One of the most convincing arguments in the book for me has been the story of Ted Williams. It’s tempting to attribute someone’s skill to an innate ability so that you don’t have to face the idea that someone is better than you just because they work harder. This idea undermines people’s potential and their effort. It is essentially saying that “your intelligence [or ability] is something you were given, not something you earned” (Shenk 39). It’s much easier to say that they have a natural ability, which would then excuse you from your own lack of achievement. On the other hand, the idea that you could reach such ability with “a passion to aim consistently just beyond one’s capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired, and a never-ending resolve to dust oneself off and try again and again and again” (Shenk 67) is, besides extremely daunting, an idea that is quite inspirational.
Do you think physical ability is differently achieved then mental ability? Can practice, which may be enough for a sport, be enough for learning? What would account for people’s different potentials? Where have you seen an example from biology that mirrors the cabdriver’s increasing size of their hypothalamus from memory practices? How could prodigies and geniuses be explained?
Physical ability is no different than mental ability. Both are achieved through practice and stimulation. Muscle memory that helps athletes who have swung a bat, thrown a ball, caught a pass, or flipped thousands of times is very similar to normal memory. An old saying says that if you say something three times such as a phone number or a name, you will remember it. This is the same as doing something three times, which helps you perfect it. Of course, in both cases it probably takes more than three times, and the exact number will vary, but it's still the same idea. If you compare chapter 2 and the introduction with Ted williams, you will notice that they are really saying the same thing, just with different topics: intelligence vs. baseball talent. Both abilities came from Shank's theory that talent is "not a thing; it's a process" (10). In chapter two, the parallel description of intelligence was in the title "intelligence is a process, not a thing" (34).
ReplyDeleteSince both physical and mental ability are both the same thing, practice is relatively sufficient for both. For example, take the common high school stereotype that a jacque can't be smart and a nerd can't be good at sports. The reason for this isn't their personality or their natural ability, but the amount of time spent practicing their talent. The only reason the jacque isn't smart is because he spends so much time on the field that he never gets a chance to study or engage in mental stimulation. Thus, people's potentials are largely based on what they do. If a person sticks to something, they're going to be good at it. It can therefore even be argued that talent is a measure of consistency, a fickle person who doesn't stick to one activity will never be good at it. This explains prodigies and geniuses. They are good at what they do, because thats all they do, and they practice it all the time. They also have natural ability in genetics which factors into the GxE relationship.
The cabdriver's increasing size of hypothalamus is parallel to a more simple size increase. The muscles of an athlete get bigger as they are worked. Obviously, the brain is much different and more complex than muscles; however, they both develop by the same concept. An interesting fact is that exercise can actually help your memory as you get older because it increases blood flow to the brain (http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20120406/remember-this-exercise-boosts-your-brainpower?page=2). This could be one of the reasons that muscle memory works so well, because the movement of the muscles is matched with an increase in blood flow to the brain. In other words, physical activity is accompanied by a stimulation of the brain, just like mental activity.
Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)