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

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#101

Post by posterboy »

mikebenfield wrote: post #17
ap22213 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> innate intelligence

The anthropology Issue the GP mentioned is with this. There is no doubt about the need for nurture, not just nature. The mentioned standard deviation which evolution derives from is a compelling argument for intelligence to come neither just from the nurturing.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#102

Post by CuriouslyC »

reddytowns wrote: post #4
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…

You say the author must be wrong because of lack of compelling evidence, and then you propose the opposite without any evidence. Why does it have to be confirmed either way? Why can't you admit you just don't know? It seems to me that by going into things with the idea that you know something that you don't is just limiting your own ability to discover new information about it. Reality is a complicated landscape. By…

Part of the problem is that if you admit the idea talent plays a primary role in success, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Research by Carol Dweck has shown that people's own belief in their ability to improve strongly predicts their actual improvement.

Given things like talent hot zones and the Polgar sisters, which to me demonstrate talent isn't a big deal, the level of evidence needed to change my mind is going to be very high. Particularly since believing in talent is so maladaptive. The only benefit to a belief in talent is ego protection for those who live in mediocrity.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#103

Post by agumonkey »

yourapostasy wrote: post #98
ht_th wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the thing about (good) teachers: they have a lot of pedagogical content knowledge (Fachdidaktik). They know what questions to ask to what student at what time in her learning process. They know what examples, metaphors, strategies, and so on, might work for certain students or situations. They understand the individual nature of a student's learning process and are able to fit their teaching to best guide a s…

This is what I worry about the MOOC's: a lot of the best teachers I've had personally, and observed (with children), drew a vast tree of pedagogical techniques, but used their evaluation of a student's individual personality/psychology to inform them of which node/branch to select next. The most sophisticated MOOC's ever get is to brute-force try one node after another, if they support presenting the same material in…

If I may add my 2 cents, I almost never interacted positively with teachers at the College level. Mostly because I became borderline sociophobic tbh. MOOCs removed a big barrier between teacher judgement and politics (they're human, they can be prejudiced). Also gave me way more opportunity to collaborate and exchange with other students (mostly through IRC channels).

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#104

Post by CuriouslyC »

cageface wrote: post #13
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 su…

I agree that the natural variability in potential is such that an average person isn't going to ever get sufficiently good to medal at an olympics, or even attend one (except perhaps in unpopular sports). You shouldn't let the fact that your natural limit is only the 99th percentile instead of the 99.99th percentile make you feel like a failure though, you're still awesome.

One thing I have noticed is that some people learn a skill much faster than others. That being said, the people who learn more slowly seem to reach about the same level eventually, it just takes them longer.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#105

Post by dominotw »

Lordarminius wrote: post #90
projektir wrote: post #57

The Sports Gene already reduced my confidence in Ericsson's studies in particular. They were not very extensive and there was effectively no control group. An important thing to remember, though, is that these things are really, really hard to study. The meta-analysis is likely to be negative information in how accurate it is. "deliberate practice" is not a valid term, you can create a whole new field to figure out w…

> Genetics and hard work are ... inferior to information I have never seen it put better. The Soviet Union had a stranglehold on chess for almost 70 years until its collapse in the nineties. Then information fled with grandmasters to the west and the present bloom in talent began. Westerners began to regularly defeat soviet players. An Indian, then a Norwegian became world champion. Before then, it was a small miracl…

>Genetics and hard work are vastly inferior to information

All the more reason to make internet access a free commodity .

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#107

Post by yourapostasy »

MasterScrat wrote: post #79
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…

"IIRC there are something like 50 different areas of the brain that are continuously being permuted in size with each next generation." I'd be really interested by a source on that.

Not exactly what OP mentioned, but [1] is a potential starting point to look into. I didn't even know there were functional (as opposed to morphological) areas of the brain already mapped to a precision that size could be accurately compared between samplings, but there seems to be some MRI-based work on that [2]. Anything I could find on the changes between generations of the functional areas of the brain are along the lines of [3], at evolutionary time scales instead of successive generations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705206/

[3] http://www.indiana.edu/~brainevo/publications/annurev.anthro...

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#109

Post by Ericson2314 »

zerognowl wrote: post #106

Maybe somebody can elaborate on the fine distinction of Skill vs Talent? Skill: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skill Talent: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/talent I'm slightly confused as both these entries in Wiktionary sound like each other!

Talent is the input, skill is the output.

(Talent is what makes one start better or learn quicker)

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#110

Post by stangles1 »

jondubois wrote: post #30

It's pretty obvious that practice isn't enough. There are so many examples all around us. If someone is born with down syndrome, they are extremely unlikely to graduate from university. If someone's eyesight isn't perfect, they will probably never become a commercial pilot. If you're autistic, you probably won't become a professional negotiator... There are so many cases, sometimes rooted in tiny genetic differences…

What does having perfect eyesight have to do with becoming a commercial pilot? In the US, you can become a commercial pilot as long as your vision can be corrected to 20/20 [0].

[0]. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...

Post reply on HN