I’ve also heard of schools where the triangle is considered more advanced than the armbar or cross-collar choke. This has never made particular sense to me as learning to do the standard variation of it doesn’t contain that many more steps than the other submissions and while it can be complicated to finish in live conditions, so to can the other subs. It seems that it’s just considered “advanced” because according to some it wasn’t discovered until the ’70s.

Overall, it seems to me BJJ basics often consist of things Helio knew and anything past that is advanced. I would love to see someone wider than I look at the whole of BJJ and really figure out what’s easiest and best for beginners to learn rather than just doing it roughly in the order it was discovered.

“In trying to make talent and greatness attainable to anyone, Coyle leaves some holes in his theories unexplained. The most obvious is why two kids with the same passion could receive the same instruction but only one really achieves greatness. Coaches and teachers do value hard work over natural genius (a point Coyle makes), but they also know that each student has different aptitudes, and not everyone is destined to be great.”

I think he actually explains this one with the idea of the “spark” or that defining moment when you decide to put that extra bit of effort into something. This can be something that happens before you perform an activity or something that clicks while learning that activity. It’s that point where you truly make that change to move away from just being “good” and step in the realm of being “great”.

The other books also touch on the randomness of life more than this book. More so, in my opinion than the idea of aptitude. Meaning that, even with the right ignition, deep practice, and master coaching there are still certain random things thrown at you in life that can mean the difference between mediocrity, being good, being great, and absolutely, utterly, exceptional skill in whatever it is you are doing. Here is a Cracked.com article I read which lead me to books such as these:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-to-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_17055_7-celebrity-careers-that-launched-by-accident.html

Essentially, one of the main components of success are the things mentioned but also, a crap load of luck (as well as not being a douche when opportunities come your way, i.e. burning your bridges).

Luck is the part that is really hard to quantify and pin down scientifically in normal testing during the fact but, if you dig deep enough, you will probably find a whole lot of luck in the success stories of successful and talented people (i.e. lucky to live in a certain environment, work in a certain environment, have access to certain resources others did not, etc).

At the same time, knowing what resources most people “luck” into and how to properly bring those to the masses so that it takes some of the luck out of it can go along way into taking some of the randomness out of achieving success. After all, think of our current education system as it is as opposed to how it used to be.

My real interest is in neurology and cognitive sciences, and I hate self help books, so The Talent Code walked a fine line for me by trying to have elements of each. I would have been happier if he didn’t try to fit everything into a neat little package of soft rules and catch phrases.

The myelin theory is interesting, but Coyle stretches it beyond its scope trying to explain how anyone can be great if they just grow enough white matter. I’d like to read a neurologist’s real research on it.

Some of the research Coyle references is interesting (I’m going to look up some of it separately now), but little of what he personally did would count as real scientific research. His anecdotes are sometimes insightful, but other times he seems to be grasping for “chicken soup for the soul” lessons that aren’t there.

Gladwell receives the same criticisms for making up unscientific “rules” and “effects” after mashing up ideas from unrelated fields outside his expertise. Personally, I enjoy Gladwell’s books, though that’s because he’s a better writer and not because I necessarily agree with his conclusions.

I’m glad that you addressed the role of genetics in talent and the potential fallacy of the “10,000 hours rule.”

I’ve had world jiu-jitsu champions tell me that it was scientifically proven that you needed to drill a technique 10,000 reps to master it. This is a clear misunderstanding of the 10,000 hour rule, which is based more on Gladwell’s anecdotal evidence than a scientific study.

Whole shelves of pop-psychology and self-help books have sprung up in recent years to downplay the role of genetic and biological factors in success (not the same thing). The truth is, as you have summarized, that sometimes we don’t really know the answer. Thanks again for the thoughtful review.