Natural talent or dedicated improver?

(The individual in this video is Murray Perahia. He has been playing piano since the age of four! That is a lot of practice! He also studied music in college. So, obviously, Mr. Perahia has an undying dedication to his craft! This one glorious moment is backed by countless hours of blood, sweat, and tears that this man has poured into his craft.)

So, yes, there are some folks out there who have some amount of natural talent. They, for some physiological reason, are better at certain things than others.

Say, you gave two kids a football for the very first time and asked each to throw it, catch it, or run with it. One of the kids will more likely be a better thrower, catcher, or runner. Maybe we can call this natural talent.

But, there is more to the story than that. What if the kid who was initially better at football activities had no interest, but the other kid did? Eventually, the other "unnatural talent" would become better than the "natural talent".

The point is simple, the starting point of ability for any activity is not nearly as important has the dedication one has to improving above current baseline in that activity. The starting point is not as important as the amount of time it takes to perfect the art or sport.

I believe it is the 10,000 hour rule. Most professional musicians or athletes have practiced their craft for 10,000 hours. Amazing piano players may start out better than the average person (though they may not), but they also dedicate countless hours to practice and perfection. The efforts to improve are what leads them to these levels of performance. Athletes don't just pick up the ball on game day and start playing. They practice and practice until it's perfect.

But, what we don't see is all that preparation. We only see the amazing performance or that one amazing moment. What we have to remember is this: that one amazing touchdown, catch, or performance is backed by countless hours of practice.


Effort supersedes ability.

Connected

I'm reading a fantastic book titled Connected, by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler.

Basically, it's about how we are connected through social networks, digital or otherwise.

Interesting points to consider:

Number one...

The story goes that we have 3 degrees of influence. That is, we can influence our friends, our friends' friends, and our friends' friends' friends. Imagine, you have twenty close contacts (friends and family members). And those twenty contacts have twenty close contacts each, as well. And those twenty close contacts each have twenty close contacts. That is 8,000 people! So, we essentially have influence and are influenced by 8,000 closely connected individuals. We can influence weight gain, happiness, politic views, and much more.

Number two...

To a large degree, the peanut allergy scare in schools is caused by irrational "emotional stampede" spread through social contacts. The authors are not saying that peanut allergies are not a serious concern...but what they are saying is that only 150 people die each year from allergic reactions. Compare this to the 100 that die each year from lightning strikes. Even more alarming is the ten thousand students who are sent to the hospital due to traumatic brain injuries occurring during sport activities. Schools are declaring themselves entirely nut free, but are they declaring themselves entirely sports free? After all, sports injuries seem to be of greater statistical concern than allergic reactions to peanuts. (obviously playing devil's advocate here).

Number three...

A person is 15% more likely to be happy if a "directly connected" person is happy. If a person is connected to a happy person within two degrees that drops to a 10% increase in the likelihood of being happy. It drops to 6% with three degrees of separation. So, if you want to be happy, hang with happy people! Or, at least, hang with people who hang with happy people. Or, at the very least, hang with people who hang with people who hang with happy people!

Number four...

We are likely to be partnered with someone who is within three degrees of separation from ourselves. Oh, and friends are more likely to hook us up with short term partners. Family members are more likely to hook us up with long term ones (maybe duh...)!

Number five...

We respond to others' emotional reactions as if they are our own. Most believe this has biological roots, which makes sense. Think about this: If you see someone in your group open his eyes wide and flair his nostrils- both of which will help with stimulus intake, and are both physical reactions toward feeling "terrified"- then you will innately follow suit. This will help you deal with the possible impending threat. Another interesting fact is that when we are disgusted we tend to squint and narrow our nostrils. This helps us minimize the disgusting stimulus. We also imitate this if we observe it in others to avoid exposure.

District Team Leader Meeting

Amy Nichols, Coordinator of Elementar Special Education, approached me a few weeks ago about presenting a video I created to other team leaders at our district TL meeting. The video was a series of interviews I had with the five individuals who attended the Inclusion Works Conference. The questions were simple: "What were your 'aha' moments?", "What are we doing correctly?", "What could we improve on?", and "What is your long term vision of inclusion here?". I wanted to get these interviews on video so that we could watch them during our upcoming "inclusion meeting" in April, and so that we will be able to review those learning moments during BOY training for next year.

After we watched the video, we engaged in small group discussions while completing a plus-delta. Our table engaged in truly meaningful discussions...some based on the video and some based on the unique experiences of each person at the table.

I was glad my video could be the springboard for meaningful discussions among special education teacher-leaders in our district.

For some reason, I really get a kick out of professional development! ;)