Don't the Polgár sisters contradict the author?
I guess the author would argue that they obviously must have inherited a talent for chess from their parents. Not that I agree.
The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
21–30 of 71 posts
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#22Always had it in my mind that 10k is mastery of a topic and not as stated in that text that it makes perfect.
This is exactly what it is. Whole thing is bunk.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#23Bit of a straw-man argument. Ericsson's original research didn't claim that 10,000 hours of practice made you an expert. It was that no-one became an expert (in his studied domain of violin playing) without about 10,000 hours of practice. The 10,000 hours of practice was a sine-qua-non to becoming an expert, but he never claimed it was necessarily sufficient.
As my music teachers said, practice makes permanent.
Fun fact: my text prediction will not let me Swype permanent at the end of the phrase practice makes... After the last p is started, there are no other options.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#24The ugliest moments in history started with a "genetics matter"stance. Not worth repeating.
Like those moments where we cured previously incurable genetic diseases, and understood evolution as one of the most important advances in biology?
Twisted... that's not what the OP is suggesting.
The article says don't practice or work harder... your talent may be enough.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#25Bit of a straw-man argument. Ericsson's original research didn't claim that 10,000 hours of practice made you an expert. It was that no-one became an expert (in his studied domain of violin playing) without about 10,000 hours of practice. The 10,000 hours of practice was a sine-qua-non to becoming an expert, but he never claimed it was necessarily sufficient.
Right, it is not a bijection.
Expert -> (implies) 10,000 hours spent
10,000 hours spent does not imply Expert
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#26Keep in mind that the word "talent" is used in 2 very different meanings and a group fixated on one meaning does not acknowledge the other meaning. (My previous comment about this.[0]) - definition #1: "talent" doesn't exist or it's achievable by anyone because it's just a learnable skill. Skills can be improved. This is the meaning emphasized by M Gladwell (10000 hours), D Coyle (talent doesn't exist), Carol Dweck "…
- definition #3: "talent" is an inherent property of ability and maximum potential. "born with it", "gifted", "a natural" etc. That determines how much effort it takes to learn a skill for #1 and your maximum possible rank / whether you should bother trying in #2.
I don't like this definition, but it is definitely one of them. If it is accurate I think it is in the fact that training / practice from a young age can give an edge that is difficult to overcome later in life. But this would only apply to the top of the top.
In sports even physical attributes can determine peak talent.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#27Do not argue that Usain Bolt’s success is the result of genes unless you can cite specifically which genes and which configurations of those genes might be responsible. The genome has been sequenced, so you should have a reasonable starting point.
Come on, I’m waiting...
Does he have better collagen? Better distribution of hyaluronic acid in his joints? Or maybe it’s mitochondrial DNA? Huh?
No? So you invoke words like “genes” and “gifted” and “talent” but you have absolutely no idea what, specifically, that might mean.
Show me, or take your thinly-disguised eugenics and shove it where the light don’t shine.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#28Keep in mind that the word "talent" is used in 2 very different meanings and a group fixated on one meaning does not acknowledge the other meaning. (My previous comment about this.[0]) - definition #1: "talent" doesn't exist or it's achievable by anyone because it's just a learnable skill. Skills can be improved. This is the meaning emphasized by M Gladwell (10000 hours), D Coyle (talent doesn't exist), Carol Dweck "…
- definition #3: "talent" is an inherent property of ability and maximum potential. "born with it", "gifted", "a natural" etc. That determines how much effort it takes to learn a skill for #1 and your maximum possible rank / whether you should bother trying in #2. I don't like this definition, but it is definitely one of them. If it is accurate I think it is in the fact that training / practice from a young age can g…
To go on about sports, hasn't there been some research done about slow twitch and fast twitch muscles and their importance for being a fast sprinter? I think Usain Bolt has a much higher number of fast-twitch muscle cells than normal. That could be called talent.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#29The ugliest moments in history started with a "genetics matter"stance. Not worth repeating.
I get that eugenics is ugly, and shouldn't be accepted, but are you telling me those 4'8" basketball players aren't in the NBA because they just don't want it enough?
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#30No one wants to hear that there are no short cuts, especially in today's messed up world where everything is fake and for sale.
But THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS.