A response to the question regarding what makes masters follows the consideration of the combination of an individual’s innate ability as well as learned interests and skills to perfection. The socio-political debates in the contemporary society relate to the promotion of the gifted individuals, which is a provision that enables them to become elites in their different fields. Masters in different fields are considered as experts, who can achieve outstanding performance within their domain. In this case, an expert or master in a specific kind of art is believed to be one that can influence the interplay among the emotional as well as cognitive processing that underlies people’s aesthetic experience. In this light, it is vital to assess different scholarly articles necessary for answering the question on what makes masters.
General Findings for the Concept of being a Master
A master in a particular field, also regarded as an expert, is an individual that has a temporally stable capability to achieve outstanding performance in a given domain (Augustin & Leder, 2006). In this light, the individual can be considered to have been in the particular field for a given period, thereby having extended specialized knowledge. In this respect, it is possible to argue that masters presumably develop abstract representations than the representations presented by those that are not experts in the particular domain (Shreve, 2006). Examining the representations can be possible through the categorization and sorting out of the given tasks. For instance, two groups of people might be requested to compare pictures of the different domesticated animal. One group might sort out the pictures based on their appearance, whereas another group, presumably farmers, might sort them based on their ecological niche.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An assessment of the sorting behavior expressed above could be used to highlight the knowledge and understanding of the two groups based on their respective ecological reality. In this case, it is possible to determine that the experts have interrelated knowledge of different components in their domain. In addition to the high interrelation, their knowledge is also more structured and hierarchical. A good example that could be used to enhance an individual’s understanding of the interrelated knowledge would be one that compares antique furniture experts and librarians regarding their understanding of different elements of antique furniture. They provide that the experts were more knowledgeable in sorting out antique pictures than the librarians, which is an indication that they are masters in their domain (Hambrick, 2014).
Controversies also surround the nature as well as the nurture determinants of a master in a particular domain. The concepts of nature and nurture could be identified as the extreme positions of the determinants of elite performance. However, Philip Ackerman (2014) suggests that these elements or conceptions cannot be used solely as sufficient causal factors of mastery. In this regard, Ackerman (2014) suggests that some of the nonsensical views for elite performance are based on aspects of environmentalism, hereditary views, and common sense. The concept of environmentalism is based on the notion that talented individuals achieve elite performance in their domain through deliberate practice. The hereditary view proposes that the becoming a master in a particular field is a derivative of an individual’s genetic endowment. The common sense approach follows the idea that an individual employs critical thinking to achieve expert performance. In spite of the identified extremes, Hambrick et al. (2014) state that deliberate practice is what leads to the achievement of elite performance rather than an individual’s innate talent or ability.
The fundamental flaw of nature and nurture approaches that could be used for the identification of talent and ability is the idea that elite performance is innate. Even though genes can are vital for accounting for differences between individuals, several essential individual characteristics can be categorized as developed qualities. The characteristics rely on psychological constructs, talent, and intelligence (Ackerman, 2014). However, the deliberate practice approach has acquired popularity as a theoretical framework that could be used in the explanation of deliberate practice. In spite of the acquired popularity and the idea that continuous practice can enhance the possibility of achieving elite performance, Hambrick et al. (2014) argue that the approach is insufficient for explaining individual differences in performance.
According to Ackerman (2014), individuals are born with a diminutive set of inherited action patterns or reflexes. For this reason, they learn and build on new skills that they might not have acquired as they were born. The skills acquired and developed are derived from their motivations, in addition to the knowledge and the skills that form the foundation for their future learning. In this light, the family acts as the foundation for acquiring the likes and dislikes that could influence talent development. Paula Olszewski-Kubilius (2018) takes note of this provision, further arguing that the characteristics and functioning of a family can affect a child’s talent development, which might be either positive or negative.
This argument could be cited when arguing against the idea that an individual’s talent could be hereditary. The dynamics of a family can contribute to the development of primary characteristics needed for adult creative producers. Additionally, Olszewski-Kubilius (2018) recognizes the importance of developing practice, consequently claiming that spending time in self-imposed talent development promotes the development of intellectual complexities that talented individuals use to resolve their issues by expressing them through engaging in creative work in their particular domain.
Ackerman (2014) seemingly supports the position by Olszewski-Kubilius (2018) by indicating that learning, as well as knowledge transfer, is exceptionally high in early infancy and childhood. By the time of being introduced in the school system, the child would have acquired traits, knowledge, and skills that could be developed as he or she grows, leading to the development of a particular talent that would assist in the realization of elite performance. However, it is necessary to take note of the concept of the science of differences between individuals. According to Kaufman (2014), even though individual differences can aid in the development of expertise, it cannot be considered as a constraint to the realization of this development. In this light, Kaufman (2014) indicates that the cognitive ability of an individual is one of the fundamental elements that can be considered in explaining the efficiency of the acquisition of mastery in a particular domain. However, heritable differences can influence the possession and sustenance of the motivation to engage in deliberate practice.
Even though the different researchers cover elements that can be referred to in explaining what makes masters, most of them overlook the characteristics that influence an individual’s motivation to engage in deliberate practice. However, Kaufman (2014) takes note of the idea that the motivations emanate from being inspired. When an individual is inspired, he or she is likely to engage in deliberate practice, consequently working towards achieving their future image. The clarity of their vision, in addition to the belief that they are in a good position to achieve their dream influences the person from apathy to engagement. Sustaining the energy to engage in the selected domain and deliberately practicing over time is one of the elements that can propel the people to achieve mastery in their domain. Nevertheless, it is essential to take note of the fact that generally, behavior and the responses to particular stimuli is partly a function of the environment or an individual’s situation, which might also affect his or her engagement in deliberate practice.
Conclusion
The scholarly articles have looked into the different elements that can assist in the development of elite performance. These elements can assist in answering the question about what makes masters, based on the exploitation of an individual’s talents and abilities. The different views are based on the concept of environmentalism, hereditary views, and common sense. However, Ackerman (2014) dismisses these views, stating that they are insufficient in influencing the realization of elite performance. As assessed, most of the researchers support the need for deliberate practice since it exposes a person to the different experiences that could enhance the development of elite performance. However, the motivation and energy to continue pursuing the domain is a factor that contributes significantly to the realization of elite performance. The motivation to actively engage in deliberate practice is a derivative of the individual's source of inspiration.
References
Ackerman, P. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance: Talent and individual differences. Intelligence , 45, 6-17. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.009
Augustine, M. D. & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48(2), 135-156.
Hambrick, D., Oswald, F., Altmann, E., Meinz, E., Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2014). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert?. Intelligence , 45, 34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.001
Kaufman, S. B. (2014). A proposed integration of the expert performance and individual differences approaches to the study of elite performance. Frontiers in Psychology , 5, 707. doi: org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00707
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2018). The Role of the Family in Talent Development. Handbook Of Giftedness In Children , 129-147. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_9
Sherve, G. M. (2006). The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise. Journal of Translation Studies, 9(1), 27-42.
