The truth about grit(boston.com)
boston.com
The truth about grit
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/08/02/the_truth_about_grit/?page=full
29 comments
Maybe not your friend, but there are people in this world who truly have "photographic" memories. I had one such friend at university and it frustrated me no end that we could go to a lecture and then he would go out that night and do no study whatsoever while I would study hard, and he would show up the next day with much better recall than me. Not just important concepts but any small detail about exactly what was on the board at the time ... he could just read it off from the mental image in his mind with no effort at all.
I always wondered is there a downside to a mind like that.
I have a counter example. I've known one guy who aced his EE degree, receiving the highest marks in his graduating class. He also scored the second highest in his graduating class for his economics degree. He earned both degrees simultaneously. I knew him really well, and he usually copied assignments and spent no more than a day studying for exams. I think he was really good at getting the most from the lectures.
"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."
Reminds me of a couple of anecdotes my father told me about his days as a physics undergrad. The first was about a time when he would get somewhat discouraged after studying for hours and making little progress. So at one point he asked some of his really talented classmates (more talented than him) how much they studied and how far they got. They all replied that after hours of studying, they would maybe get through 3-4 pages of the textbook. It was somewhat enlightening for him to learn that even the geniuses couldn't breeze through the material like one might breeze through a dime-store novel.
The second anecdote was about the time my father was getting letters of recommendation for grad school. He got the usual positive letters, each with a couple of paragraphs praising his abilities and intelligence. My father then asked one of his friends (a much more talented friend) if he could look at one of his letters. The friend's letter consisted of a single sentence which contained the words "Nobel prize material". It was at this point that my father gave up physics.
Anyhoo, I guess my point is that grit is of course important, but as other commenters have noted, talent can't be dismissed either. We all have upper bounds, which aren't always as high as we might like.
The second anecdote was about the time my father was getting letters of recommendation for grad school. He got the usual positive letters, each with a couple of paragraphs praising his abilities and intelligence. My father then asked one of his friends (a much more talented friend) if he could look at one of his letters. The friend's letter consisted of a single sentence which contained the words "Nobel prize material". It was at this point that my father gave up physics.
Anyhoo, I guess my point is that grit is of course important, but as other commenters have noted, talent can't be dismissed either. We all have upper bounds, which aren't always as high as we might like.
letters of recommendation
Sadly it's very true; there is hardly more damning praise in physics than "diligent hard worker".
Sadly it's very true; there is hardly more damning praise in physics than "diligent hard worker".
They all replied that after hours of studying, they would maybe get through 3-4 pages of the textbook.
I think this may be the most important trait of those who succeed. Success requires hard work. I don't know of any other way to success.
I think this may be the most important trait of those who succeed. Success requires hard work. I don't know of any other way to success.
Originality is valuable.
And it takes consistent hard work and courage to be and think differently and survive until its value is found.
And it takes consistent hard work and courage to be and think differently and survive until its value is found.
Nobody is talented enough to not have to work hard, and that’s what grit allows you to do.
I love this quote.
Reminds me of Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Kobe Bryant. All 3 very talented. And all 3 were always the last one out of the gym.
It also give me (and all the rest of us hope). Whenever I'm stuck on something (and think I may be slipping in talent, perish the thought), I know that all I have to do is keep at it until I figure it out.
Talent + Grit + Time = Results
The ratio of addends on the left doesn't matter. The sum does.
I love this quote.
Reminds me of Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Kobe Bryant. All 3 very talented. And all 3 were always the last one out of the gym.
It also give me (and all the rest of us hope). Whenever I'm stuck on something (and think I may be slipping in talent, perish the thought), I know that all I have to do is keep at it until I figure it out.
Talent + Grit + Time = Results
The ratio of addends on the left doesn't matter. The sum does.
Constant Learning + Grit + Time = Results
Not talent? Some people violently deny that people have any difference in potential. I can't even formulate a reply, how do you argue with someone who claims the sky is orange and never blue?
Talent is roughly the ability to learn and apply that learning. So you want people to have 'constant learning', but ignore that they first have to be capable of learning that material at all.
Talent is roughly the ability to learn and apply that learning. So you want people to have 'constant learning', but ignore that they first have to be capable of learning that material at all.
Talent definitely does matter. Michael Jordan trained like a madman it's true - but training didn't make him that tall. Genetic potential fully realized (through effort over time) is that part of the equation.
The reason Jordan will always be better than Kobe, according to Phil Jackson: Jordan's hands are insanely large and allow him to do things later than Kobe because he can grip the ball at any position.
Couldn't Kobe get surgery to fix that?
Wouldn't that be cheating?
Apparently not:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/tennis-star-to-und...
Surgery to improve sporting performance is OK but steroids are not. Weird, huh?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/tennis-star-to-und...
Surgery to improve sporting performance is OK but steroids are not. Weird, huh?
Constant learning is part of grit, and you can't take talent out of the equation.
Talent in athletic fields is much easier to determine, because the factors are often hard physical limitations: length of body, weight, muscle mass, balance.
Talent in intellectual endeavors is hard to define. In the liberal arts it's sort of an awareness for context, and recognizing unique ideas. In the sciences it's often a capability for symbolic manipulation and internal visualization. However, since the brain doesn't have hard physical limitations, much of this can be developed with extensive training, so that slight weaknesses can be overcome.
Talent in intellectual endeavors is hard to define. In the liberal arts it's sort of an awareness for context, and recognizing unique ideas. In the sciences it's often a capability for symbolic manipulation and internal visualization. However, since the brain doesn't have hard physical limitations, much of this can be developed with extensive training, so that slight weaknesses can be overcome.
>since the brain doesn't have hard physical limitations, ...
That's a pretty extraordinary claim.
That's a pretty extraordinary claim.
No it isn't. There are traffic accident injuries, where people lose large parts of their brain, and the brain compensates.
By comparison, if you would lose your right leg, your body will not grow a new one.
By comparison, if you would lose your right leg, your body will not grow a new one.
This article touches on a favorite subject of mine, the over-reliance on IQ tests as some meaningful metric of how someone will perform in a given job.
Smarts are good to have, but without hard work it's useless. Like a powertool without a competent handler. As an employer I've found over the years that the people that worked out best were not necessarily the ones that appeared to be the smartest, but the ones that were willing to go the distance. In my circle of entrepreneur friends the same pattern pops up.
In the book 'outliers' there is a whole chapter dedicated to the story related in the article about the experiment with the gifted children, it's an interesting read.
Smarts are good to have, but without hard work it's useless. Like a powertool without a competent handler. As an employer I've found over the years that the people that worked out best were not necessarily the ones that appeared to be the smartest, but the ones that were willing to go the distance. In my circle of entrepreneur friends the same pattern pops up.
In the book 'outliers' there is a whole chapter dedicated to the story related in the article about the experiment with the gifted children, it's an interesting read.
Why don't they teach us about this early on in life? Wait a second, my father has been telling me this for years :D
Only after being hammered to death by life (and my father's gentle reminders) I'm beginning to finally understand it.
I suppose one needs to understand/experience it our own way.
Only after being hammered to death by life (and my father's gentle reminders) I'm beginning to finally understand it.
I suppose one needs to understand/experience it our own way.
It's the Carol Dweck stuff again - always worthwhile.
It's more straightforward to apply this to a goal that has been defined by others, such as a test, a sport etc. In product development, it's more difficult, because one needs to define what the product is to do* - and to redefine that when and if needed.
* You can have a problem-in-search-of-a-solution, or a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. The first is easiest: to make a product by setting out to solve a problem - problems them become a resource, a raw material. The other way is to come up with a fantastic idea - a solution - and then to go in search of a problem it solves (or one can just "throw it over the fence" and see if anyone works out a way to use it).
It's more straightforward to apply this to a goal that has been defined by others, such as a test, a sport etc. In product development, it's more difficult, because one needs to define what the product is to do* - and to redefine that when and if needed.
* You can have a problem-in-search-of-a-solution, or a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. The first is easiest: to make a product by setting out to solve a problem - problems them become a resource, a raw material. The other way is to come up with a fantastic idea - a solution - and then to go in search of a problem it solves (or one can just "throw it over the fence" and see if anyone works out a way to use it).
Or as Gladwell says: "Talent is the Desire to Practice."
I've read this article before, but not on this website.
Wow, a boston.com story about git? Sounds unlikely on the face of it.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
Although I shouldn't have let it get to me, it definitely did since we were always competitive. And it took quite a few years before I realized how stupid it was to believe that he could possibly be relying on innate intelligence to know things like obscure Gettysburg lieutenants or isotope neutron counts, whatever.
Anyways, as it turns out, we became roommates after college and I finally got to see the man behind the curtain. The kid's a workhorse! Sure he's still brilliant, but I had no idea how intense his work ethic was. His job requires all sorts of certification exams, and he would be locked in his room 10 hours a day for weeks at a time just memorizing, memorizing, memorizing...
Anyways, I'm sure Einstein wouldn't have wanted people to know that he used flashcards either :)