Whenever we see olympians displaying seemingly elusive techniques or youtube personalities showing off jaw-dropping music/acting abilities, the likes of us “commoners” will immediately proclaim that they are talented. Though a large part of society seems to feel that talent is innate, there exist those who challenge this notion, bringing with them their own views on how talent should be defined. Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code takes on this challenge from an interesting and fresh perspective. The “Sweet Spot” introduces Coyle’s hypothesis that “talent” isn’t all innate, but can be built with practice.
In particular, he explores the idea of making mistakes and repeatedly correcting them to make learning more efficient and effective, a process he calls deep practice (definition on p. 18).
Throughout his exploration, he questions society’s receptiveness and perception towards making mistakes, constantly reflecting upon how important mistakes are in our learning process. Coyle uses mainly anecdotes as support for his argument. In his “talent-hunting” expedition (pp. 11-14), he recounts how two young people, Brunio and Jennie managed to perfect a skill (soccer and singing respectively) through practice.
His observations serve to highlight that constant, focused repetitions of a particular action along with mistakes can eventually lead to perfection. Also, he aims to expound on how talent transcend time and space, being able to appear in the most unlikely places we’d imagine. In explaining why mistakes aid in our learning process, he cites an established psychologist Robert Bjork (p. 18) who describes our brain as a living “scaffold” building upon itself via “impulses” derived from “encountering and overcoming difficulties”. Simply put, the more we struggle, the faster we learn.
The Coursework on Process of Learning
Learning is an invisible process in which the behaviour is modified in order to attain certain goals. It is a process in which an individual acquires and develops knowledge, understanding, skills, interests and attitude that are necessary to meet life’s situations. This paper briefly analyzes the process of learning. Introduction “Learning is the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy ...
Coyle also cites a college experiment conducted by psychologist Henry Roediger to support this. Later, he launches into two cases: “Edwin Link’s Unusual Device” (pp. 20-24) and “Brazil’s Secret Weapon” (pp. 24-29).
He first explicates through Link’s case the importance of deep practice in training for dangerous jobs and how when adopted, can save lives. Subsequently, he draws upon the game of “futsal” (pp. 25-26) to explain how an environment that facilitates repeated erroneous and corrective actions is an requisite for deep practice.
In light of the above, Coyle ultimately suggests the need to find the “sweet spot” (p. 19), the optimal point where our combined actions and knowledge help maximise our learning effectiveness and efficiency. So, while Coyle’s hypothesis is an interesting one, how convincing is he in advocating this “new” means of learning? Well, most people will probably discount the credibility of his anecdotal evidences. Though logical and meaningful, they cannot substitute thoroughly researched and well-substiantated material. But let’s be fair.
This is a book, not a research article. Going technical from chapter one is not going to make for an engaging read, would it? In Coyle’s observations of Brunio and Jennie, he indicates the ability to gain perfection through deep practice : “nailing the move”; singing “the measure perfectly” (p. 13).
Here is where Coyle falls short in his analysis. Somehow, people find that perfection isn’t always possible in all areas of expertise, like perfecting a writing style to suit everyone’s taste or a culinary skill no one can surpass.
It could be that Coyle is being too idealistic in proclaiming the benefits of deep practice or that he just wants to emphasize its potential. Either way, more insight into the attainability of perfection across various expertise will be appreciated. Coyle also doesn’t seem to indicate that the ability to recognize one’s mistakes can vary across people and disciplines. Physical mistakes like driving recklessly may seem easier to identify than theoretical mistakes from critical writing. You as a reader might notice mistakes in this review despite my attempts at editing it.
The Essay on 3 mistakes of my life
1. Review of ‘The3 Mistakes OfMy Life’By- ShubhamBhutada. 2. Name Of Book :The 3 mistakesof my lifeAuthor :Chetan BhagatPublisher : Rupa BooksPrice: `95 3. CharactersIt’s the story about three friendsOmi, Govind and Ishaan. The storyis presented through Govind’seyes and it’s his three mistakes oflife that are presented along.Govind is, interested in coming upon his own in life, through ...
Can the ability to recognize mistakes be honed? A little advice on how we should approach this limitation wouldn’t hurt. The lack of coherence continues as he appears to ignore other factors involved in one’s learning process. No indication is made on Brunio/Jennie’s physical capabilities (reflexiveness and vocal strength).
Neither does he indicate whether any external stimuli – friends; coaches; shows etc. – contribute to their learning. Are these factors equally important or can we learn without them?
Even more perplexing is how little elaboration is made about the “sweet spot”, aside from a sweeping mention by Bjork (p. 19) How do we gauge the limits of our abilities? How much effort is considered optimal? On a less critical note, Coyle’s ability to engage his readers are palpable. Eschewing structured research text for “talent-hunting” journeys and quirky terms like “chicken-wire Harvards” keeps things light-hearted and amusing. Worth commending are his questions (p. 14 ; 18 ; 20) which engage the reader and encourages reflection on society’s perceptions toward mistakes.
Also interesting is his quest at proving that talent does indeed transcend time and place and that talent doesn’t just reside in places where famous people are found. As it stands, his aim probably wasn’t to put forth an utterly convincing and well-researched argument but rather, to create an impetus for people to pursue their goals without being put down by the over-emphasized prerequisite of a “natural born ability”. To this extent, I believe he has succeeded. References Coyle, D. (2009).
The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How. (pp. 11-29).
New York: Bantam.
