一万小时天才理论 - 书评

sinver

　　Dumbed Down and Void of Original Ideas November 14, 2009
　　By Ronald Forbes-roberts
　　
　　(This is a long review because there's a lot to say about this book--none of it good.)
　　
　　The premise of The Talent Code is straightforward. Myelin is a neurological substance that wraps itself around neurons that are specifically engaged when we learn and practice skills The thicker the sheath of myelin around these neurons, the more hardwired and precise these skills become. The Talent Code examines teaching/learning methods that ostensibly hasten and maximize the process of myelin wrapping thereby radically increasing our ability to acquire, polish and hardwire complex skills quickly and efficiently. This, Coyle claims, is the key to greatness in sports, music and (possibly) academic learning.
　　
　　Coyle attempts to illustrate and prove this theory with anecdotal rather than scientific evidence (although he often refers to scientific studies on myelin to validate his observations) that he has gleaned from his visits to "hotbeds of talent", as he calls them, around the globe where learning methods that stimulate myelin wrapping are used, producing (in a few cases anyway) inordinate numbers of exceptional athletes and musicians.
　　
　　It's an interesting premise but Coyle's exploration of it is riddled with errors,fallacies, unproven claims, poor research, puzzling semantics and old ideas and concepts from other sources that Coyle has cobbled together and presented as cutting edge information. These problems are evident right out of the gate when Coyle presents his dumbed down description of the part myelin plays in skill acquisition and shows just how shaky his grasp of his subject is. Yes, myelin is important in the learning process but it's controlled and regulated by the neurochemical BDNF. This compound is regulated by the nucleus basilis, which is the part of the brain responsible for deep concentration and other processes pertaining to skill acquisition. But Coyle mentions neither BDNF nor the nucleus basilis though they are at least as important as myelin in this process. This is like describing the miracle of how letters end up in a mail box without mentioning the postal worker who puts them there or the post office that sorts the mail and sends it to the right address. (I would have given this book two stars just for a decent description of the myelin wrapping process but Coyle can't even get that right.)
　　
　　After his botched description of the neurological process that is largely the basis of his book, the author moves on to discuss various learning/teaching concepts that he claims maximizes the myelin wrapping process. He presents these concepts as though they're groundbreaking and revolutionary discoveries: secret knowledge he has fetched from obscure sources and shared with us for our edification. Nothing could be further from the truth because while Coyle does his best to present these ideas as new and original by dressing up old concepts with new labels and jargon, they are all familiar and common place to anybody with even a passing knowledge of contemporary teaching and learning methods.
　　
　　Take the specific practice method that Coyle claims maximizes myelin wrapping. This method involves breaking a skill down into small components and slowly perfecting each component before moving on to the next. Mistakes are focused on and eliminated through repetition. Coyle calls this process "deep practice" and asserts that it's a cutting edge concept known to and practiced by only a privileged few. But this method of practicing has long been common practice among serious musicians and athletes, and not just in his so called "hotbeds of talent"-- most of which have been previously documented in other books and magazine articles. Further, as other reviewers of this book have complained, Coyle never gives a step by step overview of "deep practice" strategies, which are outlined in many other books on the subject. He also never distinguishes between "practicing" and "learning", often using them interchangeably, which gives the impression that he actually believes that they're the same thing.
　　
　　He goes on to reveal to us that good teachers--whom Coyle refers to as "master coaches" -- focus on a student's individual strengths and weaknesses and balance perceptive, constructive criticism with sincere compliments in their approach to teaching. This is a basic tenet of effective teaching but Coyle treats it like news of the discovery of a second moon orbiting Earth.
　　
　　Then there's the startling revelation that students who are motivated through a deep interest in a particular subject tend to master that subject more quickly than those are lack motivation. Coyle calls this "ignition" rather than motivation because he is either intent on reinventing the wheel linguistically speaking or renames basic concepts in order to give his premise some semblance of originality Is anybody really surprised to learn that inspired students who jump into their studies with great passion nurtured by good teachers tend to do better than those who are apathetic about their studies? However much Coyle would have us believe otherwise, this observation is about as newsworthy as "dog bites man".
　　
　　Coyle relies heavily on unsubstantiated conclusions and fallacies to support his premise. For example, he raves about a private school whose main goal to instill ("ignite"?) in its students an obsessive desire to go to college. He spends many pages enthusing about how wonderful and successful this school is in realizing this goal. But wait a minute. How many of these kids have actually reached college? Not one because the program is only a few years old and the kids haven't even reached high school yet. So we have no idea how well it does or doesn't work. But Coyle concludes that it's a wild success and bases his conclusion on...well, actually, he never says. (He also never says how these children, most of whom come from low income homes, are going to pay the tuition for the university of their choice) He's just sure it works like a hot damn: no proof needed beyond his completely subjective enthusiasm for the school and it's approach. Then there's Coyle's claim that one of his alleged "hotbeds of talent", Meadow Mount Music Camp, "produced" Yo Yo Ma and Izhtak Perlman. This is pure rubbish. Both musicians received only an infinitesimal part of their many years of intensive music training at this 7 week camp. And what about the thousands of other musicians who attended MM? Are they as great as Perlman? Coyle tends to avoid addressing questions like this. He also makes much of the amount of myelin found in Einsten's brain but never explains how this relates to his premise. Are we meant to assume that "deep practice" was responsible for Einstein's genius and the large amount of myelin in his brain? True to form, Coyle doesn't say directly but of course we're supposed to infer the connection. In fact, although Coyle implies several times that "deep practice" of academic pursuits can lead to greatness, he steadfastly skirts the issue of how this might be done and offers no evidence that it may be possible. The reader has to take it on blind faith that it's so. The book is full of this sort of transparently fallacious content that is indicative of the worst kind of shabby, shallow pop journalism.
　　
　　Even Coyle's notion of what constitutes "greatness" is highly questionable. Let's say that his premise is right, that if we spend 10,000 hours of "deep practice" at a particular activity, we will acquire incredible technical skills. (The "10,000 hours of practice" theory which Coyle refers to constantly is the hypothesis of Dr. KA Ericcson whom Coyle doesn't credit in the body of the book although he does in the bibliography.) Let's say we spend these 10,000 hours practicing music and develop phenomenal technical music skills that allow us to perfectly navigate a difficult piece of music at warp speed. Is this greatness? No, it's an impressive feat to be sure. But it isn't greatness and no knowledgeable musician would ever say it was. Great musicians--all great artists for that matter--aren't just about technical skill. They have other crucial aptitudes--creative intelligence, sensitivity, emotional expression, imagination, a penchant for original thought and risk taking, etc.--that don't develop simply by spending endless hours repeating the same movements over and over until mistakes are eliminated and the myelin sheath enveloping their neurons is as thick as Mike Tyson's forearm. What does Coyle make of the fact that many principal violinists in major orchestras have the same (or greater) technical skills as celebrated violin virtuoso Joshua Bell but will never achieve his greatness because they don't possess the aforementioned qualities that move a technically excellent performer into the realm of true greatness, which Bell inhabits? And how would he explain the greatness of artists like Picasso, Van Gogh, Kandinski, Maria Kallas, Bob Dylan, Frank Lloyd Wright or countless other true greats whose brilliance had little or nothing to do with technique and everything to do with original thought and creative expression? That Coyle never addresses this conundrum indicates that the arts in general is a realm far beyond his ken.
　　
　　For Coyle, fame and fortune are the most important indicators of what is truly great For example, he gushes on endlessly about the brilliance of Jessica Williams' (yes!) vocal teacher who has managed to get several of her students on Pop Idol by enabling them to sound like everybody else in the genre and gain recognition in a world that celebrates and rewards mediocrity and formula. Not that becoming an entrant on Pop Idol is any small feat: it requires some talent and work. It just has nothing to do with greatness.
　　
　　http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YWCHFTT60I8K/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=055380684X&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful