Live data from Hacker News

Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

newyorker.com

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#121
post #21
post #16

I used to have a band teacher who said "practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."

that's it I agree, but what does perfect mean also? perfect absolutely, compared to your potential, or relatively to others?

there's a difference between grinding out technique and actively confronting the your weaknesses, especially those that have nothing to do with technique e.g confidence, ego etc. there's also the question as to what percentage of practice time is spent trying to replicate the masters as opposed to deepening your understanding of the underlying mechanics or developing intuition. you learn more from a poor creation than a perfect copy.

as for talent, i still think schmid summed it up the best 'Don't bother about whether or not you have it. Just assume that you do, and then forget about it. Talent is a word we use after someone has become accomplished. There is no way to detect it before the fact... or to predict when or if mastery will click into place.'

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#122
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are numerous cases in mathematics. I can't put names on incidents but: * The schoolboy who realised the algorithm for adding the integers 1 - 100. * The UC Berkeley Graduate student who solved 2-3 "extra credit" final exam questions ... only to discover they were previously unsolved proofs. Chess isn't an area I'm closely familiar with, but there absolutely have been prodigies there as well. Many in music.

FYI, the schoolboy is CF Gauss, early 19th century German mathematician who did... tons of stuff. (That's why so much in mathematics and physics is called "Gauss" or "Gaussian.")

The graduate student was George Dantzig. While I think Dantzig is certainly an example of extraordinary natural talent, if your parent comment was looking for examples of talent manifesting itself before any training at all, I don't think this qualifies. As a grad student in math, Dantzig had already spent years studying mathematics by this point.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#123

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…

Anders Ericsson (mentioned in the story) wrote an accessible book ("Peak") about his research.*

He says that the route to optimal performance is "deliberate practice" and that one of the components of deliberate practice is supervision by a coach who can provide feedback and personalized challenges.

I think that kind of fits with your idea, except that he suggests that the source of feedback should be another person.

* Incidentally, he also debunks the whole "20000 hours" thing and seems not too keen on Malcolm Gladwell.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#124

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…

This is why having a good coach can make all the difference. It does no good practicing the wrong techniques.

Knowing what good technique is is a bit of a red herring I think--the bugbear of people who aren't that good yet, or the recently-good. I say this because I used to watch out for examples of poor guitar technique and be sort of critical of them but in doing so I noticed something--the moment poor technique got in the way of what they were doing they stopped doing it. Immediately, mid tune, no problem. I've seen this countless times--you can watch someone go from having their thumb on the top of the neck and their pinky on the soundboard and all sorts of little deficiencies and just watch each of them drop away and come back as the music requires it. This kind of malleability in the moment is the common element in the best musicians I think. As a matter of practice you'll certainly waste less time if someone points out poor technique early for you, but beyond the edge cases where poor technique is injurious that's about it (and I'd note, the vast majority of steel string guitar finger-style playing is of the injurious sort, but its just rarely played long and vigorously enough to become so). On the other hand, read this interview with Keith Frazer [1], whose slavish devotion to proper technique has left him irreparably damaged.

The fact is, at a certain level of playing, you stop asking "is this correct technique?" and you start asking, "does this make the music I am playing better? am i bringing attention to what i want to bring out of the piece? does it make it easier to play?" Preoccupation with correct technique as a separate existing thing from external authority becomes a hindrance. You want to learn about your art from those around you, and have them learn from you. If you don't feel ready or capable of being independent in this regard, that's fine. But not everyone is an amateur, and no one claims to ever stop learning, so what are they doing differently?

e: What most interests me about the article is that this comment section is filled entirely with people, like myself, who's opinion on the matter has not been changed one iota by the article

[1] http://www.keithfrazer.com/interview.htm

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#125

Growing up, my grandfather tried to instill two major ideas in me and my siblings. The first being that perfect was an impossible goal, only achievable under artificial circumstances. Secondly, that practice makes permanent, so be mindful of what you're practicing. The first part always seemed reasonable, but I have had a lot of trouble with the second part. I recently gave up playing golf when I finally realized I h…

Secondly, that practice makes permanent, so be mindful of what you're practicing.

That's a pretty common trope amongst musicians, as one example. If you play a part wrong, go back and get it right. Otherwise, all that you're "practicing" is how to play it wrong.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#126
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are numerous cases in mathematics. I can't put names on incidents but: * The schoolboy who realised the algorithm for adding the integers 1 - 100. * The UC Berkeley Graduate student who solved 2-3 "extra credit" final exam questions ... only to discover they were previously unsolved proofs. Chess isn't an area I'm closely familiar with, but there absolutely have been prodigies there as well. Many in music.

> * The schoolboy who realised the algorithm for adding the integers 1 - 100.

Gauss

> * The UC Berkeley Graduate student who solved 2-3 "extra credit" final exam questions ... only to discover they were previously unsolved proofs.

George Bernard Dantzig

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#127

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…

What did the Soviet books talk about that the other books were ignoring?

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#128
My summary of the whole discussion:

genius_level = talent_genes * hard_work * know_how

talent_genes - natural ability to be good at something

hard_work - amount of practice, willingness to practice hard is determined by genes, but can be also artificially increased by the demanding parents or trainers

know_how - knowledge of discipline secrets by coaches or teachers

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#129
post #91

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…

Very true. Totally hits the nail on the head. But what happens when you take this all the way? Is there anything you can think of that does not ultimately fall under the "cause and effect" clause? If not, then this makes everything , from sports competitions to "life" competitions, expectations and hopes just a big joke, a reality where "God favours the lucky". The reason you could post your reply is that the conditi…

> If not, then this makes everything, from sports competitions to "life" competitions, expectations and hopes just a big joke, a reality where "God favours the lucky".

I very much believe this is the case. The unjust-world hypothesis, if you will. The more we realize this is happening, the better.

But my intention here isn't really to go down the slope of how everything is cause and effect. I find the free will question rather absurd, as well, but that'd be another large post...

Rather, I'd want us to move away from this artificially disjointed approach to life where every person is on their own and is supposed to reach their potential through force of will.

Post reply on HN