if people are born with some intrinsic talent, why can’t scientists routinely and commonly measure it and show it’s effect?

Probably because neither talent nor its effects can be isolated. As we both agree there isn’t only the influencing factor talent, but there are also other very important factors. Because of the special ethics involved in this field of research, you can’t conduct proper experiments, for example you can’t take two newborn babies and manipulate the variables because the relevant decisions belong to the parents (and later, the child itself), not to researchers - we surely agree on that, too.

So the closest thing you actually can do that resembles an experiment (in German it’s called a “Quasi-Experiment”) would be to look for two babies starting with the same genetic code but growing up under different cirumstances and watch, whether they develop similar. Exactly that has been done with twin studies. I can’t imagine another effecive method to measure intrinsic talent - if you can, I’m very curious.

I think that answers your question. Nevertheless: The things we can influence aren’t the talents, with which we are born - for this reasons I share your conclusions regarding practical consequences. But regarding epimistological consequences (the “truth”) I’d argue that your way of arguing resembles the well-known joke about the drunk who’s looking for his keys under the lamppost - not because he’s sure that he has lost them there, but because that’s the only place where he can see anything at all.

Back in college, we were in awe of his guitar playing abilities and, to a lesser extent, that he was so good and made great grades in high school. Surely he must have been a musical prodigy. His secret? Every day, from the time he was around 11 or 12, he came home from school and played guitar for 3 hours, then ate supper, then spent an hour or so on his homework. On Saturday and Sunday, he still put in at least 2-3 hours on guitar. Every week. For six years. If he had any abnormal innate skill, it was in being dedicated enough as a teenager to spend a fixed amount of time every day to work on his playing.

But I have a question; surely if one has more deliberate practise as a child, they will have an advantage, as people learn and retain things quicker as children?
Or are you saying this isn’t the case?

I am faisal n i m 17yrs old i m doing my A-Levels n nw m in AS but the problem is i m facing is that i cant seem to handle the stress of projects studies n exams n assignments n i failed in all my subjects in the recent school exams can u please help m out n tell what cn i do to imrpove my grades and how do i handle the stress

A good starting place is the five articles listed under “Popular Posts” on the righthand column of this blog. Give them a read, and then let me know if you have some more questions.

Your statement pretty much contradicts Bloom’s research. Swimming and playing tennis aren’t exactly high-level meta tasks. More importantly, why do you assume that genetic differences can account for varying levels of success in athletic pursuits, but not in academic pursuits?

For the specific case of left tackle, you have to be over 300 pounds, but with the weight distributed in such a way that makes you incredibly fast for someone your size. I’m not sure how much is genetics and how much is nutrition — but it’s certainly not all practice!

I think you’re doing a disservice to your readers by implying that everyone has the same capacity for success and if only they tried hard enough, they too can be fabulously successful in their chosen fields.

I don’t know about being fabulously successful in their chosen fields. But when it comes to college-level courses, I think putting too much emphasis on natural ability is a fallacy.

If you’re a left tackle for an NFL team then natural ability plays a huge role. But for things like academic performance, or business smarts, or these other high-level meta-tasks, it all comes down to practice.

Your statement pretty much contradicts Bloom’s research. Swimming and playing tennis aren’t exactly high-level meta tasks. More importantly, why do you assume that genetic differences can account for varying levels of success in athletic pursuits, but not in academic pursuits? Just because the inherent advantages genetic differences convey in one are easily visible doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the other.

I think you’re doing a disservice to your readers by implying that everyone has the same capacity for success and if only they tried hard enough, they too can be fabulously successful in their chosen fields. It creates unrealistic expectations and engenders resentment by providing people with a scapegoat for their failures. People aren’t created equal. Your refusal to “buy it” won’t, nor any amount of wishful thinking, ever change that reality.

Less I be misunderstood, I’m not saying hard work and deliberate practice don’t have an effect on one’s chances of success, only that they have their limits and they are much smaller than you imply.

I know Wiki isn’t exactly scholarly.

Let’s not even exaggerate that much. Brains are not born equal. I most likely have some form of ADD/ADHD and no amount of deliberate practice will allow me to concentrate on a particular problem as long as my peers. The slightest distraction will turn a final exam into a catastrophe. Given enough time to think quietly to myself, I will get things, but I cannot even hope to develop the speed and fluency of abstract thinking that my peers have. I do not “get” things without tedious explanation from experts, while others can simply pick up a book and gleam all the necessary information from it. If you leave two people to the same difficult problem, oftentimes one will not get it and the other will. Not everyone can make the same leaps of logic - how can you “deliberately practice” such a skill that we hardly understand? One cannot train themselves to have a “Eureka!” moment. They’ll either get it or they won’t.

I don’t believe that there is any substitute for deliberate practice, but you cannot say that intelligence has no significant role in college success. How do you explain children who could do multiply huge numbers in their head at a very young age? Certainly these children did not “deliberately practice” their multiplication tables in secret and then showed off to their parents. There are many facets of human intelligence, and some will have an affinity for this one or that. That doesn’t mean they are guaranteed success in life, but given the correct environment it will certainly give them an edge.