Interesting. For retention, I have to see it in writing or in a video. At DLI, I was always writing it down - then I could retain the information. I was great at memorization and won awards for simply memorizing information. Some information I memorized paid off later on though :o) There were others who only had to say it or hear it and it could be retained. I need to hear or see something 'done right' in order to know what the correct way is.

I learned to play the piano, guitar, coronet, and flute. The piano playing I retained, the others not so much :o)


>I think one of the things that confuse the discussion is that too little emphasis is placed on matching an individuals 'gifts' with the right place to use those gifts. I think of this in terms of children choosing what musical instrument to study. I have extremely good visual memory and very bad kinesthetic memory. Saxaphone make no sense to me while piano is very visual in the sense that musical patterns can be seen and all riffs can be learned visually. Sax, clarinet etc require muscle memory over visual memory. There are analogies in sports. I am sure there are intellectual analogies.
>
>My skiing instructor - who generally dealt with people who learned kinesthetically - was quite surprised to find I responded best to instruction as to what good technique looked like. I needed to see a video. I could correct anything I could see.
>
>That said, training can overcome slight variations in natural prediliction.
>
>But genius - ah, that is something else. I can play piano to amuse myself, ski to enjoy the feeling, and learn languages with a lot of work and study. But I know people who do those things on a level I know I cannot even imagine and the difference between what they do and what I could ever do is not just a question of degree.
>
>>>>For lots of reasons, but particularly if you have children, I think you will gain a lot of insight from this book:
>>>>
>>>>Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/befdnx
>>>>
>>>>Unlike what most of us believe, that talent is something we either have or not, it turns out that talent can actually be learned and developed, which will come as a surprise to many I'm sure. The author clearly explains and shows with extensive relevant research how it can be achieved and, amazingly, by most anyone. But the price for becoming truly talented, whether in sport, business, or any other field, is a high one.
>>>
>>>I prefer the distinction often made by those discussing sports and athletes i.e. between "gift" and "talent". I haven't read the title you're referring to, but many authors conflate these two and their arguments tend to be muddy as a result.
>>
>>Research quoted in the book describes numerous attempts to find "natural" talent, i.e. gifted, people but have found none. The most talented athletes, scientists, musicians, chess players, whatever have achieved their talent through decades of determined and dedicated practice, usually with the aid of teachers and mentors and usually from an early age.
>>
>>Apart from being physically endowed in some special way, like the height of a basketball player or the vocal chords of a singer, the idea of natural or God given talent is primarily a myth. It is a convenient myth, however, because we can point to it as explaining why we can’t do something. But basically it’s a myth and there is no supporting evidence for it outside, as I said, of being endowed with some physical advantage.