The Talent Code - meylin & golf

[mandrin]

mandrin, perhaps not as much as with golf teaching, the scientific literature comes up with opposing findings on a daily basis. one study may conclude that 5 mg is effective and safe; another indicates that 5 mg causes unacceptable side effects.

here is a recent study that suggests a significant role that genetics plays. Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ - Technology Review it begs the question that if some people are born to succeed in certain discipline and roles of nature vs nurture.

perhaps we can look at tiger woods and wonder what is up with his myelin. from his record, not many can doubt that he must be wired heavily for golf in his brain. but has his myelin during this slump changed qualitatively and quantitatively? or is the haney myelin still dueling the foley myelin?

further, the phrase "associated with talent" can mean many things to many people.

a kid can be born with a very high IQ. he can speak and write very early naturally. is that talent?

a kid is born with so so IQ, but through effort and hard work and good education, he achieves success. is that also talent?

can brain myelin study tell those 2 apart?

what i cannot accept is the fact that sometimes a person who you think is not that smart actually beats you in golf. how in the world can that happen?

golfdad,

This article could have been taken straight out of Coyle's book. Very succinct and clear explanation of the myelin issue. It only differs in that it tells us that some are born with a somewhat better quality myelin. It is a basic fact that we are all different and unique; golfdad is unique and so is mandrin. Not a single intelligent person will deny this basic fact.

But now there is, as shown clearly by Coyle, a new perspective open to ordinary people, having no special talent to start with, to be able reach very high skill levels by appropriate training. That is a new perspective. Those who got a bit more myelin to start with are just plain fortunate. But even they have to work very hard to get to the top.

With regard to Tiger Woods you are thinking of him like being a robot golfer having no emotions. The mental aspect in golf is darned important. Any supreme talent, be it in any arbitrary domain, will not function well when there is a severe emotional upset to cope with.

You are mentioning many issues to grapple with. What exactly is intelligence, can it be measured as some IQ factor ? I feel intelligence to be too large in scope to be able to be measured. There are just too many different facets. Also I think that having a good memory is too often taken to be equivalent to being intelligent.

Being quick and being slow is another matter often taken wrongly. Quick is associated with intelligent and slow with being less intelligent. I disagree. The intelligent person is quick but also quickly disinterested. The slower bloke is more realistic. He patiently sets out to consider all options and frequently comes up with excellent ideas and solutions.

Wherever we go we will always be eventually confronted at some level with paradoxical situations.

Your comment about getting beaten by someone you consider not to be smart, is difficult to comment as I don't know what you mean by someone not being smart. If not being smart means to not start every every sentence with a capital letter, than I can comment.

Is smart meaning to be able to survive alone in a forest, or perhaps simply manage to stay healthy in a stressful job? Is it being able to understand complex theories such as quantum mechanics or is it perhaps being able to create sound and happy relationships in marriage?

 

[ej20]

High IQ does not always equate to high EQ,in fact quite often the opposite.Those with a high dose of both wins the intelligence lottery.Those with a low dose of both,well,it won't be an easy life.

IQ would be equivalent to processor speed.EQ would be the software.Those with lower IQ usually make it up with better software.

It is found that emotional intelligence is a two to four times higher predictor to success than technical and cognitive skills combined.

Brilliant people are more often than not,emotionally destructive and dysfunctional.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Great thread.

Really good stuff everyone.

I had a student once upon a time that could not break 120. Really.

He took 47 lessons in a two and half month period, at the end, he shot 93. If I putt for him, he shots 85 easy. (We didn't work on his putting except for one half-hour).

I did not let him practice. I baby sat EVERY shot, EVERY grip. Every time he did something wrong, we did it correctly right after.

He had played golf off and on for a dozen years, maybe 20 rounds lifetime, and 50 buckets of balls.

I really believe that if he'd never had hit a shot before, he would have broken 80 with good putting.

 

[spktho]

I know I would have been scratch or better in a few years if I had proper instruction the first time I started swinging a golf club. I started golfing at about 24, but hit a few hundred balls every day for 5-6 years trying to figure it out on my own, all the while ingraining poor golfing movement patterns.

 

[mandrin]

A boomerang kudo

Really good stuff everyone.

I had a student once upon a time that could not break 120. Really.

He took 47 lessons in a two and half month period, at the end, he shot 93. If I putt for him, he shots 85 easy. (We didn't work on his putting except for one half-hour).

I did not let him practice. I baby sat EVERY shot, EVERY grip. Every time he did something wrong, we did it correctly right after.

He had played golf off and on for a dozen years, maybe 20 rounds lifetime, and 50 buckets of balls.

I really believe that if he'd never had hit a shot before, he would have broken 80 with good putting.

It is hazardous to give compliments as some will look for some hidden intentions. However I don't give a shit what some might think.

It is just that whilst reading 'The Talent Code' I surprised myself thinking on several occasions that it appeared rather quite like BM's approach to golf instruction.

Brian, if you have not read it yet, I would suggest to pick it up without delay and have fun reading it. There is a lot of interesting information for any type of coaching.

 

[ScottRob]

The know how that you need at your disposal to do this kind of coaching/teaching must be staggering. As I understand Coyle's coccept of deep practice is that you make corrective adjustments on the spot.

I know of a shooting coach (basketball) that will have younger kids learn the fundamentals of shooting a basketball ball ONLY with a ball that they are able to handle with the correct form. Kids with basketballs that are too heavy heave and chuck. His point is it is impossible to suggest a particular fundamental form when they are unable to execute it.

How would the golf version of this look. Do you focus on one component at a time? A very good teacher in town has little kids hit those tennis ball looking things, focusing on three things. The grip (teaches the baseball grip to the little kiddies), and learning what he calls the "golf groove." The cadence of moving to the right foot, then swing the arms, then move the left foot and swing your arms. The third thing is he puts googly eyed stickers on the soles of their right shoe, telling them to make sure they "check their six." People remark that he is "great with kids." Nobody gives him much credit for his approach. He stops to correct them on the basis of the three things.

It must be difficult to do it the right way when folks expect a transformation in a series of three lessons. Although addressing the clubface can do just that.

 

[dbl]

Myself, not sure about the use/effects of myelin but do favor deep practice ideas.

Have not read the Talent Code, but their website has lots of info from the book's perspective, and this interactive page on myelin: The Science Of Growing Talent The Talent Code

 

[mandrin]

One step at a time

The Talent Code is about superior talent and skills and the teaching methods to get to these superior levels. It takes about 10 years of intensive diligent training to reach such superior plateau. However it is probably also safe to say that there is an exponential learning curve involved. Therefore in a rather much shorter time frame there should be already a noticeable gain to be obtained using training methods more apt to develop specifically the myelin substance in the brain.

Cutting skills up in small tiny chunks, attentive repetition, increasing feel/awareness, and only going to the next step till each tiny chunk is totally mastered and incorporated in one's feel system should give positive results in a much shorter time frame. The major obstacle her being likely the impatience to jump these small trivial exercises, not being really convinced them to really being any good and therefore not sufficiently motivated to be intense doing them.

We all know when on the driving range we set out with good intentions about diligent practising but before long we are pulling out the driver and start banging away, learning nothing and most likely getting increasingly frustrated. That is where some stimulus and coaching is useful to keep one on track. It is finally all coming back to simple common sense. We all have heard in all kind of different contexts the advice to do only one step at a time.

Well now the experts have found a scientific explanation for this old saying.

 

[aaron_lohan]

I have the Myelin Code and it is a good book; but it doesn't explain how come 2 athletes recieving the same quality of instruction and doing the same deep practice can reach different levels, one may become world class and the other may be nowhere near the same level.

 

[spktho]

I have the Myelin Code and it is a good book; but it doesn't explain how come 2 athletes recieving the same quality of instruction and doing the same deep practice can reach different levels, one may become world class and the other may be nowhere near the same level.

You mean Talent Code? Here is one explanation for your question:

All good points and we must understand that myelin production is reliant on genetics and on the number of cells that have the myelin DNA sequence(s) turned on along with the availability of the lipids and other substances needed to form the myelin molecule(s). Not to mention the number of neuronal connections in place along with the production of neural transmitters and Na/K channels within the axonal membrane. There are obviously more factors involved that are also influenced by the environment. So, although all hope is not lost, some individuals will develop faster than others.

 

[mandrin]

I have the Myelin Code and it is a good book; but it doesn't explain how come 2 athletes recieving the same quality of instruction and doing the same deep practice can reach different levels, one may become world class and the other may be nowhere near the same level.

aaron_lohan,

Your thought experiment implies that humans are built like machines. Yes indeed for machines same input same output. But for humans it is a bit more complicated. Simple example - two athletes, a very short one and a tall one, and give them exactly the same training in high jumping. Well the short athlete stands no chance reaching any advanced level.

There are so darned many additional factors coming into play which results that each person is completely unique - family, environment, schools, random events and encounters. However even so in 'The Talent Code' there is quite some evidence being given, for instance the Curaçao experiment, that, in general, any one can benefit from the training and teaching approach as outlined.

Why always so much emphasis on world class? By definition, we can't be all #1. I know that is very much a cultural attitude but it is overcooked. There is just too much an attitude in sports that only being #1 is worthwhile - #1 smiles whilst #2 cries. Simply getting as good as one can be is already extremely worthwhile. In 'The Talent Code' this is abundantly illustrated with examples in various contexts.

Golfers spent often quite a bit of money acquiring expensive equipment hoping to obtain instantaneously some improvement in their game, frequently of no avail. The Talent Code, however, I am sure, is only for select view, for the simple reason that it takes a strong long term commitment. That just is not very popular any more. Everything has to be accomplished in a flash by yesterday.

 

[aaron_lohan]

aaron_lohan,

Your thought experiment implies that humans are built like machines. Yes indeed for machines same input same output. But for humans it is a bit more complicated. Simple example - two athletes, a very short one and a tall one, and give them exactly the same training in high jumping. Well the short athlete stands no chance reaching any advanced level.

There are so darned many additional factors coming into play which results that each person is completely unique - family, environment, schools, random events and encounters. However even so in 'The Talent Code' there is quite some evidence being given, for instance the Curaçao experiment, that, in general, any one can benefit from the training and teaching approach as outlined.

Why always so much emphasis on world class? By definition, we can't be all #1. I know that is very much a cultural attitude but it is overcooked. There is just too much an attitude in sports that only being #1 is worthwhile - #1 smiles whilst #2 cries. Simply getting as good as one can be is already extremely worthwhile. In 'The Talent Code' this is abundantly illustrated with examples in various contexts.

Golfers spent often quite a bit of money acquiring expensive equipment hoping to obtain instantaneously some improvement in their game, frequently of no avail. The Talent Code, however, I am sure, is only for select view, for the simple reason that it takes a strong long term commitment. That just is not very popular any more. Everything has to be accomplished in a flash by yesterday.

Yes but reading the Talent Code I get the impression that all that is needed is great instruction, thousands of hours of deep practice and motivation. Talent does exist some people are more talented than others and pick things up quicker and become better; although I do believe in the message the author is getting across, he makes it sound like anybody can become world class by deep practice, great instruction and motivation.

 

[ZAP]

I read the talent code a while back and I found it to be a good read but not a secret to becoming world class. To me it seemed like more of a book about learning and what conditions help maximize it.

 

[ScottRob]

I do not have my copy of the book with me, but I seem to recall the book reading like it was in two parts. Part one: neuroscience for laymen, specifically what myelin is and what it can do. Part two reads more like a sales pitch for a particular coaching methodology. What I took away from the book was that the brain organizes based largely on what you expose it to and the duration and nature of the exposure. Makes "success" almost unfathomable when attempts are made to simplify the process into component parts.

I tend to agree with Mandrin with regards to the emphasis on being # 1. To me (a bit wiser than my younger self, and certainly older) it is about the challenge of plotting a starting point and making adjustments to ensure an upward trend. I cheat by creating umpteen improvement charts e.g. my ability to select an aimpoint for longer approach putt is much better! No victory is too small! I think that has a dramatic effect on my neural pathways!

An "average" brain can do great things...is what I took away from it.

 

[mandrin]

I do not have my copy of the book with me, but I seem to recall the book reading like it was in two parts. Part one: neuroscience for laymen, specifically what myelin is and what it can do. Part two reads more like a sales pitch for a particular coaching methodology. What I took away from the book was that the brain organizes based largely on what you expose it to and the duration and nature of the exposure.

Makes "success" almost unfathomable when attempts are made to simplify the process into component parts.

ScottRob,

Not quite sure what you mean but feel that it is just the other way around and this is very much in line with intuition, 'one step at a time'.

It was the approach taken by Percy Boomer. A layered approach of internalizing one distinct feeling after another till the whole swing is being felt as one composite feeling.

Golf is already being taught by some inspired by the philosophy as exposed in 'The Talent Code'. Small steps, many repetitions, internalizing feelings, and slowly progressing.

 

[mandrin]

I read the talent code a while back and I found it to be a good read but not a secret to becoming world class. To me it seemed like more of a book about learning and what conditions help maximize it.

Eyeoffish,

If one is looking for a secret forgotten code unraveling the art of swinging a golf club making you instantaneously a real golfer overnight than this is not to be found in 'The Talent Code'.

Strictly speaking the book is about how to learn a skill and its coaching such that it optimizes the generation of myelin, as research has shown this to be associated with skill development of any kind.

 

[birly-shirly]

Yes but reading the Talent Code I get the impression that all that is needed is great instruction, thousands of hours of deep practice and motivation. Talent does exist some people are more talented than others and pick things up quicker and become better; although I do believe in the message the author is getting across, he makes it sound like anybody can become world class by deep practice, great instruction and motivation.

Interesting point, and it seems to be the intuitive objection that many people have to the basic argument in the Talent Code and similar books.

FWIW - I'm sure that Malcolm Gladwell, when he touched on similar issues in his book Outliers, specifically reported that the psychologists who had studied the development of talent found next to no exceptions. In other words, they could find no instances of people becoming expert at something without that volume of practice, and no instances of people putting in that volume of quality practice and NOT becoming an expert.

Even if you accept that at face value, you can still speculate on the reasons why someone might give up, discouraged, and never compile the required volume of practice. Or you can imagine the ways in which someone might go through the motions of "deep practice" - but not have their attention fully on the task at hand. You could even imagine someone who gets bad information or guidance becoming an "expert" in a method that is suboptimal. I basically read the Talent Code as an extended gloss on "practice makes permanent."

Finally, the Talent Code is about skill development, not necessarily achievement. So, you could have 10,000 hours of deep practice leading to world-class ball-striking ability - but putting yips, or temperament, or a lack of fitness, or strategic naivety could still mean that you never win a tournament.

 

[ScottRob]

ScottRob,

Not quite sure what you mean but feel that it is just the other way around and this is very much in line with intuition, 'one step at a time'.

It was the approach taken by Percy Boomer. A layered approach of internalizing one distinct feeling after another till the whole swing is being felt as one composite feeling.

Golf is already being taught by some inspired by the philosophy as exposed in 'The Talent Code'. Small steps, many repetitions, internalizing feelings, and slowly progressing.

What I am trying to say is that regardless of what neuroscience turns up the actual process of becoming proficient at something is difficult to fully quantify due to the complexity of the whole. You mentioned a few posts about the array of variables that participate to varying degrees e.g. culture, family background etc.

So part 1 was a good description of the role of myelin, part 2 sounded a bit too simplistic.

 

[mandrin]

What I am trying to say is that regardless of what neuroscience turns up the actual process of becoming proficient at something is difficult to fully quantify due to the complexity of the whole. You mentioned a few posts about the array of variables that participate to varying degrees e.g. culture, family background etc.

So part 1 was a good description of the role of myelin, part 2 sounded a bit too simplistic.

ScottRob,

There are actually three parts, each addressing a key element, 1- deep practising, 2- ignition and 3- master coaching, followed by an epilogue.

 

[footwedge]

I read the talent code a while back and I found it to be a good read but not a secret to becoming world class. To me it seemed like more of a book about learning and what conditions help maximize it.

I agree.