to see how an beginner would do it pool (not the disaster BD tried a few years back).

Maybe an instructor could have a student do this?


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Most of us reading this thread have probably taken a lesson or two. Some of us teach others, too. Does this list help?

10 WAYS TO SPOT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PSEUDOTEACHING (PT) AND REAL TEACHING (RT)

1) PT delivers long, entertaining, inspiring lectures; RT designs short, intensive, learner-driven sessions
2) PT is eloquent and expansive; RT is concise and focused
3) PT addresses large groups; RT connects to individuals
4) PT doesn’t focus on small details; RT is all about details
5) PT is about talking more than watching or listening; RT is about listening and watching more than talking
6) PT is loudly charismatic; RT is quietly magnetic
7) PT is Robin Williams leaping atop desks in Dead Poets Society; RT is John Wooden, teaching his basketball players how to put on their socks properly (no wrinkles, because that causes blisters)
8) PT dismisses questions; RT craves them
9) PT treats everyone the same; RT tailors the message for each learner
10) PT delivers the exact same lecture over and over; RT customizes each session for its audience

Next question: what else belongs on this list?

The article:

http://thetalentcode.com/2014/05/16/10-ways-to-spot-great-teachers-and-avoid-crummy-ones/

Jeff Livingston

 

[JoeW]

Some additions that complement the Teaching Code and your summary.

1. Real teachers think there is no such thing as a stupid question. Student questions tell the teacher about the student and where the student is in the learning process. This is the place to start teaching.

2. Real teachers provide the student with real world problems and questions that when solved by the student helps the student understand the principle involved.

3. Real teachers revise every teaching session. Usually when the teaching is done they make notes based on student feedback.

4. Real teachers more than likely teach from note cards so they can shift gears as needed.

Real teachers learn to identify “real students.” They do not spend time with students who are not there to learn. Identifying real students is probably a topic in itself but it is part of the process of “Real Teaching.”

 

[CJ Wiley]

the morale of the story is "keep it real" - the game is the teacher

the morale of the story is "keep it real" - the game is the teacher

Some additions that complement the Teaching Code and your summary.

1. Real teachers think there is no such thing as a stupid question. Student questions tell the teacher about the student and where the student is in the learning process. This is the place to start teaching.

2. Real teachers provide the student with real world problems and questions that when solved by the student helps the student understand the principle involved.

3. Real teachers revise every teaching session. Usually when the teaching is done they make notes based on student feedback.

4. Real teachers more than likely teach from note cards so they can shift gears as needed.

Real teachers learn to identify “real students.” They do not spend time with students who are not there to learn. Identifying real students is probably a topic in itself but it is part of the process of “Real Teaching.”

 

[Scott Lee]

Great stuff JoeW...especially the last sentence. One of the very first things we teach new PBIA instructors is that there are only two kinds of students they will encounter...those that want to learn, and those that want to prove you wrong!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Some additions that complement the Teaching Code and your summary.

1. Real teachers think there is no such thing as a stupid question. Student questions tell the teacher about the student and where the student is in the learning process. This is the place to start teaching.

2. Real teachers provide the student with real world problems and questions that when solved by the student helps the student understand the principle involved.

3. Real teachers revise every teaching session. Usually when the teaching is done they make notes based on student feedback.

4. Real teachers more than likely teach from note cards so they can shift gears as needed.

Real teachers learn to identify “real students.” They do not spend time with students who are not there to learn. Identifying real students is probably a topic in itself but it is part of the process of “Real Teaching.”

 

[CJ Wiley]

be serious......

You can't be serious......

Great stuff JoeW...especially the last sentence. One of the very first things we teach new PBIA instructors is that there are only two kinds of students they will encounter...those that want to learn, and those that want to prove you wrong!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

 

[lfigueroa]

Some additions that complement the Teaching Code and your summary.

1. Real teachers think there is no such thing as a stupid question. Student questions tell the teacher about the student and where the student is in the learning process. This is the place to start teaching.

2. Real teachers provide the student with real world problems and questions that when solved by the student helps the student understand the principle involved.

3. Real teachers revise every teaching session. Usually when the teaching is done they make notes based on student feedback.

4. Real teachers more than likely teach from note cards so they can shift gears as needed.

Real teachers learn to identify “real students.” They do not spend time with students who are not there to learn. Identifying real students is probably a topic in itself but it is part of the process of “Real Teaching.”

Good stuff. Based on my own experience I would add that real teachers adapt to the student. That's suggested in some of the above but I think it's important enough that it should be broken out on it's own.

Lou Figueroa