41–50 of 69 posts
Always sad to see this myth live on. It is simultaneously as self-evident as it is nonsensical. 1) Yes you get better with practice 2) Some faster than others 3) Some with a higher peak than others 4) It is neither necessary, nor sufficient with 10 000 hours effective practice (some win the world championship in high jump after less than a year [Donald Thomas 2007], others will never become chess champions, or even r…
Always sad to see this myth live on. It is simultaneously as self-evident as it is nonsensical. 1) Yes you get better with practice 2) Some faster than others 3) Some with a higher peak than others 4) It is neither necessary, nor sufficient with 10 000 hours effective practice (some win the world championship in high jump after less than a year [Donald Thomas 2007], others will never become chess champions, or even r…
10,000 hours has got to be the least interesting concept in the body of work around deliberate practice. But it is somehow the concept that is most widely known. I would love to know the psychology behind why that concept was so sticky given that it seems self-evidently worthless to know where the theoretical cap on self-improvement lies. I mean, how many things do we put 10k hours of practice in to? The much better…
The hope that you could be one of the best in the world if you just worked hard enough.
The hope that it's not too late.
Related is The Dan Plan in which a chap is trying to become a pro golfer by dedicating 10,000 hours to it (from zero experience) [1]. I seem to recall it was after Malcolm Gladwell claimed that it takes that long to achieve mastery in a discipline. Dan's almost at the 5 year mark now. I check back a couple of times a year to see how he's getting on. [1] http://www.thedanplan.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't his claim originally; he took a paper and summarized it in the 10,000 hour rule, even the original paper author has denied the claim stated as such.
There is a better summary of the studies in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" From what I remember, the claim is that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice work best when: 1. You get immediate feedback on success and failure 2. The thing you are trying to master has a skill set that can be improved, and that improving that skill is sufficient. That #2 is tricky -- a counter example is stock picking. We have no evidence that th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, it would probably be helpful if you told us your definition of the word "expert".
Please, see taylorhou response.
Great - so you agree that to many people he would be considered an expert. And so, to all but the elite players, he is an expert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10,000 hours has got to be the least interesting concept in the body of work around deliberate practice. But it is somehow the concept that is most widely known. I would love to know the psychology behind why that concept was so sticky given that it seems self-evidently worthless to know where the theoretical cap on self-improvement lies. I mean, how many things do we put 10k hours of practice in to? The much better…
The 10k hour concept is sticky/durable because it holds out hope. The hope that you could be one of the best in the world if you just worked hard enough. The hope that it's not too late.
1. Actionable - As demonstrated in the blog post, there is a step-by-step set of actions to be carried out.
2. Authentic/Believable - No one doubts (without serious consideration) that any expert hasn't spent 10,000 hours on their craft.
3. Concrete/Measurable - It's a very specific amount.
4. Relevant - It's known that it takes a lot of work to become an expert and who doesn't want to become an expert?
5. Simple
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be interesting to see how well Gladwell's claim stands up to empirical testing.
What is it you imagine Gladwell's "claim" to be? Because he's repudiated the idea that he or any other informed researcher claimed 10,000 hours was some magic number, or that practice alone is a substitute for talent: http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/complexity-and-... It would have been more accurate to say "It will be interesting to see how well a gross mischaracterisation of Gladwell's claim stands up…
That Gladwell later wrote a much, much less popular article for the New Yorker in which he walked back that totally outlandish claim doesn't justify indignation at people remembering what he wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good read on the 10,000 hour myth. I can't remember where I originally heard that the idea as pushed by Gladwell has been debunked, probably the You are not so smart podcast. I've no personal insight to say whether this is a rule or a myth but the original researcher seems to disagree with the popsci understanding of it. http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/
A research paper authored last year cited a study which found that only 30% of the variation in performance could be attributed to deliberate practice. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree that this guy did not actually reach expert status. You're correct in labeling him an enthusiast. I think, though, if he'd hit his goal of ranking in the top 250 for England, there'd be a compelling argument for considering him an expert. At some point, "expert" status necessarily comes down to a subjective and somewhat arbitrary line between players that are very close in skill. Are the top 10 expert…
"I totally agree that this guy did not actually reach expert status. You're correct in labeling him an enthusiast." You are such a hypocrite. If you are 250 in England it does not give you a compelling argument to consider yourself an expert at this SPORT unless there are 250 players from England, who are ranked in ITTF. I guarantee you that a person, who is in top 50 in England is not even close in skill to the one,…
You need to let go of the belief that you own the definition of "expert". Firstly, you've been unable to even define what "expert" means to you. Secondly, others clearly don't agree with you on what "expert" means. There is no universal standard for what constitutes an expert. It's a subjective call. If you think that only the top 50 people worldwide are experts in table tennis, I guess that's fine, but you should perhaps be a bit less hostile about it.
I do find it odd that you say all doctors are experts. This is a strangely liberal application of the term "expert" given that you're so stingy with the term as applied to table tennis. There are 10 thousand medical experts in England but not 250 table tennis experts? It must be damned hard to become a table tennis expert.
Always sad to see this myth live on. It is simultaneously as self-evident as it is nonsensical. 1) Yes you get better with practice 2) Some faster than others 3) Some with a higher peak than others 4) It is neither necessary, nor sufficient with 10 000 hours effective practice (some win the world championship in high jump after less than a year [Donald Thomas 2007], others will never become chess champions, or even r…
The key to greatness is not making the same mistake twice.