Left-handed, Snot-nosed, Four-eyed Freaks

Bee has a post asking whether success in physics is more a function of talent or work. Put me down for talent, though nobody is going to be a great (or even mediocre) physicist without some work. Talent in mathematics and similar activities often shows itself at early age. It doesn't seem to be particularly dependent on training, or at least formal training, either.

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth by Benbow et. al. looked at the talent issue in considerable detail. Those who have studied the data have found a number of seemingly independent correlations that suggest a physiological basis. The mathematically talented, and especially the very talented, tend to be more myopic than either their families or the general population. They are also more likely to have allergies and be left-handed, and, overwhelmingly more likely to be male. All of which seems to suggest that the popular stereotypes are dead on.

Twenty year follow ups show that the early indicators of talent were good predictors of academic success and career accomplishment.

Talent is hardly all, of course. Without training and development it is unlikely to go anywhere. It is at least plausible that for equally talented individuals, hard work makes the difference. I think the real divider is something different though. Without passion, neither talent nor work is likely enough. Or maybe it would be better to say that without a profound interest in the subject, one is hardly likely to think or work hard enough to be a big success.

Chess is another area where the talent/work tradeoff has been looked at in detail. I will take a look at that later.