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

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61

Post by BeetleB »

jasode wrote: post #60
BeetleB wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>She said "talent can be developed" in multiple presentations and interviews. I think she's simply being informal. Right after your quote she says: >With a growth mindset, kids don’t necessarily think that there’s no such thing as talent or that everyone is the same , but they believe everyone can develop their abilities through hard work, strategies, and lots of help and mentoring from others. The way I always read…

>I think she's simply being informal. No, she explains that talent is not fixed in multiple presentations.[0] To paraphrase one of her examples, "Michael Jordan wasn't particularly talented at basketball; he _became_ talented." >The way I always read her work is: If a person has talent, having a growth mindset is much more likely to realize the talent than a fixed mindset. Right and I agree with it but that doesn't c…

I'll concede that she plays fast and loose with the term.

The reason I'm pushing back is that as we are talking about talent in the innate sense, there is (AFAIK) no scientifically valid way of measuring it (beyond perhaps a binary measure). So taking a stance either way on whether it can be developed further is a bit problematic. I'd be curious to see how her actual journal papers discuss the matter.

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

#62

Post by matchagaucho »

diminoten wrote: post #56
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming a person is healthy, there's nothing that makes playing in the NBA literally impossible. Well no, but there's a reason that those short people made it to the NBA, they had other potential that got them there. Mugsy was incredibly fast. If it was all about heart we'd see an equal distribution, unless somehow being taller means you have more heart.

Mugsy was fast because he worked hard to be fast, not because he was born with "fastness".

The advantage in basketball frequently oscillates between big/slow and small/fast. The best teams always have a mix.

Mugsy choose to capitalize on his "small and fast" talent. It's coaches who make the decision to augment teams with speed.

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

#63

Post by diminoten »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #59
diminoten wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mugsy was fast because he worked hard to be fast, not because he was born with "fastness".

So it was only one short guy who wanted it and a bunch of tall ones?

One? No. There are other short players in the NBA.

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

#64

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

diminoten wrote: post #63
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it was only one short guy who wanted it and a bunch of tall ones?

One? No. There are other short players in the NBA.

You're right, there have been 25 guys 5'9" and under. There are 494 players in the opening day roster for 2018-2019. I guess the little guys just lack the desire to get in there.

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

#65

Post by diminoten »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #64
diminoten wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One? No. There are other short players in the NBA.

You're right, there have been 25 guys 5'9" and under. There are 494 players in the opening day roster for 2018-2019. I guess the little guys just lack the desire to get in there.

Desire? No. Grit? Probably.

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

#66

Post by diminoten »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #58
diminoten wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's predictive, just not enough to make decisions on. You're not saying we don't let anyone under 6' play basketball, are you?

No, they are saying that in all likelihood they don't the physical ability to play the game.

All likelihood? Maybe. Literally possible/not? No.

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

#67

Post by goatlover »

diminoten wrote: post #57
goatlover wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely. Muggsy Bogues is the extreme outlier. Most NBA players in the history of the game are above average height, despite tons of shorter people having similar access to playing the sport.

It's predictive, just not enough to make decisions on. You're not saying we don't let anyone under 6' play basketball, are you?

Of course not. I'm saying that being taller than average is an important physical attribute to playing in the NBA. Of course you have to practice/play enough to have the necessary skill level, and there are other factors that matter. If you're under 6', then those other factors need to make up for the height disadvantage.

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

#68

Post by Cthulhu_ »

maxxxxx wrote: post #17
padraigf wrote: post #14

Bit 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.

The self help industry often makes the promise that if you follow their recipes then success is guaranteed. I think a lot of people have bought into that. So it’s a little uncomfortable to think that even after following all the steps success is not guaranteed. Sports is a little more realistic in that sense. I don’t think anyone believes that if you do exactly what Tom Brady did you will win the Super Bowl.

Oh yeah, and they can always hide behind the "if it doesn't work for you, you must've done something wrong / not followed the plan".

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

#69

Post by diminoten »

goatlover wrote: post #67
diminoten wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's predictive, just not enough to make decisions on. You're not saying we don't let anyone under 6' play basketball, are you?

Of course not. I'm saying that being taller than average is an important physical attribute to playing in the NBA. Of course you have to practice/play enough to have the necessary skill level, and there are other factors that matter. If you're under 6', then those other factors need to make up for the height disadvantage.

Sure, and I'm saying that those other factors aren't genetic.

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

#70

Post by kthejoker2 »

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?

Form follows function. Basketball's rules favor taller people. If the national sport was limbo or hide and seek, we'd have different stars. Conflating a sport's popularity with moral approval of eugenicism, even obliquely in "JAQ" sense is ... Troubling.
Post reply on HN