[spottiness]

>>Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective?

:) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.)

>>there is a guy, Dan...

Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other.

>>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level.

Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" with great coaching. The author doesn't make any distinction between expert level and super high achievers.

[kenjackson]

Not the same Dan. This is just some guy who read about the 10,000 hour thing and decided to test it on himself.

Regarding how good can one get -- the term used by the research is expert. But, at least in the papers I read, they don't make it clear what expert is. For example read:

http://www.ida.liu.se/~nilda/Anders_Ericsson/Ericsson_delib_...

But in my own personal theory... you become Michael Jordan by doing the 10,000 hours+ and having innate gifts. You get a basketball scholarship (D1-D3) by doing the 10,000 hours.

[spottiness]

Thanks for the pointers. I'll read it later tonight...

My own personal theory is similar to yours: among the genetically very tall males, there is a lot of people with the innate abilities of Michael Jordan (let's make it 40% of the original set). From that subset, those that put the 10,000 hours with great teachers plus other things will become the likes of Michael Jordan.