Book Reviews
It Is Training Not Talent that Creates Geniuses
In the late 1960s, the Hungarian psychologist Laszlo Polgar embarked on a strange experiment. He had studied hundreds of people who were considered geniuses in one field or another and had concluded that any child could be turned into a genius with directed coaching and training. He was unmarried and wooing Klara, to whom he outlined his theories and explained that he was looking for a wife who would collaborate with him to test his theories in their own children. 
 
Klara, a teacher from Ukraine, responded positively to this peculiar courtship. And thus was launched a live demonstration, over the next quarter century, of how training and not talent can lead to peak performance. 
 
According to Anders Ericsson (a scientist) and Robert Pool (a science writer) who narrate this story in their fascinating new book Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, Laszlo was so sure of his training programme that he wasn’t picky about which particular area he and Klara would target. 
 
Languages were one option; but how many languages might it be possible to teach a child? Mathematicians were given pride of place in the Eastern bloc at that time, as the Communist regimes looked for ways to prove that they are far superior to the West. Assuming that he and Klara had a daughter, Laszlo would prove his claim even more convincingly because there were no top-level women mathematicians at the time. 
 
But he and Klara settled on a third option, chess, because it is objective and easy to measure. Chess had always been thought of as a game for the ‘male mind’; female chess-players were treated as second-class players. 
 
Women had their own tournaments and championships because it was believed that it wouldn’t be fair to put them up against the men; there had never been a female grandmaster. The Polgars had three children, all of them girls. Laszlo had multiple options to prove his point.
 
Their first daughter, born in April 1969, was named Susan (in Hungarian, Zsuzsanna). Sofia (Zsofia) followed in November 1974 and then Judit, in July 1976. Laszlo and Klara home-schooled their daughters in order to spend as much time as possible focusing on chess. 
 
Susan was just four years old when she won her first tournaments, dominating the Budapest Girls’ Under-II Championship with 10 wins, no losses, and no ties. At 15, she became the top-ranked woman chess-player in the world, and the first woman to be awarded grandmaster title. 
 
Only two other women had been named grandmasters after winning the female-only world championships—her sisters. Susan wasn’t even the best of the three.
 
When Sofia was only 14, she dominated a tournament in Rome that included several highly regarded male grandmasters. By winning eight of her nine games and drawing the ninth, she earned a single-tournament chess rating of 2735 which was one of the highest tournament ratings, ever, for either a male or female player. That was in 1989. People in the chess world still talk about ‘the sack of Rome’, write the authors. 
 

Sofia’s highest overall chess rating was 2540, well above the 2500 threshold for grandmaster; but she was never awarded grandmaster status. This was suspected to be a political decision than a judgement on her chess-playing skills. 
 
Sofia was, at one time, the sixth-ranked female chess-player in the world. Among the Polgars sisters, though, she could be considered the slacker, write the authors.
 
The best of them was Judit. She became a grandmaster when she was 15 years and five months, making her, at that time, the youngest person, male or female, to ever reach that level. She was the number-one-ranked women’s chess-player in the world for 25 years, until she retired in 2014. At one time, she was ranked world number eight among all chess-players, male or female; and, in 2005, she became the first—and so far the only—woman to play in the overall World Chess Championship.
 
Mr 10,000 Hours
This is just one of many fascinating stories in the book. The other is of London cab drivers (see Box). Ericsson, who has spent 30 years studying geniuses and peak performers, is known as the ‘Mr 10,000 hours’. He is the researcher who came up with popularly-known idea that if you practise something for 10,000 hours, you could become an expert. 
 
Well, this was not what he said, though Malcolm Gladwell’s books Outliers popularised this pop version of Ericsson’s research on how mastery is gained. Probably, Ericsson wrote this book partly to correct the misconceptions about his lifelong research. Contrary to popular belief, Ericsson has not said that talent is not everything and if you practise for 10,000 hours, you will become world-class. 
 
What Ericsson has found is that “the paths that Susan, Sofia, and Judit took to chess mastery are in line with the path that essentially all experts have taken to become extraordinary. In particular, psychologists have found that an expert’s development passes through four distinct stages, from the first glimmers of interest to full-fledged expertise. Everything we know about the Polgars sisters suggests that they went through those same stages.”
 
At seven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a sensation in Europe. When he sat at the piano, the audience could barely see him. A prodigy? Not according to Ericsson. Most people aren’t aware that Mozart’s father was a pioneer at designing training for young children to master musical instruments. 
 
 
He worked intensively with Mozart from the age of three. So, when Mozart started to perform, he had undergone training for several years and was being trained by someone who was very motivated to help his son reach a high level, like Laszlo Polgar.
 
But the key to mastery is that it not just the number of hours spent practising or just any kind of training applied on just about anything. Ericsson’s research shows that peak performance can be achieved only by a certain process. First of all, it can be applied only for skills for which effective training techniques exist. Then, you need to deploy what is called a ‘deliberate practice’ or ‘purposeful practice’ which “has several characteristics that set it apart from what we might call ‘naïve practice’ which is essentially just doing something repeatedly, and expecting that repetition alone will improve one’s performance.” 
  • The goal is very specific; it is steady measurable improvements.
  • You are out of your comfort zone most the time.
  • You, typically, work on one small aspect of the skill, when you practise.
  • It requires full attention; it’s not enough to just do what the coach said.
  • It requires meaningful feedback from the expert and meaningful response to the feedback.
 
It is with deliberate practice that Steve Faloon, a graduate student, who worked with Ericsson to memorise strings of digits, and could correctly recall an 82-digit number after only 200 training sessions! 
 
At the start of the session, he remembered only about seven-digit, or occasionally eight-digit, numbers. So, the prodigies, are they simply born hugely talented? Ericsson has said in an interview:“I have made it a hobby to investigate the stories of such prodigies.” He writes, “and I can report with confidence that I have never found a convincing case for anyone developing extraordinary abilities without intense, extended practice.” 
 
This is a book for everyone, especially parents who have high aspirations for their children. Even a casual reader will be hooked by the overwhelming evidence and numerous fascinating stories of musicians, athletes and writers Ericsson and Pool bring, to make their startling point about what is actually behind genuis-level performance: early start and long hours and years of deliberate practice in a methodical manner.

User

COMMENTS

Anil Kumar

2 months ago

Great review. On a separate note - there are 2 guys who do excellent book reviews on You tube. One of them has also done for the above mentioned book - Peak. You can watch his review of Peak book here . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY384Jlvy6E The other guy is Mediocrity. One of his book reviews here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3TeLsaKzAM They have saved me the hassle of buying 10's of books.

Amol Chavan

2 months ago

Thank you for providing such a review. It would be further helpful if such topics are covered in details like expertise in not only sport skills but also soft skills like time management, presentations, communication, keeping focus with multiple things and lastly how to train yourself to be always out of comfort levels.

Thank you

Rahul Pande

2 months ago

Yes.Focussed & Intense training can do wonders.

tvkamath48

2 months ago

Excellent review of the book.

tvkamath48

2 months ago

Excellent review of the book.

Fact-checking Trump and Clinton on the Billionaire’s Tax Break

The only thing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump seemed to agree upon in last Sunday's debate — indeed, one of the few substantive policy exchanges they had — was the need to eliminate a tax benefit that collectively saves private equity, real estate, and venture capital partners billions of dollars each year. But their exchange might have left viewers confused about the issue, not least because it included several misleading insinuations, particularly on the part of Trump.

 

[ProPublica has been covering this issue throughout the campaign, to explain the origins of the so-called carried-interest loophole and why it's survived so long. See: How Philanthropist David Rubenstein Helped Save a Tax Break Billionaires Love and The Surreal Politics of a Billionaire's Tax Loophole.]

 

During the debate, here's what Trump had to say about the carried-interest break, which also goes by the "hedge-fund loophole," though it benefits that industry less than others.

 

One thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. The - one of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you, I give up a lot when I run because I knockout the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by the way. She is - she was a United States senator. She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn't you change it, why didn't you change it when you were a senator? The reason you didn't is that all your friends take the same advantage that I do. And they do, you have provisions in the tax code, that frankly, we could change. But you wouldn't change it because all of these people gave you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump...

 

And here's what Hillary countered with:

 

Well, everything you've heard from Donald is not true. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn't paid federal income taxes in maybe 20 years talking about what he's going to do, but I'll tell you what he's going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they have ever had. More than the Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald. And this would be a massive gift...

 

Which prompted this rejoinder from Trump:

 

Hillary Clinton is extremely complex. Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including, they want the carried interest provision, which is very important to Wall Street people, but they really want the carried interest provision, which I believe Hillary is leaving, and it's very interesting why she is leaving carried interest...

 

It is true that both candidates have, since early in the campaign, vowed to close the loophole, which allows investment managers to have the large sums they receive as compensation for managing other people's money taxed at the lower capital gains rate, as if it was the result of their own investment, rather than at the higher tax rate for ordinary income.

 

However, Trump's vow to close the loophole is largely canceled out by other provisions in his tax plan, which could reduce the income tax rate for partners at many investment firms to as low as 15 percent. That is what Clinton is correctly referring to when she says that his plan will "give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they have ever had."

 

Trump is even more misleading when he suggests that Clinton is "leaving carried interest" untouched. Not only does Clinton want to close the loophole, she has vowed to close it by administrative fiat if congressional Republicans continue opposing legislation to close it. In this, she is going further than President Obama, who has held back from administrative action on it.

 

However, Trump is closer to the truth when he suggests that Clinton did not push as hard as she could have to close the loophole when representing New York in the Senate. For one thing, Clinton did not sign on as a co-sponsor of the first proposal to close the loophole in 2007, unlike then-Senator Obama.

 

And Trump is also right that many of the people on Wall Street who would be hurt by closing the loophole are supporting Clinton and giving money to her. In fact, not a single employee at any of the top four private equity firms has given money to Trump's campaign. But that is not driven by a calculation that Trump would be worse for their taxes than Clinton, because that is simply not the case. It is one of the great ironies of this very unusual campaign that the candidate who is far more likely to raise taxes on top Wall Street money managers, Hillary Clinton, is receiving virtually the entirety of their political largess.

 

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

 

 

 

 

 

User

Are Recent NCD Issues Safe?
Anumber of non-convertible debenture (NCD) issues have come up in the past few months. The...
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital+Print Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)