Skip to main content

The Talent Code – Daniel Coyle ****

I started off as something of a sceptic with this book – I wasn’t sure if it was an ‘improve yourself’ manual or a science book, and to begin with it is very, very repetitive. (If I see ‘skill is a myelin insulation that wraps neural circuits and that grows according to certain signals’ one more time I’ll scream.) But it grew on me as an approach, even though I have some issues with the message, which I’ll come back to.
The odd thing about it is that the central scientific concept has been known about for decades – what happens is not at all new – but why it happens is a revelation. The idea is that through reinforcement – ‘deep practice’ as Daniel Coyle calls it – particularly when things go wrong in ways we can pick up and learn from – our brain develops pathways that become more efficient. This has been talked about for a long time in terms of the brain being a self-patterning system, where the more we use particularly pathways the more bandwidth they carry – the only new bit of science is the knowledge that this ‘thickening’ is actually of the myelin sheath around the neurons.
However, what Coyle does most effectively is to combine the information about this feature of the brain with observations of how to practice, an understanding of how seeing individuals break out can ‘ignite’ breakthroughs in others, and an excellent analysis of the most effective approach to coaching. As he makes clear, the idea that good coaching is about strong leadership and charisma simply isn’t true – it’s much more about micro manipulation on the edge of an individual’s or team’s capabilities.
This aspect of making pathways easier to use has been a conscious factor in creativity circles for many years as an example of why, to be creative, you need to slow down, to let your mind wander – because under pressure the brain uses those high bandwidth pathways and you do the same old thing. So Coyle’s ‘talent code’ is actually about how to shut down creativity. To be creative you need to make new links, new connections, travel down little used routes. If his book is correct, the talent this approach fosters is great for the sort of activity that has to be mechanical, automatic and without real creativity – playing music or sport, for example – but is useless for any kind of talent requiring creative thought.
Coyle fails to pick up on this. What he doesn’t spot is that there are two distinct aspects to a creative art like music or writing. One is technical skill. This is what he concentrates on with music (his writing examples are few and poor). But there is also the creativity required in being a composer, which requires a whole different kind of capability. Similarly, he points out a lot of writing is craft. And it is. This aspect of it can be enhanced by the approach he mentions. But it’s useless for coming up with new ideas – an equally important part of writing.
This is why the vast majority of the book concentrates on playing sport and playing music – both low creativity, high physical skill activities. As long as you realize this is what the book is about, then it really is worth reading and makes great points. What is off-putting and should be ignored though is Coyle’s claim, typified in the subtitle ‘unlocking the secret of skill in maths, art, music, sport and just about everything’ that this is a universal panacea. Sadly, it isn’t.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you   
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under