Talent vs. Persistence

Interesting article about education refuting a claim by Charles Murray that college is worthless to about 60% of the people who attend because basically, they aren't smart enough to get anything out of it. There's a whole host of reasons why this is untrue, mostly because college doesn't just offer education, it forms networks and helps people "get ahead" in life (hence - people still attend). But there is certainly something to his notion from a strict educational perspective...there does seem to be a bunch of wasted resources out there.

But that's not what really piqued my interest in this article. This did:

There is a role for practice and dedication. A New York Times Magazine article by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt reports on research by Anders Ericsson and colleagues on expert performance.

Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect.

I love those Freakonomics Guys. And in my experience - they are right. I've witnessed it in academics, sports, art, in nearly everything I've spent a lot of time doing, talent plays a role but is almost always overrated. The other factor that needs to be considered is luck. Luck and circumstance play a tremendous role. BUT, putting yourself out there, ie persistently trying stuff puts you in the position to "get lucky."