Practice Doesn't Make Perfect • Hacker News Board

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#111

Post by p0nce » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #58

kavalg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I've been playing the kaval (an end blown flute) for more than 10 years and there have been many times when I'd hit the wall. I also play a bit of guitar, but kaval has been much harder to master. I think that this is because, when compared to guitar, kaval has a lot more independent variables, such as breathing, embouchure(lip shape), throat, how hard you push the instrument to your lips, how your hands take…

I have some friends in the dance business. Even (especially!) the top professionals routinely hire various coaches to see if they'll catch something missed. They'll also regularly go right back to the basics of how to take a step. They'll be in the studio just walking back and forth. What's weird about dance is what looks natural and elegant to the observer is a rather contorted and sometimes painful position for the…

There is a saying for vocal coaches that singing before going to see one is mostly useless, and that it's a 10 year journey, starting with their lessons, towards being an adequate singer.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#112

Post by _Codemonkeyism » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

I found this highly interesting

" But for education and professions like computer science, military-aircraft piloting, and sales, the effect ranged from small to tiny."

From teaching programming for some years, giving programming workshops to top management, some people got it and others didn't. Since then I've wondered how much programming is teached, practice or inherent in people. Not sure to this day.

I could be a bad teacher, I wonder about that too.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#113

Post by RodericDay » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

cko wrote: post #92

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…

I like this view, that there are many subtle things that one person got right and another didn't - couldn't you say that person A was just naturally (genetically advantaged) to discovering those things in their field of mastery? I would also add to that curiosity, which leads to desire, which makes mastery that much easier.

You could settle for a genetics explanation, but why would you?

Other hypotheses are much more easily testable, and certainly more inspiring to the newcomer, and haven't been scientifically exhausted yet.

If everyone just said "it's probably not in my genes" they wouldn't even try, disregarding tons of historical factors that may have stopped their ancestors from creating a record.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#114

Post by analog31 » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:43 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #28

djaychela wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Was it just luck, or are you actually not creative enough to figure out new and useful things in your own? (say, extended guitar playing techniques) An open question so far.

I play double bass, not guitar, but I suspect there are parallels. My answer is: No, I'm not creative enough, or maybe too creative. In my view, most technical experiments are blind alleys. And a problem with musical instruments, perhaps with double bass as an extreme case, is that some experiments can lead to permanent injury.

I have met two fine young bassists who were both crippled by trying unorthodox techniques, to the point where it interfered with their careers: For instance they had to curtail preparation for critical auditions.

Meanwhile, I have consciously stuck with the stodgy classical technique that I learned as a kid, and at age 52, can still play a four hour gig on the one instrument in the band that never gets a break.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#115

Post by falcolas » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

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 foundation, theoretically an unbounded positive value set in stone. Skill is like a 0-1 multiplier applied over the top of talent to produce the final output.

Talent boils down to physiology, but skill is the ability to use that physiology correctly.

IMO, of course.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#116

Post by kazinator » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

djaychela wrote: post #20

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 th…

Malmsteen plays mostly a single pattern of triplets that he moves around the fretboard. It's a very well-rehearsed parlour trick, that he can use for good effect in real tunes (in combination with his good tone and confident presentation), but that's all it is in the end. It doesn't compare to the labyrinthine gymnastics demanded by actual classical pieces, many of which have passages with unique fingering challenges: no one-size-fits-all fits all shred pattern.

Malmsteen himself is better when he slows down; he really should keep the triplet cheese grating to a minimum. Its effectiveness is inversely proportional to the size. A good example is the "I'm a Viking" guitar solo; there is heap of shred notes at the beginning as an intro, but then it goes slow, with just some connecting speedy bits here and there.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#117

Post by laurieg » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 3:03 PM UTC

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…

I encountered this in real life in a completely different field.

As a schoolboy I studied the trumpet. My teacher was an excellent trumpeter. He gave me exercises every week and said "Just play these for an hour a day and you'll have no problems".

I would go away and put in my hour a day practice and get no where. I wanted to play the high notes like those jazz bands but I would get no where.

I'd go back to my teacher and he'd give me another set of exercises. Diligently I go away and repeat the same process.

Other students of his seemed to do well, but not everyone. It seemed really rather random.

He was a great player but I believe he had very little introspection and didn't really know what made him great in a pedagogical sense. He was likely making minute movements with the muscles of his mouth that he had no idea about but he just stumbled across with his hours of practice.

After this experience I realised how skill in a topic and teaching ability are quite different. Sometimes a person has both at a high level and is really an excellent teacher, but often there are times where someone is a player, not a teacher.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#118

Post by zwieback » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

djaychela wrote: post #20

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 th…

I've been playing mandolin for a few years and discovered the importance of pick angles while improving my tremolo. I realized that you cannot just keep the pick in the same orientation all the time so, nerd that I am, I started thinking about each stroke as a vector in six dimensional space (position and orientation in 3D). The trick for me is to simplify that to the point where I get the results I need.

Most of the material I saw online just had some basic recipes to improve right hand technique, there are very few systematic and rigorous explanations. I think that's where a good teacher can make a massive difference.

On the other hand I also have first-hand experience with nature vs. nurture - I play music with my wife and kids and I'm clearly the least talented although everyone brings something unique to the family band.

As always, the truth is a combination x * talent + y * nurture so I'm glad to see the discussion turning that direction.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#119

Post by mikebenfield » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

hnarn wrote: post #35

mikebenfield wrote: post #23

I read The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, co-edited by K. Anders Ericsson, the psychology professor mentioned in this article. His work inspired Malcolm Gladwell's popular work on deliberate practice. I found Ericsson and co's ideas to be completely counter to their data. A lot of the articles were based on case studies. They studied wrestlers and wrestling coaches, for instance. The wrestlin…

When you say "these guys were in a position to win local and regional powerlifting competitions with basically no training at all", do you have any similar examples for things like chess tournaments? Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player but I have a hard time seeing how a genius who never played chess before just sits down, learns the ga…

"Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player..."

I don't understand how I'm disproving myself. I was trying to disprove Ericsson's claim that genetics play basically no role in successful performance, and I think my examples adequately illustrate that in at least some cases it actually does play a very large role.

The fact that no one is a great chess player with no practice is irrelevant. As you acknowledge that genetics can help with chess, it seems you actually agree with my point over Ericsson's.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#120

Post by tomca32 » Sat, Oct 01, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

laurieg wrote: post #117

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…

I encountered this in real life in a completely different field. As a schoolboy I studied the trumpet. My teacher was an excellent trumpeter. He gave me exercises every week and said "Just play these for an hour a day and you'll have no problems". I would go away and put in my hour a day practice and get no where. I wanted to play the high notes like those jazz bands but I would get no where. I'd go back to my teache…

Coming from the world of classical ballet, this is a very familiar issue.

In ballet, it is often said that the best dancers are the worst teachers.

The very best teachers are the ones who had no talent and spent insane hours trying to figure out which muscles to use, at what moment and with what intensity. They are the ones who will tell you that you need to push the opposing arm in the turn in order to have enough force for multiple turns without falling over.

The best dancers will tell you to "just turn". They have a natural sense for balance in turns and don't understand why you keep falling over.