The Myth of Massed Practice
salon.com
The Myth of Massed Practice
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#2Malcolm specifically said that "it takes 10000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve mastery."
There are two component here: 1) 10000 hours and 2) deliberate practice.
What op present us are "you can ditch 10000 hours because deliberate practice is enough" but when you go through the article it shows that all test subject were trained for very narrow set of mastery for short time period (bean bag tossing, microsurgey) or very wide set of mastery for long period of time (football play)
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#3The title is link-baity and overreaching, but the article itself is actually good. It's a shame.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#4The title is link-baity and overreaching, but the article itself is actually good. It's a shame.
I changed it to the title of one of the sections. This is a trick we often use when the article title (which is often by a headline writer, not the article author) is linkbait or misleading. Assuming it covers the scope of the article, it's often better.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#5The author misses Gladwells premise from go. He said deliberate, not obsessive. His discussion was specifically focused on variance of experience and learning over that time.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#6The author misses Gladwells premise from go. He said deliberate, not obsessive. His discussion was specifically focused on variance of experience and learning over that time.
The article doesn't mention Gladwell, and is actually quite good. (Edit: The title does, of course, and is quite bad. That's why we changed it. Misleading and/or linkbaity titles get changed.)
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#7The title is link-baity and overreaching, but the article itself is actually good. It's a shame.
I changed it to the title of one of the sections. This is a trick we often use when the article title (which is often by a headline writer, not the article author) is linkbait or misleading. Assuming it covers the scope of the article, it's often better.
Thank you. Glad to see HN shifting to a more nuanced approach than the "almost always prefer the original headline" that was in vogue there for a season.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I changed it to the title of one of the sections. This is a trick we often use when the article title (which is often by a headline writer, not the article author) is linkbait or misleading. Assuming it covers the scope of the article, it's often better.
Thank you. Glad to see HN shifting to a more nuanced approach than the "almost always prefer the original headline" that was in vogue there for a season.
You're welcome! If I may, though, on the procedural point: neither the policy nor the practice re headlines has changed. We're doing just the same things we used to. The fact that it seems otherwise is an optical illusion, albeit a benign one which perhaps I shouldn't try to mess with.
The real change here is moderator feedback (two-way) in the threads, which people seem to agree is helping. I fear how meta it is, but we're still in a transitional phase. We'll eventually try receding a bit, after it's had time to sink in.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#9The author misses Gladwells premise from go. He said deliberate, not obsessive. His discussion was specifically focused on variance of experience and learning over that time.
The article doesn't mention Gladwell, and is actually quite good. (Edit: The title does, of course, and is quite bad. That's why we changed it. Misleading and/or linkbaity titles get changed.)
There's also that picture of him at the very top of the article.
Re: The Myth of Massed Practice
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't mention Gladwell, and is actually quite good. (Edit: The title does, of course, and is quite bad. That's why we changed it. Misleading and/or linkbaity titles get changed.)
There's also that picture of him at the very top of the article.
I hope Hacker News readers are smart enough to distinguish between the text of a serious article and bait applied by magazine editors, especially when the two are unrelated.