Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Talent vs practice. NYT piece. Fast Company rebuttal

1 post in this topic;= [QUOTE]“This is where we are, with people essentially talking past one another,” said Scott Barry Kaufman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania and scientific director of the Imagination Institute, which funds research into creativity. And because truly elite performance takes many years to achieve, he said, the exact contribution of practice may never be known precisely. Yet the range of findings and level of disagreement are themselves hints that there are likely to be factors involved in building expertise that are neither genetic nor related to the amount of practice time.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What’s needed, then, is a language to measure the quality of conditions: the emergent combination of effective strategies and motivation that spark improvement. And with that in mind, I’d like to offer the REPS Gauge, which consists of four elements. [LIST] [*] R stands for Reaching/Repeating. [*] E stands for Engagement. [*] P stands for Purposefulness [*] S stands for Strong, Immediate Feedback. [/LIST] The idea behind the REPS Gauge is simple: To develop talent, seek to create environments that contain these conditions, and avoid those that don’t. 1: Reaching and Repeating. Does the practice have you operating in the sweet spot on the edge of your ability, reaching and repeating? 2: Engagement. Does this engage your sense of identity--are you activated by a vision of your future self being skilled at this task? Do you have clear, compelling role models of who you want to become? 3: Purposefulness. Does the task directly connect to the skill you want to build? Are you working strategically on the skills that build competence? 4: Strong, Direct, Immediate Feedback. Can you sense when you’re making mistakes and when you’re not? Can you use those mistakes to guide you to better performance?[/QUOTE]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • 2016 BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth
      Nice to see Chris Wood win this,well done.He tends to play well in the British Open with a best T3 at Turnberry maybe this win will spur him on. Surely another Ryder cup player.
    • Your best golfing bargain
      I got two: Played Orange County National (Orlando) for 50 dollar. Including lunch and both Crooked cat and Panther lake. And got vouchers to play the course next time for half the normal price. Played a three day tourney in Sauerland (Germany) including a pré tourney round for 220 dollar. During the three days ALL drinks for free, food for free, last day dinner for free. Not just a hamburger, but full fetched all you can eat top meal (and again all drinks for free). Will be back next year 
    • GPS, WHY ?
      It comes down to how big are your shot zones. It's usually better to try to line up the shot zone center to the center of the green.
    • Are you a Better Golfer than a Year Ago?
      And confirmation. Last year I played a three day tournament in Germany and scored 82, 86 and 91. Same tourney this year 80, 83 and 86. Happy 
    • What would a PGA Tour player shoot at your home course?
      Here's some more below about the lowest you might expect - even on an easy course. I think this is largely true, but pros don't tend to play a lot on 'easy' courses so there doesn't seem to be even much anecdotal stuff. The quote below describes what's considered the 'perfect round'. I guess you could also consider a 'go-for-green' perfect round where you also hit all the par 5's in two and one-putted those for eagle for a 'go-for-green perfect' score of 50. Obviously the likelihood of doing this in a single round defies the essence of golf, but it's a good a hard theoretical lower limit that probably depends more on the par than the course rating. Likely the odds grow exponentially as the percentage of birdied / eagled holes rises. I think we can discount albatrosses as a 'perfect round' option. Most tournament pro scores don't get below 56 and 59 with about an 80/20 rule separating the more frequent 59s from the 58's. That's 4-5 strokes (assuming par 72) over the 'perfect round' and 8-9 over the 'go-for-green perfect round', each of which represent grabbing about 75% and 61% respectively of the potential shots under par realistically available. I suppose a short par-4 would add another potential eagle opportunity, but we'll discount that as I'm not sure how universal they are. The lowest tournament round was 55 (par of 71) by one single golfer out of how many total tournament rounds by pros and plus HCP amateurs over the years? So while 55 is humanly achievable it's super rare and likely represents the lower limit of any possible likelihood. That would put the absolute lowest threshold around 17.8 below the course rating (72.8) and 16 below par. So there's a lot of room to go below even a low course rating or par of 70. I don't think the expected scores would get too squished and the distribution would still likely be normal in shape. The thing that is probably unrealistic is how narrow the range of expected scores is. The field is extremely consistent, but I think a single individual player (whose average score is the same as the field) will have a score variance significantly larger than the field. I think the mode likely stays the same while the distribution flattens / spreads out more into the tails with a little more probability to both go low and high and less certainty of shooting within a stroke or two of the mode / most likely score.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries