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

11–20 of 71 posts

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

#11

Post by SilasX »

jasode wrote: post #7

Keep 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 "…

Is that distinction really relevant to this debate? The advocates in #1, as best I can tell, would endorse the claims that you can improve by definition #2, except perhaps in pathological cases (like where everyone in the world is practicing at the same skill).

And anyone who disagrees with the claim in #1 would also disagree you can improve talent by #2.

I don't see how clarifying terms would make anyone think they were talking past each other.

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

#14

Post by padraigf »

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.

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

#15

Post by zwischenzug »

'Fisher was so smart and gifted at chess, he started at a pro level. His mind could work so quickly and efficiently at chess, that once he knew the rules, he could play as well as a pro, much like a computer that plays as well as a pro after the rules are programmed into it. He was probably initially playing at a 1,800-2,000 rating, which is considered a master, and practice got him to 2,500-2,900 very quickly, which is a grandmaster rating.'

This is just nonsense. Fischer started playing when very young and it is highly unlikely he was strong when he started. He studied like crazy before he played games in public.

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

#16

Post by AznHisoka »

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.

Such a nonsense article really. I know nobody that claims that 10,000 hours = makes you a top expert. Nonsense, just pure nonsense.

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

#17

Post by maxxxxx »

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.

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

#19

Post by orangecat »

SilasX wrote: post #11
jasode wrote: post #7

Keep 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 "…

Is that distinction really relevant to this debate? The advocates in #1, as best I can tell, would endorse the claims that you can improve by definition #2, except perhaps in pathological cases (like where everyone in the world is practicing at the same skill). And anyone who disagrees with the claim in #1 would also disagree you can improve talent by #2. I don't see how clarifying terms would make anyone think they…

And anyone who disagrees with the claim in #1 would also disagree you can improve talent by #2.

My view is that #1 is obviously false, but also that it can be possible to outperform someone with more natural talent by studying or practicing more effectively.

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

#20

Post by raxxorrax »

claudiawerner wrote: post #9
lj3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it was a joke. I dismiss the author by the choice of URLs. I don't mind lacking the talent to find more elaborate reasons.
Post reply on HN