Introduction
In my original article, The Myth of Natural Talent I challenged the widely held belief that talent is an innate, fixed trait. Drawing on the work of K. Anders Ericsson, I argued that deliberate practice plays a more critical role in achieving high levels of skill and expertise than natural abilities alone. The article landed on Hacker News and I got a critique that it lacked sufficient scientific research to support its claims.
While I stand by the core message of the article, I recognize the importance of providing a more comprehensive examination of the topic by including a broader range of scientific perspectives. This expanded discussion addresses the critique by delving deeper into the existing research on talent and giftedness. Specifically, I will explore how Françoys Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) presents the relationship between giftedness and talent, how Ericsson's work refers to Gagné's viewpoint and the main questions that arise in the ongoing debate about the nature of talent and giftedness.
By integrating these perspectives, I hope to provide a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between innate abilities and the role of deliberate practice. This expanded discussion will not only reinforce the arguments made in the original article but also offer readers a more comprehensive view of the scientific landscape surrounding the talent debate.
Gagné’s Perspective on Giftedness vs. Talent
Françoys Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) [1] offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the transition from giftedness to talent through a developmental process that includes factors such as chance, environment, and intrapersonal characteristics. Gagné differentiates between ‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’ by emphasizing the role of natural abilities and systematic development.
Definitions of Giftedness and Talent: Gagné provides precise definitions to distinguish between giftedness and talent. He describes giftedness as “the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed outstanding natural abilities or aptitudes (called gifts), in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers.” [1] In contrast, talent is defined as “the outstanding mastery of systematically developed competencies (knowledge and skills) in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of ‘learning peers’ (those who have accumulated a similar amount of learning time from either current or past training).” [1]
From Giftedness to Talent: In Gagné’s model, natural abilities are considered the raw materials for talent. He explains, “In the DMGT, outstanding natural abilities are treated as the raw materials or the constituent elements of talents. Because of this basic relationship, the presence of talent necessarily implies the possession of well above average natural abilities; one cannot become talented without first being gifted, or almost so.” [1] However, Gagné also notes that outstanding natural abilities can remain latent without proper development, as seen in cases of academic underachievement.
Natural Abilities and Development: Gagné posits that natural abilities, often observed as ease and speed in learning, are not entirely innate but develop significantly during childhood through maturational processes and informal exercise. He states, “Natural abilities are not innate; they do develop, especially during childhood, through maturational processes and informal exercise. Yet, that development and level of expression are partially controlled by the individual’s genetic endowment.” [1] These natural abilities, or gifts, are more noticeable in young children due to limited environmental and systematic learning influences but can still manifest in older individuals through the rapid acquisition of new competencies.
Gagné’s framework highlights the importance of nurturing natural abilities through systematic development to transform them into talents. This process is influenced by various factors, including chance, environment, and intrapersonal characteristics, ultimately determining an individual's ability to excel in a specific domain.
Ericsson’s Viewpoint and Reference to Gagné
Anders Ericsson’s research on expert performance emphasizes the paramount importance of deliberate practice over innate abilities, offering a perspective that both aligns with and challenges Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT).
Ericsson acknowledges the existence of individual differences and innate abilities, but he argues that these factors are not crucial for achieving elite performance. He states, “We do not have any evidence that these possibilities of improvement are restricted only to individuals that possess specific genetic background.” [2] Instead, Ericsson’s work suggests that deliberate practice and the application of successful learning strategies can mitigate initial differences and lead to high levels of expertise.
Addressing Gagné’s viewpoint that natural abilities are the raw materials for talent, Ericsson contends that while some individuals may start with certain advantages, these can be overcome with systematic and sustained practice. He notes, “Individual differences in basic learning rates are challenging to study because individuals differ substantially in their background knowledge and in the structure of the skills and strategies that they bring to bear in learning situations in the laboratory.” [2] This implies that the initial rate of learning, influenced by prior knowledge and strategies, can be refined and improved through proper mentorship and environment (however, we usually do not have access to "initial" abilities or "initial" learning rates, as they are always the result of accumulated experiences and life paths).
source: https://x.com/Moral_Wisdom_/status/1824548316798988648/photo/1
Furthermore, Ericsson's research underscores the plasticity of the brain, showing that different training can transform brain structure and function. This aligns with his argument that the real differentiator is the quality and quantity of deliberate practice.
The main question in the debate
The debate between the nature of talent and giftedness is multifaceted, with Françoys Gagné and Anders Ericsson providing significant insights. While they agree on many fundamental points, their perspectives diverge on a crucial aspect: the role of natural abilities in achieving elite performance.
Both Gagné and Ericsson acknowledge that natural abilities exist and that they are not necessarily innate. Gagné argues that natural abilities (gifts) develop through maturational processes and informal exercise, particularly during childhood, whereas Ericsson focuses on how these abilities can be significantly enhanced through deliberate practice.
The key difference between Gagné and Ericsson's perspectives is that Gagné believes a minimal level of natural abilities is necessary to develop talent, while Ericsson asserts that deliberate practice and effective learning strategies can overcome initial differences in natural abilities.
Gagne asserts that a minimal level of natural abilities is necessary for the development of talent. Talented individuals must have at least average gifts to achieve top performance.
Ericsson claims that we cannot determine the minimal level of natural ability that is needed to achieve mastery. He believes that with the right practice and strategies, even individuals with below-average initial abilities can achieve high levels of performance.
Potential Obstacles for Development
He told me it used to be tought that some kids were simpy weird by ther genes to be different and to develop different brains. But - as he has written - now 'the science moved on'. The latest reaserch shows that 'genes aren't destiny; rather they affect probablity'. Alan Sroufe, who did the long-term study into what factors cause ADHD, said the same: 'Genes don't operate in a vacuum. That's the main thing we've learned from gene studies... Genes are turned on and off in response to environmental input.' As Joel puts it, 'our experiences literally get under our skin' and change how our genes are expressed.
J. Hari, Stolen Focus [3]
It's important to acknowledge that Ericsson's viewpoint, which emphasizes the power of deliberate practice, is often met with skepticism because it contradicts common experiences of natural ability. Many people observe others who seem to have a head start and acquire skills at a rapid pace, while others struggle significantly to learn. This makes it challenging to accept that nearly everyone can improve in almost any field.
In my previous article, I highlighted several factors that influence our belief in the power of natural abilities, such as the multiplier effect, the difficulty of deliberate practice, a fixed mindset, and a lack of visible progress. Ericsson also identifies specific conditions that can hinder development or even make it impossible, particularly focusing on healthy individuals and sensitive periods of development.
Ericsson acknowledges that certain individuals with medically recognized deficits or disabilities (e.g., blindness, deafness, quadriplegia, brain damage) face constraints that prevent them from competing successfully with healthy individuals in many domains. He states, “Moreover, given that we are interested in generalizations for normal, healthy individuals, we will not include evidence from populations with individuals who have any identified and medically recognized deficits due to birth defects, accidents, diseases, and known chromosomal and other well-understood genetic disorders.” [2]
Ericsson recognizes that there are sensitive periods or developmental windows that can make learning easier or harder. The learning process can be influenced by the myelination rate in various brain regions, which changes over time and affects the efficiency of neural communication.
In addition, correct fundamental techniques are more easily acquired at younger ages when there are no interfering habits to overcome.
Ericsson emphasizes that while these findings suggest possible limits to performance, they are not genetically based. He argues that these limits can be circumvented with appropriate practice activities before critical developmental periods. Early training and access to knowledgeable coaches can enable motivated students to excel despite these constraints.
An interesting example of overcoming obstacles through proper learning context and suitable strategies is found in neurodivergent individuals, such as those with savant syndrome, autism, or ADHD. These individuals often demonstrate exceptional abilities not because their brains are hard-wired for specific domains, but because they can focus intensely on a single domain and devote immense amounts of time to mastering it. Ericsson notes, “These individuals engaged in immense amounts of practice and their technique developed over time.” [2]
Neurodivergent individuals typically do not start as great performers but achieve mastery through continuous practice and repetition. Ericsson explains, “From our survey of the research it seems that prodigies and ‘gifted’ individuals are similar in their path toward high levels of performance but their rate of progression is argued to be faster than normal.” [2] This rapid progression is often due to a positive feedback loop where they enjoy and feel satisfaction from their activities, leading them to practice more frequently and, consequently, improve at a faster rate.
Conclusion
Gagne's model is testable to some extent, as it makes predictions about the relationship between natural abilities, environmental factors, and the development of talent. However, the complexity of the model and the multitude of factors involved can make it challenging to design definitive tests.
Although the deliberate practice approach cannot be classified as a fully-fledged scientific theory due to issues with falsifiability (one can always argue that progress was not made because the appropriate training strategy was not found, more here) and challenges in explaining individual differences in skill acquisition, it remains a valuable philosophical framework that can effectively foster skill development.
The debate between Gagné and Ericsson's perspectives on talent development highlights the complexity of the field, and both offer valuable insights and the answer likely lies somewhere in between their viewpoints.
Philosopher William James' pragmatism suggests that when faced with multiple hypotheses and no clear answer, we should choose the one that works best for us. In this context, it is most beneficial to adopt the belief that progress and mastery are possible in any field through deliberate practice and sustained effort. This growth mindset not only encourages individuals to strive for improvement but also fosters resilience and determination.
While the goal of becoming a genius may seem daunting, achieving progress and mastery is often sufficient to be considered talented. The key takeaway is that if we face challenges in a particular domain, we should not conclude that we lack the necessary gifts. Instead, we should focus on finding effective strategies to overcome obstacles and make the next step.
Different individuals may require different strategies to solve the same problems, and the availability (education, mentorship, coaching, etc.) of robust strategies is crucial for success.
At the very end, I am not fully satisfied that this article does not provide a conclusive answer. However, I hope it offers food for thought and at least familiarizes readers with the important voices in the debate.
References
[1] Gagné F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81–99.