The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
greyenlightenment.com
The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#2Always had it in my mind that 10k is mastery of a topic and not as stated in that text that it makes perfect.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#3Don't the Polgár sisters contradict the author?
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#4This blogger is not very credible... have a sample of some of his other posts
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#5This blogger is not very credible... have a sample of some of his other posts http://greyenlightenment.com/2017/12/
Please don't commit the genetic fallacy here of all places.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#6The ugliest moments in history started with a "genetics matter"stance. Not worth repeating.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#7Keep 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 "growth mindset", Angela Duckworth "grit", etc.
- definition #2: "talent" is a ranking. This is the meaning emphasized by most people who are "looking for the most talented". E.g. sports teams for athletes, Hollywood for actors, Google/Microsoft for PhDs in mathematics and machine learning, etc.
If you're unaware of both meanings of "talent", you will always misunderstand what the other side is talking about. As a result, people will forever be bikshedding the word "talent" and stay frustrated that they can't convince the other side to change their mind!
The blog author of this thread also leaves out the meta discussion of "talent" and is using definition #2. The blog author (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) in my previous comment uses definition #1.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#8Seems like a miss to try and discredit the 10k hours and not mention Anders Ericsson. His work detailing deliberate practice is what spawned these 10k hours notions. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/anders-...
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#9This blogger is not very credible... have a sample of some of his other posts http://greyenlightenment.com/2017/12/
Please don't commit the genetic fallacy here of all places.
Dismissing the complaint that the author might be inaccurate or not as trustworthy as otherwise as simply the genetic fallacy is an instance of the fallacy fallacy, isn't it? Consider a poor news source such as the Daily Mail - I'd say it's justified to at least be more skeptical of the claims presented in any given Daily Mail article based on their history.
Re: The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth
#10Sometimes you can practice the wrong things, so I prefer:
Practice makes permanent.