gagné is omitting troublesome information so as to present more … · 223 11 gagné is omitting troublesome information so as to present more convincing accusations his accusations
32
223 11 gagné is omitting troublesome information so as to present more convincing accusations his accusations along with my own exploration of the evidence for innate talent K. Anders Ericsson Abstract e accusations in Gagn é’s (this volume) chapter are addressed and discussed. More impor- tantly, this chapter describes the detailed dierences between our two theoretical frameworks. Our theoretical framework is based on deliberate practice and focus on evidence that prac- tice can dramatically inuence the development of children, adolescents, and adults when the individuals engage in the designed practice for hours on a daily basis for months, years, and decades. In contrast, Gagn é emphasizes the role of innate genetic dierences and informal exer- cise. Once we accept the overwhelming evidence for genetic control of individual dierences in height and body size, our empirical review has not uncovered rigorous scientic evidence that meets our standards and demonstrates conclusively that innate talent (gis) are necessary for attaining expert performance. Based on the same standards, Gagn é’s anecdotal evidence from laypersons is rejected. e chapter concludes with an outline for how giedness can be studied with the same rigorous scientic methods used for studying expert performance. Keywords: deliberate practice, expert, expertise, prodigy, common sense, exceptional ability, skill acquisition, anecdotes, music, ice hockey I have always been an advocate for scientific discussion. I believe in seeking out sci- entists who disagree with me to learn about evidence that I was not aware of. I have had published exchanges with Thomas Bouchard (Ericsson, Krampe, & Heizmann, 1993), Howard Gardner (Ericsson & Charness, 1994, 1995; Gardner, 1995), and Robert Sternberg (Ericsson, 1996; Sternberg, 1996) about research findings. More recently, I accepted two opportunities for such a public discussion between researchers. I was OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jan 15 2013, NEWGEN 11_Kaufman_Ch11.indd 223 11_Kaufman_Ch11.indd 223 1/15/2013 5:06:40 PM 1/15/2013 5:06:40 PM
