Archives for category: 10 000 hours nonsense

…better (except if you’re practicing all wrong!), not perfect — unless you’ve got talent:

Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert?

Twenty years ago, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) proposed that expert performance reflects a long period of deliberate practice rather than innate ability, or “talent”. Ericsson et al. found that elite musicians had accumulated thousands of hours more deliberate practice than less accomplished musicians, and concluded that their theoretical framework could provide “a sufficient account of the major facts about the nature and scarcity of exceptional performance” (p. 392). The deliberate practice view has since gained popularity as a theoretical account of expert performance, but here we show that deliberate practice is not sufficient to explain individual differences in performance in the two most widely studied domains in expertise research—chess and music. For researchers interested in advancing the science of expert performance, the task now is to develop and rigorously test theories that take into account as many potentially relevant explanatory constructs as possible.

don’t have access, but here are a couple of charts from the supplemental data:

how to get to carnegie hall 01

Fig. 1. Average percentage of variance in chess performance explained by deliberate practice, correcting for measurement error variance. The light gray region represents reliable variance explained by deliberate practice; the dark gray region represents reliable variance not explained by deliberate practice.

how to get to carnegie hall 02

Fig. 3. Average percentage of variance in music performance accounted for by deliberate practice, correcting for measurement error variance. The light gray region represents reliable variance explained by deliberate practice; the dark gray region represents reliable variance not explained by deliberate practice.

(note: comments do not require an email. chess talent.)

guess this kid must’ve studied advanced maths and astrophysics for at least 10,000 hours … before he turned 3 years old:

Genius at work: 12-year-old is studying at IUPUI

previously: you, too, can become a physics genius!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

b*llsh*t.

jonah lehrer says that … well, i’m not sure what he says. he kinda waffles, afaics: innate talents cannot, alone, account for success — one has to have the “grit” to keep on practicing as well — so success (or not) is not just a product of our natures. -??- something like that, anyway.

of course, the question is begged: where does this “grit” come from?

here’s some silliness from his post:

“And this leads me to one of my favorite recent papers, ‘Deliberate Practice Spells Success: Why Grittier Competitors Triumph at the National Spelling Bee.’ The research, published this month in the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science, was led by Angela Duckworth, a psychologist at Penn. (Anders-Ericsson is senior author.) The psychologists were interested in the set of traits that allowed kids to practice deliberately. Their data set consisted of 190 participants in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, a competition that requires thousands of hours of practice. After all, there are no natural born spellers.

no? well, i can tell you about some natural born non-spellers: people with dyslexia. prolly not too many of them winning spelling bees.

and what about people with visual|photographic memories? don’t you think they might have an advantage in a spelling bee? i can tell you the answer to that right now — yes. i don’t have a perfect photographic memory (d*mn!), but i do have a very visual one — and i use it to help me remember how to spell. and i used it a LOT when i used to win all the school spelling bees when i was a kid. (it never occurred to me to go in for spelling bees “professionally” — maybe i just don’t have the “grit.”)

which brings me back to grit. where the h*ck does that come from? mightn’t that be innate? how about the hyperfocusing abilities of aspies? sounds an awful lot like grit to me.

lots of good, sensible comments in response to lehrer’s lame-o post. like:

“Grit has value to the already talented, which motivates them to competitively apply it. The untalented soon realize that grit without a sign of progress is a waste of time. This idea that without grit you would not have talent to begin with simply has the dynamics here bassackwards. Mozart, anyone?”

yeah. can we all just puh-leeeese get over whatever pc hangups we might have and agree that success in a field takes both innate abilities (i.e. talent) AND practice (the driver of which might be innate)? is that really so hard?

previously: you, too, can have perfect pitch!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

“So how does that guy become a [crossword] puzzle ace? Besides training like an athlete, Mr. Feyer said, it helps to have ‘underlying brain power and a head for trivia.’ He always had high grades and test scores, he said. He excelled at math as well as music, abilities that he thinks go together with crossword solving.

“What they all have in common, he said, is pattern recognition — as he begins filling in a puzzle grid, he starts recognizing what the words are likely to be, even without looking at the clues, based on just a few letters.

“‘A lot of the time, crossword people are musicians,’ he said, noting that Jon Delfin, who has won the tournament seven times, is a pianist and music director. ‘Mathematicians and computer scientists are also constructors.’

“Arthur Schulman, a crossword constructor and retired psychology professor from the University of Virginia, who taught a seminar called ‘The Mind of the Puzzler,’ agreed that there is a strong correlation between skill at word puzzles and talent for math and music. All, he said, involve playing with symbols that in and of themselves are not meaningful. ‘There’s an underlying connection, but I’m not sure what it might be,’ Professor Schulman said. ‘It’s finding meaning in structure.'”

from a cool article in the nyt (it happens sometimes!): “Across and Down, Who Is The Fastest Wizard of All”

(note: comments do not require an email.)

amaze your friends! astound your co-workers! after just 10,000 hours of listening closely to too many notes you, too, can have perfect pitch!

accurately identify which note a struck bell has played even if you’re only seven years old! Identify the numerical value in hertz of a given note! (wtf?) name that tune in just one note!

all it takes is 10,000 hours of your spare time! (and maybe you could try being a little more east asian.) really!!

(no, not really.)

bonus. bonus bonus.

previously: you, too, can become a brilliant evolutionary theorist!

update: see also “The Talent Debate” and “No You Can’t”

(note: comments do not require an email.)

amaze your friends! astound your co-workers! after just 10,000 hours of thinking about biology reeeeally hard you, too, can become a brilliant evolutionary theorist!

consider (at great length) finch beaks! (huh?) come up with brand, new ideas about selection – naturally! write a lot about topics related to sex! (bonus!)

all it takes is 10,000 hours of your spare time! (and maybe a big, bushy beard.) really!!

(no, not really. hint.)

previously: you, too, can become the fastest man on earth!

update: see also “The Talent Debate” and “No You Can’t”

(note: comments do not require an email.)

amaze your friends! astound your co-workers! after just 10,000 hours of sprinting around your backyard you, too, can become the fastest man on earth!

be faster than a speeding bullet! more powerful than a really powerful thing! able to leap those really tall hurdles in a single bound!

all it takes is 10,000 hours of your spare time! (and maybe some nominative determinism.) really!!

(no, not really.)

previously: you, too, can become a physics genius!

update: see also “The Talent Debate” and “No You Can’t”

(note: comments do not require an email.)

amaze your friends! astound your co-workers! after just 10,000 hours of studying physics you, too, can become a physics genius!

uncover the mysteries of the universe for your fellow man! delve into the uncertainties (or not)! find out if the kitteh is alive or dead inside that box!

all it takes is 10,000 hours of your spare time! (and maybe a funny hair-do.) really!!

(no, not really.)

update: see also “The Talent Debate” and “No You Can’t”

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 284 other followers