Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 145 posts

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#11

Post by abecedarius »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #2

This is a case where I really doubt that the studies referenced in the article were rigorous/well controlled. There are WAY too many talent "hot zones" (small training clubs that produce an extremely inordinate number of champions) for me to be swayed without iron-clad evidence to the contrary. The author talks about being motivated, but I don't think she really understands the scale of motivation. Mozart would typic…

I've never heard about Mozart's fingers bleeding -- do you have a source? I just ran a web search and found a suggestion that he suffered from rickets in infancy, accounting for curved fingers.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#12

Post by flatline »

ap22213 wrote: post #8
BadassFractal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talent is definitely a thing, morphology of the brain is absolutely relevant. Unfortunately most of us confuse great skill with innate talent, hence these endless articles. There are people out there with whom we simply cannot compete regardless of how much hard work we put in. They have advantages over the rest of us that we won't be able to overcome. Variability of brain structures is even more dramatic than visibl…

That statement doesn't align with what I'd learned studying physical anthropology. That is, Almost all genetic adaptations that have been observed across Homo Sapiens have been environmental physical adaptations. I'm not saying that it's wrong - just that I didn't learn it that way (But, I could have went to college too long ago).

When I studied anthropology in the 90s, it was a widely held belief that genetics could potentially influence personality, intelligence, etc., but there was no conclusive evidence that it actually did so, and quite a few studies suggesting so had been debunked. There have since been quite a number of studies that indicate this is in fact so, even including more promising studies challenging Gould, et al.'s assertions that racial heritage plays no role in adult intelligence. I still don't know to what level any of these are conclusive, or to what extent we have improved our ability to quantify aspects of, broadly speaking, personality.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#13

Post by cageface »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #2

This is a case where I really doubt that the studies referenced in the article were rigorous/well controlled. There are WAY too many talent "hot zones" (small training clubs that produce an extremely inordinate number of champions) for me to be swayed without iron-clad evidence to the contrary. The author talks about being motivated, but I don't think she really understands the scale of motivation. Mozart would typic…

I'm pretty sure talent is overrated.

but I doubt in most cases that it exceeds 2-3 percentile point shift

I think we'd all like to believe that we can do anything we want if we try hard enough but where is your evidence? This is not a matter for good wishes but scientific proof. It's pretty clear that some physical variations contribute tremendously to ability in sports so it's illogical to accept on faith that no such similar variations exist in the brain.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#14

Post by hal9000xp »

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right.

Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level.

The truth is that person A got some tiny unspoken ideas right (may be he even discovered them by coincidence). And person B got this tiny things wrong. No matter how much person B is training, he or she won't improve in chess until B find right way.

Sad story is that A couldn't even realize what exactly he got right and take it for granted. So when A explains B how he train/play, he or she could say very high level things (which you can find in any grandmaster book) skipping huge unspoken context.

That's why many people who read books written by chess grandmasters, don't become grandmasters. Chess grandmaster could try to explain you how he or she plays but these words has very limited power since unspoken context matters most.

So if you didn't progress much in chess after learning theory and practising and reading grandmaster's book, it could mean that you just missed something very fundamental tiny thing which nobody speaks about. May be your spatial representation of how pieces move in the board is not suitable that's why for you it requires more computational power to imagine whole dynamics of some given chess position. May be if you play other similar games and then return to chess, you fix your spatial representation of chess in your head. May be even solving math geometric puzzles will help you with that.

My point is that if you don't progress don't give up but don't bang your head against the wall. Instead think about more delicate things happen in your brain. Your goal is to find tiny thing in your head and fix it. I do believe if you find this needle in haystack, then you could make huge breakthrough.

I think true intellect lies in metacognition. I mean how you think about thinking, how you think about learning.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#15

Post by aaron695 »

ap22213 wrote: post #8
BadassFractal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talent is definitely a thing, morphology of the brain is absolutely relevant. Unfortunately most of us confuse great skill with innate talent, hence these endless articles. There are people out there with whom we simply cannot compete regardless of how much hard work we put in. They have advantages over the rest of us that we won't be able to overcome. Variability of brain structures is even more dramatic than visibl…

That statement doesn't align with what I'd learned studying physical anthropology. That is, Almost all genetic adaptations that have been observed across Homo Sapiens have been environmental physical adaptations. I'm not saying that it's wrong - just that I didn't learn it that way (But, I could have went to college too long ago).

It doesn't make a lot of sense that the other organs have evolved but the brain didn't.

I put it more down to it's harder to measure politically.

But I do think you need 'practice' to maximise your skills which the system fails many people.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#17

Post by mikebenfield »

ap22213 wrote: post #8
BadassFractal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talent is definitely a thing, morphology of the brain is absolutely relevant. Unfortunately most of us confuse great skill with innate talent, hence these endless articles. There are people out there with whom we simply cannot compete regardless of how much hard work we put in. They have advantages over the rest of us that we won't be able to overcome. Variability of brain structures is even more dramatic than visibl…

That statement doesn't align with what I'd learned studying physical anthropology. That is, Almost all genetic adaptations that have been observed across Homo Sapiens have been environmental physical adaptations. I'm not saying that it's wrong - just that I didn't learn it that way (But, I could have went to college too long ago).

There are potentially very politically inflammatory issues that could come up if we start talking about genetic variation in intelligence in humans. Modern anthropologists are extremely keen to avoid any semblance of justifying racism.

But think about it like this: biological evolution works specifically by exploiting differences within a species. If every member of a species were exactly the same height, there would be no basis on which natural selection can encourage future changes in height. Humans got so much smarter than our primate ancestors specifically because there was a lot of variation in innate intelligence: the human ancestors who were smarter tended to live longer and have more offspring.

It would be completely nuts if that process just magically stopped, and humans all suddenly had equal intelligence, and differences in intelligence no longer played any role in reproductive success. That idea is completely counter to everything we know about how evolution works... it didn't happen with height or physical strength or hairiness or baldness or any of our other traits. The only reason to suppose it happened with intelligence or other mental traits is, as I said above, to avoid an inflammatory issue.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#19

Post by [deleted] »

hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

[deleted]

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#20

Post by djaychela »

hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

Absolutely. I'm a guitarist, and have been for over 30 years. I'm good, but not REALLY good, and I hit a wall in terms of technical ability / speed a long time ago - after about 5 years of playing. Nothing I did improved my speed and I didn't have the accuracy of a Malmsteen or MacAlpine, despite practicing religiously for hours at a time. I thought I had a speed limit and that was that - everyone I consulted felt the same.

It's only been in the last few months and via complete luck on YouTube that I appear to have discovered the missing piece of the jigsaw (two way pick slanting) - had I known this when I was 18 I would have been of a much higher level. Being 45, having old bad habits to overcome and the demands of a family with 4 kids and a chronic bad back means I don't have the time to devote to the improvements I'd love to make, but from my experience, I know that "practice" is not enough, it needs to be the right practice, and sometimes that means a subtle nuance which is not apparent to some, maybe for years. I've helped some of the kids I teach in a similar way, with them then "getting" an idea they've not understood for a long time, so there needs to be more analysis than simply "practice", in my opinion.

Post reply on HN