21–30 of 124 posts
Site requires scripts to read any content on. I don't like running code from random websites, so I don't. Can't comment on the article. I will guess that the 'cruel myth' is that anyone can spent the requisite time and do anything. (Some people just don't get / can't get X, even if they want to and try really hard.)
I didn't enable the scripts, I removed the display: none myself.
2014 article, and the pushback on Gladwell's book began almost as soon as it came out. I think there is a certain level of misunderstanding the argument he makes, in that it is assumed that the person engaging in the practice meets the minimum requirements for the activity. If you can't amass enough muscle mass, no amount of practice will make you into an NFL lineman. The problem is that in more complex activities or…
He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there.
2014 article, and the pushback on Gladwell's book began almost as soon as it came out. I think there is a certain level of misunderstanding the argument he makes, in that it is assumed that the person engaging in the practice meets the minimum requirements for the activity. If you can't amass enough muscle mass, no amount of practice will make you into an NFL lineman. The problem is that in more complex activities or…
Matthew Seyd (the Author of Bounce: The Myth of Talent ) absolutely makes the argument that there is not minimum requirements for an activity by denying any form of genetic predisposition (or 'talent') for any activity. He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there.
How does he deal with the fact that certain body types are more conducive to sprinting? Or does he just ignore that altogether?
I am always intrigued by the 10KH argument. Here's my story - I just turned 50 last year. Been programming for nearly 35 years of that time. Not just 10,000 hours here - I think we are talking well over 1,000 individual applications and utilities over that time. Do I consider myself one of the best at my profession?? Not even close. Probably wouldn't even rate myself in the top 1/3rd of the worlds programmers. I've m…
Perhaps society pays undue attention to things that can be improved with 10,000 hours of practice. There are many skills that could possibly be learned only after more than 10,000 hours. Probably so few people have the dedication that they remain niche pursuits or novelties. And things that require a lot less than 10,000 hours aren't very impressive (driving, for example) because lots of people learn to do them. Thin…
I just guesstimated that I spent maybe 7,500 hours (over 3.5 years) driving around in a taxi. Towards the end of that period I started to notice things that the other cars on the road would likely do, and point this out to my passengers. "See that car? it's going to change lanes and that other guy is going to have to slam on his brakes..."
Just the other day I was driving with my mother. Our light turned green, but I saw that the car in the cross traffic couldn't see that his light had turned red (on account of the sunset). I waited, and watched as he slammed on his brakes. (Not especially impressive, just recent.)
There's something to putting in time on any activity. With regards to this article postulating that "10,000 hours rule" doesn't matter... I think the relevant saying is not "practice makes perfect", but "perfect practice makes perfect". If you spend 10,000 practicing something wrong it won't be as helpful as 1,000 hours practicing it right.
Bruce Lee said, "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
I am always intrigued by the 10KH argument. Here's my story - I just turned 50 last year. Been programming for nearly 35 years of that time. Not just 10,000 hours here - I think we are talking well over 1,000 individual applications and utilities over that time. Do I consider myself one of the best at my profession?? Not even close. Probably wouldn't even rate myself in the top 1/3rd of the worlds programmers. I've m…
The majority of your programming is not with the intent to deliberately improve. Thus it doesn't count towards that 10,000 hours. That's the biggest misconception of the 10,000 hour metric.
A large factor in this situation is that I regularly jump between several different languages, but nevertheless, it is frustrating to have to pause my flow and look up things so regularly.
Perhaps it is a patience thing with my older age, but I find nowadays the biggest thing putting me off starting new projects is just all the sheer mundaneness of setting up repositories and working folders, getting third party assets together, configuring project management tools etc.
You would think that familiarity and practice would make these sorts of things automatic and fluid over time, but the opposite seems to be true.
I think the amended version of '10,000 hours' is closer to being correct, and probably not the one the public wants to hear.
Ericsson's research isn't much better either though. His sample size was very small and his research was never replicated. As the 'how I taught myself physics in one year' thread showed, it's pretty obvious innate talent exists and can allow people to attain mastery of very complicated concepts in far less than 10,000 hours.
Not sure it is a cruel myth...more like wishful thinking that can have unintended consequences by mismanaging resources (such as having low-IQ kids in prestigious schools, in the hope that environment will overcome a cognitive deficit)...if it were so cruel, it would not have taken the world by storm...'10,000 hours' succeeds as a meme because it tells people what they want to believe, that with enough practice, anyone can covet the skills of genius. It's not so much that people want to become world-class musicians or top physicists, but rather that they have the potential to become those things if they want to, by practicing enough.
Malcolm Gladwell should not be taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of your programming is not with the intent to deliberately improve. Thus it doesn't count towards that 10,000 hours. That's the biggest misconception of the 10,000 hour metric.
Granted, but while things like data structures and relationships come naturally to my mind, I am frustrated by the fact that I have to keep looking up syntax for particular loops or method calls. A large factor in this situation is that I regularly jump between several different languages, but nevertheless, it is frustrating to have to pause my flow and look up things so regularly. Perhaps it is a patience thing with…
1. Not switching languages that often anymore. Fullstack? Yeah i could hack around in JS, PHP and whatever but i'm trying to stay in my field java to become really good in it.
2. Not using code comletion much/often. I write often a class file from scratch just to exercise it. I write Classnames out, i sometimes write my own imports.
3. Repeat it: When i forget how to write a for each loop, i do it once, and delete the code the next second and just write it again, than a third time.
No one cares when i need 30 seconds longer to write that one loop and the next time it sits again or much etter than before.