Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

greyenlightenment.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#31

Post by gautamnarula »

zwischenzug wrote: post #15

'Fisher was so smart and gifted at chess, he started at a pro level. His mind could work so quickly and efficiently at chess, that once he knew the rules, he could play as well as a pro, much like a computer that plays as well as a pro after the rules are programmed into it. He was probably initially playing at a 1,800-2,000 rating, which is considered a master, and practice got him to 2,500-2,900 very quickly, which…

1800-2000 is also not considered master. The official master title in the US is achieved at a 2200 rating.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#32

Post by GVIrish »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #29
matchagaucho wrote: post #6

The 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?

The problem with this article is that it makes a huge logical leap from saying a short person is highly unlikely to become one of the best 400 basketball players on earth, to then say resources shouldn't be wasted on kids that are perceived as slow in primary school.

Height is an easily observable phenotype, cognition is massively more complex and dependent on many genes that are not well understood. Furthermore, cognitive ability is heavily dependent on upbringing, and cognitive ability develops at different rates for different people.

Not to say that the school system should be cookie cutter, but we in no way have enough knowledge about human cognition to determine a child's career path because of their performance in kindergarten.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#33

Post by rizzom5000 »

abnry wrote: post #28
daveguy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

The research I've seen appears to suggest that everyone has both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers and that by doing certain types of exercises you can increase the strength and size of one type more than the other. I'd guess there is a genetic component to Usain Bolt's success, but I'd be careful to claim that it is more important than training.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#34

Post by nannePOPI »

I wish I knew this 10 years ago, when I decided to study math and get a CS degree. Sadly, while I'm good at programming (at least to the extent that nobody ever complained and projects got shipped), I'm really uncapable at math. I don't know what it is exactly, I just can't do it, no matter how much books, video lessons and tutoring I throw at it. I always understand theory but I cannot solve most exercises and problems despite a lot of practice.

Anyway, I wasted my 20s trying to get good enough at math, when I could've pushed on my talents instead. I really thought it was all about hard work and that I wasn't working hard enough, or maybe that I should've approached the problem from some other angle. Big mistake. Wasted opportunities.

The article says that China is doing good and the US is not doing well in this regard. I think they're both wrong. It's really stupid, and offensive and immoral, to put individuals into boxes. We don't know how the talents of individuals can express themselves to serve the needs of other people. That's why there should always be complete freedom of studying and working, instead of universities and States deciding who can do what job and on what terms.

Eventually I know programming will become a closed profession and I won't have access to it because of my inability to do math despite my ability to ship software. I can't even imagine how much we have lost in other closed fields in terms of productivity due to this belief that you just have to put in the work. I hope I'll manage to get out of programming before it's too late. Clock is ticking.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#35

Post by blackSnake »

Quantity is important, but quality is important as well. If I practice my karate 1,000 hours and another man in Alaska practices 1,000 hours of karate as well BUT he has received higher quality instruction, he might be practicing effectively twice as much (measured in quality, which is hard to quantify..haha)

10,000 hours of practice seems like a reasonable gauge of mastery. Its also how you define mastery. Mastery is defined by the people who came before who set the standard. If athletes' top running speed reached 3MPH and I came along and broke the record at 5MPH, I would seem like a master.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#36

Post by hh3k0 »

ackfoo wrote: post #27

Do 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 li…

> A 2000 Danish Sports Science Institute investigation reproduced the earlier study, giving a large group of Kalenjin boys three months of training and then comparing them to Thomas Nolan, a Danish track superstar. When the Kalenjin boys trounced him, the researchers -- who had also conducted a number of physical tests and compared them against established human averages -- concluded that Kalenjins must have an inborn, physical, genetic advantage. They observed a higher number of red blood cells (which lent new credence to the theory that elevation makes their bodies more effective oxygen-users) but, in their conclusions, emphasized the "bird-like legs" that make running less energy-intensive and give their stride exceptional efficiency.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#37

Post by BeetleB »

jasode wrote: post #7

Keep 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 "…

>Carol Dweck "growth mindset",

Can you point me to where Carol Dweck says this? I've read a little of her work, but do not recall such a claim. The primary work that made her famous was that emphasizing talent resulted in:

1. A focus on the very narrow area the person is talented in, and being very quick to give up outside of that discipline.

2. The same people who have the talent, when effort is emphasized, do not suffer from this.

And that at times, people with less talent often end up doing better than people in bullet one above in the long run because they're less likely to view short term barriers as made of bricks. But I don't think she ever claimed that such people will do better than those in bullet 2 above.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#39

Post by pochamago »

matchagaucho wrote: post #24
ItsMattyG wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It very explicitly does not say that. It says that practice without talent will not make you the expert you want to be.

Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth

#40

Post by vixen99 »

ackfoo wrote: post #27

Do 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 li…

Nature does what nature does, not what we might want it to do. Almost everyone believes in evolution but no one thinks it applies to humans.

Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Sep; 73(3): 627–631. Published online 2003 Jul 23. doi: 10.1086/377590 PMCID: PMC1180686 PMID: 12879365 ACTN3 'Genotype Is Associated with Human Elite Athletic Performance'

"ACTN3, one of the most thoroughly studied performance genes. In 2003 a seven-scientist team published a study in The American Journal of Human Genetics in which 429 elite Australian athletes were tested for the ACTN3 gene . . .".

General discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sports_Gene

Post reply on HN