hard work, grit and stick-to-it-ness are needed if you are going to create great work.
Not a radical idea, I know. Especially in the era of 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. But Glass introduces another element that I've never seen mentioned in the literature of expert performance, and that is TASTE.
Here is what he says:
“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit."
For example, in the last few years I have tried to learn a number of difficult things including golf, sketching, and Italian. Each of these activities had their own challenges. My main difficulties with Italian were linked my my apparent inability to hear the differences between many of the sounds and 'phonemes' that made up the language. In my head I was speaking like a character in a Fellini film, whilst to my teachers I sounded like Phil Mitchell in a pizzeria. With sketching, I had to learn to overcome my tendency to impose my preconceived ideas rather than what I was observing. Chairs have four legs; faces have two eyes; those are the facts, whichever way they are facing.
And don't even get me started on golf!
Yet, as expertise theory (and common sense) would predict, the more I did these activities, the better I got, more or less. And the pace of my improvement seemed ti be strongly associated with the quality of support and feedback I received from my teachers and coachers.
Ira Glass' discussion of storytelling is relevant to those interested in learning and expertise because it hints at a principle behind both practice and feedback: taste, or (if you prefer) AESTHETICS. In other words, movement towards competence or even expertise in these areas is only possible because the learner and the teacher have their senses of aesthetic judgement - some attempts are better than others; some actions are desirable, not just because of the outcome, but because of an intrinsic value; generally speaking, grace, and fluidity and poise are preferable to their opposites.
Aesthetics are STANDARDS.
It seems to me that taste acts as a powerful motivator for both learners and teachers. Both are inspired by a sense of the way a skill or technique is supposed to be, and - from time to time - their senses coincide! If we wish to get better at our chosen activity - if we want to bridge the gap between ability and ambition - we need to be clear that we need to do the work. There are no short cuts.
It is the responsibility of teachers and coaches to make this clear to the learner from the beginning. Nothing of value is learned easily.
Glass again:
Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”
So practice and feedback are vital elements in the development of expertise. But both of these, I suggest, assume a sense of taste or aesthetics. Practice, if it is for any purpose, must have some ambition. And feedback is always with reference to a standard of performance or imitation.
Knowing helps explain our frustrations as we learn AND teach, and it helps explain why practice and feedback are so important in the first place.
To finish off, he is a recording of Ira Glass himself talking about storytelling, accompanied by some beautiful typography.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues raised in this entry. Criticisms, too!
Ira Glass on Storytelling from David Shiyang Liu on Vimeo.
6 comments:
I think this is huge in golf Richard! So many people not only want the ball to go where they are aiming, but they want their swing to 'look' right as well. Anyone who has ever gone for a video lesson with a pro usually can't believe how their swing looks - regardless of where the ball goes. The pundits on TV highlight this constantly as well, focusing on how different pros look a various stages of the swing. But the way this 'looks' to someone is no doubt very different to how it feels once they get out on the course - hence the frustration of many players, including myself! Some players don't mind looking like an octopus falling out of a tree if they can make the ball do what they want. Others can't handle being so far removed from the aesthetic model of the classic golf swing, even if the odds are its physically impossible for their body to get into some of those positions.
Indeed! In my recently study of golf coaching expertise, about a third of the coaches I interview thought that 'perfect' technique was central to skill learning. Another third thought it didn't matter at all. And another third fell somewhere in between!
I think this is a really great angle on the deliberate practice argument and really valuable for coaches who will have to guide novices through that process of learning the skill and matching reality with expectation.
For me very few coaches do this well enough at the outset...having working in golf development and specifically golf coaching and talent for many years I am not surprised that your study found what it did. Golf coaches (better described as instructors) rarely take the time to really find out about their student's wants and needs.
I should add that my work with other coaches in other sports suggests that things are not much better. Too many coaches are too busy doing instead of taking time to find out about theor players so they can help meet the expectation gap.
hi Stuart!
i completely agree. Most of us seem to pick up this implicit theory that says teaching = learning, despite the fact that it obviously does not work that way for us!
In my recent work for the PGA, I was impressed and depressed in equal measure by the practices of coaches. The best were inspirational and highly reflective. The worse were .. OK. They knew a lot about the swing!
As you say, not much better elsewhere.
But I choose to focus on those coaches who do 'get it'. Keeps me sane!!
Can I ask what the percentage of coaches that were in the highly effective bracket versus the percentage that were (as you brilliantly put it) 'knew a lot about the swing'?
I have some anecdotal evidence that leads me to a percentage figure and wanted to check if my thoughts might be backed up by your research.
I thought a lot about this question at the time, Stuart.
I would say that slightly less than a third fell in the highly effective category. And slightly more than a third fell in the less inspired group.
One of the things that concerned me was that few of the top coaches seemed to benefit from structured professional development. Some were inspired by a mentor. Others just seemed driven to find out about learning and such like (like many of the people you come across on Twitter). The CPD programme were viewed as either irrelevant or as opportunities to socialise with colleagues.
How does that fit with your findings?
Post a Comment