Lecture notes Talent Development & Creativity
Lecture 1.
Defining talent & creativity:
Talent: classically equated with giftedness visible at a very young age
Oxford dictionary: natural aptitude or skill
Cambridge dictionary: someone who has a natural ability to be good at something,
especially without being taught.
More multi-dimensional: talent can’t really be attributed to specific genes or something.
Talent:
- A potential to reach excellence in the future
o high performance relative to others (normative approach)
o improving performance relative to one’s previous performance (ipsative
approach) then everyone can be talented
o high performance relative to criterion (criterion approach) if you meet
this criterion, then you’re talented (bv. test score or sprint time)
How do we trigger this talent?
The ones that are REALLY good or excellent, they are indeed in the tail
Creativity:
- Creating or producing something ‘new’: original, useful & surprising
o The creative output (IPhone, Fur Elise in that time)
o The (developing) process (creative insights, solutions)
o Ipsative or normative is your product better than what you already
have, does it add something (normative) or is it better than the
product/what you have done before, are the insights new and useful to
you (ipsative)
The Complexity of Greatness (Kaufman, 2013)
- Excellent levels of performance (normative perspective most used – how are they
able to be so excellent, where does that talent come from?)
- How do we get there?
- We should ‘make an effort to understand all the many complex, nuanced factors
contributing to its emergence’
o Should we?
Historic overview
First ideas on talent and creativity
- Talent is located in the person, in the genes we see it in families more than
across families (nature) Sir Francis Galton
- Talent is elicited by the environment, more money & resources etc. (nurture)
Alphonse de Candolle
, - De Groot: famous researcher on Talent Development and Expertise chess
players study: showed pieces on empty board on masters and normal players,
grandmasters didn’t do any better on this cognitive task. In meaningful
configuration (that would actually happen in a match), then the masters did way
better. Recognizing patterns better and quicker.
o Expertise seems domain-specific
o Many hours of practice
1. Are genes the driving force?
Quite a lot of evidence mostly on general measures
How much do genes contribute to IQ scores or endurance?
- Domain general
o Heritability of IQ
o Heritage project in sport and exercise
Evidence:
- Twin studies with a heritability coefficient
- Heritability of IQ is .78 very high, in general is IQ in some part genetic
How about becoming a famous singer or athlete?
Evidence:
- Child prodigies: at young age already able to show excellent performance
- Mozart: history of musician father and pianist sister interest is there (nature +
nurture)
Recap:
- genes play a role in general measures (IQ, physiological quality)
- But: identifying the exact proportions and the role of specific genes remains
difficult
- And: the extend to which genes play a role in domain-specific talent and
creativity remains undefined
2. The role of the environment
Proximal factors: parents, coach, teachers
Distal factors: culture, facilities in the neighborhood
Proximal:
- family influences during talent development getting them interested, stimulating
having fun, and then when child chooses 1 sport then parents become more engaged,
pay more for practice, then after 15: sport becomes central part of family life
Emotional and material support increases over time
- coach/teacher: keep the interaction going
Distal factors: bv. ice hockey in Canada is popular, more money going there, more
facilities, more and better coaches, rugby in NZ as well easier to develop your talent
, If talent and creativity develop out of a gene x environment interaction, and one of these
is virtually o, talent and creativity will not develop
if you want to develop your basketball skills and you’re very tiny, your parents don’t
support you, there’s no facilities etc. it will probably not develop
3. Or is it just much practice?
Deliberate practice: not always fun, very focused
Engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a
domain ten years of practice to reach the top – idea
Best elite level pianists accumulated 10000 hours of practice
Brief Recap:
- Following Galton various researchers have focused on innate talent (IQ)
- Following DeCandolle various researchers have focused on environmental factors
(proximal & distal)
- Following Ericsson much research has examined the role of (deliberate) practice
(10000 hours rule)
So, what is the magic bullet for talent and creativity to develop? Which is the most
important?
After the book was published, a big meta-analysis was done on deliberate practice,
creativity, expertise in the top level that people generally reach. Deliberate practice
definitely plays a role in different domains, but it’s not always applicable and not the
only explanation
And also: deliberate practice may also hinder creativity, because you’re not thinking
outside the box and are so caught up in your own field.
What about psychology?
What factors predict career success? Why do some make it and some not in professional
adult soccer? problem focused coping for example important factor (next week)
Talent = multidimensional different models
- the origins of greatness are far more complex than any single approach will
capture
o Component dominance: reduce talent to the contributions of specific
factors at a specific moment
- There can be multiplier effects: young girl likes to play soccer, seems to have
some genetic advantage, parents see it and stimulate it, bring it to practice and
good coach, money is brought in feedback loops to multiply effects
- Or compensation effects: you’re here, going to make an exam in the end but not
just IQ will predict your exam grade motivation etc.
Talent is domain specific: Federer singing tennis is great, singing is terrible
How does talent and creativity develop over time?
Lecture 1.
Defining talent & creativity:
Talent: classically equated with giftedness visible at a very young age
Oxford dictionary: natural aptitude or skill
Cambridge dictionary: someone who has a natural ability to be good at something,
especially without being taught.
More multi-dimensional: talent can’t really be attributed to specific genes or something.
Talent:
- A potential to reach excellence in the future
o high performance relative to others (normative approach)
o improving performance relative to one’s previous performance (ipsative
approach) then everyone can be talented
o high performance relative to criterion (criterion approach) if you meet
this criterion, then you’re talented (bv. test score or sprint time)
How do we trigger this talent?
The ones that are REALLY good or excellent, they are indeed in the tail
Creativity:
- Creating or producing something ‘new’: original, useful & surprising
o The creative output (IPhone, Fur Elise in that time)
o The (developing) process (creative insights, solutions)
o Ipsative or normative is your product better than what you already
have, does it add something (normative) or is it better than the
product/what you have done before, are the insights new and useful to
you (ipsative)
The Complexity of Greatness (Kaufman, 2013)
- Excellent levels of performance (normative perspective most used – how are they
able to be so excellent, where does that talent come from?)
- How do we get there?
- We should ‘make an effort to understand all the many complex, nuanced factors
contributing to its emergence’
o Should we?
Historic overview
First ideas on talent and creativity
- Talent is located in the person, in the genes we see it in families more than
across families (nature) Sir Francis Galton
- Talent is elicited by the environment, more money & resources etc. (nurture)
Alphonse de Candolle
, - De Groot: famous researcher on Talent Development and Expertise chess
players study: showed pieces on empty board on masters and normal players,
grandmasters didn’t do any better on this cognitive task. In meaningful
configuration (that would actually happen in a match), then the masters did way
better. Recognizing patterns better and quicker.
o Expertise seems domain-specific
o Many hours of practice
1. Are genes the driving force?
Quite a lot of evidence mostly on general measures
How much do genes contribute to IQ scores or endurance?
- Domain general
o Heritability of IQ
o Heritage project in sport and exercise
Evidence:
- Twin studies with a heritability coefficient
- Heritability of IQ is .78 very high, in general is IQ in some part genetic
How about becoming a famous singer or athlete?
Evidence:
- Child prodigies: at young age already able to show excellent performance
- Mozart: history of musician father and pianist sister interest is there (nature +
nurture)
Recap:
- genes play a role in general measures (IQ, physiological quality)
- But: identifying the exact proportions and the role of specific genes remains
difficult
- And: the extend to which genes play a role in domain-specific talent and
creativity remains undefined
2. The role of the environment
Proximal factors: parents, coach, teachers
Distal factors: culture, facilities in the neighborhood
Proximal:
- family influences during talent development getting them interested, stimulating
having fun, and then when child chooses 1 sport then parents become more engaged,
pay more for practice, then after 15: sport becomes central part of family life
Emotional and material support increases over time
- coach/teacher: keep the interaction going
Distal factors: bv. ice hockey in Canada is popular, more money going there, more
facilities, more and better coaches, rugby in NZ as well easier to develop your talent
, If talent and creativity develop out of a gene x environment interaction, and one of these
is virtually o, talent and creativity will not develop
if you want to develop your basketball skills and you’re very tiny, your parents don’t
support you, there’s no facilities etc. it will probably not develop
3. Or is it just much practice?
Deliberate practice: not always fun, very focused
Engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a
domain ten years of practice to reach the top – idea
Best elite level pianists accumulated 10000 hours of practice
Brief Recap:
- Following Galton various researchers have focused on innate talent (IQ)
- Following DeCandolle various researchers have focused on environmental factors
(proximal & distal)
- Following Ericsson much research has examined the role of (deliberate) practice
(10000 hours rule)
So, what is the magic bullet for talent and creativity to develop? Which is the most
important?
After the book was published, a big meta-analysis was done on deliberate practice,
creativity, expertise in the top level that people generally reach. Deliberate practice
definitely plays a role in different domains, but it’s not always applicable and not the
only explanation
And also: deliberate practice may also hinder creativity, because you’re not thinking
outside the box and are so caught up in your own field.
What about psychology?
What factors predict career success? Why do some make it and some not in professional
adult soccer? problem focused coping for example important factor (next week)
Talent = multidimensional different models
- the origins of greatness are far more complex than any single approach will
capture
o Component dominance: reduce talent to the contributions of specific
factors at a specific moment
- There can be multiplier effects: young girl likes to play soccer, seems to have
some genetic advantage, parents see it and stimulate it, bring it to practice and
good coach, money is brought in feedback loops to multiply effects
- Or compensation effects: you’re here, going to make an exam in the end but not
just IQ will predict your exam grade motivation etc.
Talent is domain specific: Federer singing tennis is great, singing is terrible
How does talent and creativity develop over time?
