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

Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#81

Post by locuscoeruleus »

TillE wrote: post #46
sorenjan wrote: post #36

Another similar myth is the one Malcom Gladwell made up about how it takes 10 000 hours of doing something to become an expert at that thing. It was based on research that used 10 000 as an average for 20 year old violinists. The original researcher, Anders Ericsson, focuses much more on deliberate practice than sheer quantity. https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/ Related Freakonomics episode with And…

I don't think Gladwell is a particularly insightful guy, but as someone who has actually read a couple of his books, I feel like the "10,000 hours" thing is frequently misrepresented. The claim isn't "put in 10k hours and you'll magically become an expert". It's "if you want to become an expert, you have to put in 10k hours". Necessary but not sufficient.

The 10k hours number is also dubious. It just happens to be the average number of hours students at some special violin school have spent in solitaire practice by the time they turn 18 (or what ever age they apply for the school).

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#83

Post by not2b »

pdpi wrote: post #52
TillE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember the exact context at this point, but I've definitely encountered someone complaining about "ascorbic acid" as an additive, which is of course vitamin C.

Let's not forget the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Used as an industrial solvent, its vapours can cause severe burns, yet they put it in food.

I first started seeing the "dihydrogen monoxide" or "DHMO" memes a couple of decades ago when there were serious concerns about DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), a solvent that can carry drugs through the skin, which apparently has some medical use but can be risky. It's a by-product of paper making.

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#84

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

TillE wrote: post #46
sorenjan wrote: post #36

Another similar myth is the one Malcom Gladwell made up about how it takes 10 000 hours of doing something to become an expert at that thing. It was based on research that used 10 000 as an average for 20 year old violinists. The original researcher, Anders Ericsson, focuses much more on deliberate practice than sheer quantity. https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/ Related Freakonomics episode with And…

I don't think Gladwell is a particularly insightful guy, but as someone who has actually read a couple of his books, I feel like the "10,000 hours" thing is frequently misrepresented. The claim isn't "put in 10k hours and you'll magically become an expert". It's "if you want to become an expert, you have to put in 10k hours". Necessary but not sufficient.

You can become an expert in cooking a hot dog without 10,000 hours of practice.

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#86

Post by ansible »

I recall hearing this myth being circulated for decades.

One of the reasons it likely persists is that people don't have a good understanding of what their brain does on a day-to-day basis, and they don't have a good idea of just how hard some of those tasks are.

We do things like walk across a room and pick up an object, and don't really think about all the processing that goes into that.

You have an accurate and dynamic mental model of the room, your body, and how it can function. You do an enormous amount of processing just to see and recognize anything. And it (usually) "just works" and we don't have any real insight into ourselves for how it works, for how much processing effort goes into it all.

If you have someone start down the path of programming a robot to do that "simple" task, they'll have a much greater appreciation for all the things their brain does for them. Trying to precisely coordinate the actions of tens to hundreds of muscles, receiving an enormous amount of raw sensor input (the feel of the floor under your feet, etc.) that is then filtered and prioritized for high-level consumption, all the motion planning to dodge the chair in your way, etc.

We do so much for such a simple, everyday action, that it seems "easy" and "simple" when it is nothing of the kind.

That's what that "other 90%" of your brain does, you just aren't conscious of it.

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#87

Post by Idiotfucker »

TillE wrote: post #46
sorenjan wrote: post #36

Another similar myth is the one Malcom Gladwell made up about how it takes 10 000 hours of doing something to become an expert at that thing. It was based on research that used 10 000 as an average for 20 year old violinists. The original researcher, Anders Ericsson, focuses much more on deliberate practice than sheer quantity. https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/ Related Freakonomics episode with And…

I don't think Gladwell is a particularly insightful guy, but as someone who has actually read a couple of his books, I feel like the "10,000 hours" thing is frequently misrepresented. The claim isn't "put in 10k hours and you'll magically become an expert". It's "if you want to become an expert, you have to put in 10k hours". Necessary but not sufficient.

I also read that specific book/chapter where he discusses 10 000 hours, and the implication based on his bill gates and hockey example, were as you said, that it is a necessary condition. And those examples in particular I think point out how having had the time and experience to get ahead of your "cohort" (people of a similar age or time period)

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#88

Post by a_c »

My favourite scientific myth is "cholesterol causes heart disease" evangelized by Ancel Keys [1] in the Seven Countries Study [2]. From there, we developed plant oil. From plant oil, we developed margarine. From margarine, we discovered trans-fat. And we found the trans fat causes coronary heart disease, hence in full circle. Worse still, from the fear of cholesterol, we developed "cereal that lowers your blood cholesterol" and the drug statin [3]. And also by focusing cholesterol, we down played the health hazard of consuming sugar because there is no such thing as cholesterol industry while sugar does.

I'm overly generalizing here without much reference. If there is interest I will dig up more material.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13260239-the-truth-about...

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#89

Post by KineticLensman »

carlmr wrote: post #31
ramraj07 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anyone except Luc Besson still thinks this is true anymore tho..

I know that reference. When I watched that movie I was just like ugh, and then I continued watching, and it just got worse.

Somewhat coincidentally, I watched it - the film Lucy - yesterday and can confirm that it does indeed get worse. I would have liked it better if the story arc was more like 'Flowers for Algernon'.

Re: Ten Percent of the Brain Myth

#90

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

amelius wrote: post #71
TillE wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Gladwell is a particularly insightful guy, but as someone who has actually read a couple of his books, I feel like the "10,000 hours" thing is frequently misrepresented. The claim isn't "put in 10k hours and you'll magically become an expert". It's "if you want to become an expert, you have to put in 10k hours". Necessary but not sufficient.

Not necessarily. You can become an expert in your self-defined programming language without putting in 10k hours.

The feels more like a violinist learning a new song, and in this case one they made up, rather than learning an entirely new skillset.
Post reply on HN