A thought-provoking article in the New York Times caught my eye today. There’s a new book out that’s pointing to an insight I’ve felt, but been unable to put words to, for some time now:
“Society is obsessed with the idea of talent and genius and people who are ‘naturals’ with innate ability,” says [Carol] Dweck, who is known for research that crosses the boundaries of personal, social and developmental psychology.
“People who believe in the power of talent tend not to fulfill their potential because they’re so concerned with looking smart and not making mistakes. But people who believe that talent can be developed are the ones who really push, stretch, confront their own mistakes and learn from them.”
In this case, nurture wins out over nature just about every time.
While some managers apply these principles every day, too many others instead believe that hiring the best and the brightest from top-flight schools guarantees corporate success.
The problem is that, having been identified as geniuses, the anointed become fearful of falling from grace. “It’s hard to move forward creatively and especially to foster teamwork if each person is trying to look like the biggest star in the constellation,” Ms. Dweck says.
So many people are afraid to say “I don’t know” or admit to a mistake. Especially people in leadership positions. And yet, the ability to learn from errors and grow from them is probably one of the most critical skills of all in maintaining your edge. So why do we, as a society, value infallibility so much?
I believe that there are naturally talented people – geniuses – but I don’t see that at odds with learning from your mistakes. Just because you’re talented or a genius doesn’t make you infallible. I try to live by the mantra of “learn something new every day” and I find I learn as much from younger, newer developers as from older, seasoned developers. Some who never makes mistakes isn’t pushing themselves hard enough…
When you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is knowledge.
—Confucius
I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on finding the few talented ones as opposed to those with passion. Of course, the ideal would be both talented and passionate but that is more rare than either individual characteristic. I once worked on a team with one of the most talented developers I have ever known, but he lacked passion – even disliked computers. He was a major obstacle to team advancement. On the other hand, another developer on the team, extremely passionate, consistently pushed the boundaries and was responsible for many team development advances.
I believe that mistakes, if analyzed and learned from, lead to innovation. This trait is one of the significant differences between the passionate developer and the talented one. The passionate one learned many ways how not to do things and in doing so, discovered new ways things would work.
@Sean, never making a mistake = not pushing hard enough — agreed 100%
@Steve, nice quote!
@Mike, at one long-ago job, I ran across a number of developers who told me they did not even have computers in their homes. More recently, I had co-workers at Starbucks that didn’t even like coffee. It’s an approach to work I have trouble understanding. How can you do something for so many hours of the day when you don’t even like it enough to touch it outside of work?
Steve Yegge From Google also posted something similar to this a while back :
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/06/done-and-gets-things-smart.html
Very insightful. I thought you might enjoy the read.
“So why do we, as a society, value infallibility so much?”
uhm, “I don’t know”, is that the right answer? (Gosh, I’ll be so embarrassed if it’s not…. 😉
jd
“How can you do something for so many hours of the day when you don’t even like it enough to touch it outside of work?”
Lux, I think commercial television is a vast wasteland (to use a famous line), I’ve been happily employed in commercial television, usually at the bleeding edge, for over 30 years. TV is as close to what I really wanted to do, legit technical theater, as I could get. This doesn’t even come close to answering your question.
The plot line of Desert Song is dreadful, boring and obvious, nevertheless doing Desert Song, both times, were high points of my theatrical experience.
@ntsc — I agree Desert Song has an insipid plot but the two productions I did of it also count as high notes for me — because the music is f***ing amazing. But getting to the bigger issue, there’s the whole process versus product issue of theater (and TV too i daresay). You can love the one without necessarily loving the other.
I suspect I’ll do a blog post about some of the issues raised in comments here. 🙂
Hey Rachel,
I’ve been seeing Dr Dweck’s name come up a lot recently regarding her work on praising children. Apparently kids who are told they are smart do worse on tests than kids who are told they work really hard. Adults have a tendency to reflexively praise kids and she has shown that that is not necessarily healthy – that falling from the pedestal issue. Fear of proving the adults wrong – that you aren’t actually smart. If you try and fail they’ll realize you’re a fraud. It took me a while to get reflexive praise out of my standard speech to the kids! It’s harder than you would think! 🙂
When I was growing up in Berkeley and my dad was teaching at SF State I learned from some very intelligent and successful people that it’s not the school you go to, it’s what you choose to get out of the experience.
Talk to you soon!