Is everyone potential talent? – Critical review of chapter 1 in “The talent code” by Daniel Coyle.

For many years, people never stop willing to unveil the secret of talent. “Sweet spot” – the first chapter in The talent code by Daniel Coyle brings an utterly fresh look into how to be greatness. His message is very clear: talent is basically result of thousand hours of “deep practice”. Particularly, deep practice means “operating at the edges of your ability, where you make mistakes- makes you smarter” (18). It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition (Geoffrey Colvin, 2006). In brief, everyone who is gifted came by it the hard way, through dedicated working.

Journalist Daniel Coyle spent years investigating talent “hot- beds” (22) to decode his inquiry, interviewing world-class practitioners (top soccer players, violinists, fighter, pilots, artists, and bank robbers) and neuroscientists. The diverse in his stories show that he wants to detect the common threads- the similar point for “sweet spot” (19). To clarify his assumption, the author refers to the work of Robert Bjork. Bjork argues that sweet spot is optimal gap between what you know and what you are trying to do. From anonymous people, a 12- year old boy Bruno learning elastico, and a 24- year old girl Jennie rehearsing a song, to the world’s famous football players in Brazil are also main characters for Coyle’s stories. However, those examples seem anecdotal, because they are not reinforced by explicit researches. Bruno “stops and thinks” (13), but Coyle has not explained the exactly process in Bruno’s head- what plays a vital role in his achievement. Moreover, playing futsal is perfect method for fostering gifted players, why not all of them becoming successful? And why football club managers have to signed million- dollar contracts with the world’s best players instead of training the new athletes?

To support his ideas, Coyle persuades the readers by telling a couple of stories that closer to daily life. He also gives a task for his audiences. In particular, the readers try to remember column A with relevant pairs of words, and column B with the same pattern excepting for several missing letters. The predominated of remembering column B better than the other leads readers to convince themselves believe in “deep practice” (26). As Bjork claims that one real encounter, even for a few seconds, is far more useful than several hundred observations. This is a striking evidence as interacting with readers, but it still raises questions in my mind: Whether this result is accurate when he put the column B after the column A? What is credible source of “300 percent” (17) higher of answer B that he proclaims? The following example has a similar fashion in comparing the progress between two groups of students. The group gets a better out come is tested 3 times while the other one just studies only. Nevertheless, that concept may not be too foreign for us as learning from experience is mentioned before by many scholars.

In the following part, Coyle applies deep practice in aviation, especially a story of high percentage of US pilot died as lacking proper training in 1930s. Edward Link, with his unusual device and precise method, has improved this situation for pilots because “they simply had the opportunity to practice more deeply” (34). At the end of this chapter, the author supports for his evidence he mentioned before about Brazilian power. From Clifford, a British coach seeking for the secret of training players, Coyle gives an objective perspective about deep practice. Clifford is surprised by a game in futsal, a game in Brazil with heavier, smaller ball than soccer, which requires an enormous effort to handle. Clifford has been successful in coaching Scottish national team by futsal in samba music, incredible method when the first time Leeds’ citizens saw it. Brazilian magic, a kind of deep practice, has been passed on in “sooty, chilly Leeds” (39). In this case, the author implies that deep talent can be developed at anywhere.

In effort to make talent and greatness achievable to anyone, Coyle leaves some holes in his hypothesis that not illuminated. He considers “we normally strive to avoid- namely, mistakes- and turns them into skills” (30). But, there is a huge gap between talent and skill that can be seen in their definitions. According to Oxford dictionary of English, talent is defined “ natural ability to be good at something especially without being taught”. And definition of skill is “ an ability to do an activity or job well, especially because you have practiced it”. In addition, can you “make perfect” (34) if you do not understand exactly what makes you wrong? There still a questionable aspect has not been illuminated of innate gifted people such as Mozart, Venus Williams, and Michelangelo. Furthermore, Coyle has not referred to the other side of this issue: deep practice is important, definitely, but is it enough to be talent?

Apart from aforementioned issues, “The talent code” is still accomplished in how to nourishing greatness. The author elaborately makes normal stories become impressive and appealing. Coyle uses a number of metaphors to illustrate his assumptions. He raises rhetoric questions and then the readers can find the answers on their own ways. The variety of domains in examples seems irrelevant but coincidently support for the main purpose: strengthen his argument about growing talent through practice deeply.

In conclusion, this book is a good read to inspire people to pursuit their interests more enthusiastically and keep going on the way to discover their implicit aptitudes.

References:
Daniel Coyle (2009). The talent code (Chapter 1: “The sweet spot”). New York: Bantam Dell, 2009. 11-29.
Geoffrey Colvin, What it takes to be great? , 2006, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794.
Oxford Dictionaries: 2013 Oxford University Press.