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

How to do deliberate practice

thetalentcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#21

Post by teach »

raju wrote: post #19

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I am not quite sure how to apply it, to say learning a new (programming) language (I have been playing with Clojure for a while now but am nowhere near productive in it). I guess the part that confuses me is the first step - "R stands for Reaching/Repeating" - How exactly would you apply this to learning a new language, framework, algorithm? Folks here on HN - Any…

When I wanted to get better at Python, I started working through the problems at Project Euler[0], because they were novel and interesting. Also, many of them needed non-trivial optimizations to produce an answer in a reasonable amount of time.

After about 20-25 problems, I found myself reaching for the Python docs way less.

[0] http://projecteuler.net/

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#22

Post by spottiness »

nerfhammer wrote: post #14
sayemm wrote: post #7

Here's a good piece by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson on Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice , he's the guy who's pretty much behind all this research on deliberate practice and the making of outliers - http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.ht...

Here's a whole book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842948/ref=as_li_tf_tl?...

I read this book and although I enjoyed it and found it interesting, I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. According to the author, almost everybody can become great at anything given the right motivation, hard-work, and coaching. I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced coaches say, and my own experience through 19 years of schooling. In other words, a lot of (non-scientific) evidence suggests that great performers have above average innate abilities in what they do. These abilities are common in the population but in no way general to most people. So, those born with the "extra" in a particular field, paired with great couches, family support, and an emotional fabric that keeps them focused for a long time, will have the chance of making it to the highest.

(I have a friend that thinks otherwise and I tell him: "Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have become Nobel Prize winners in Physics given the right nurturing conditions?". According to the author of this book, almost all of them)

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#23

Post by Isamu »

spottiness wrote: post #22
nerfhammer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a whole book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842948/ref=as_li_tf_tl?...

I read this book and although I enjoyed it and found it interesting, I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. According to the author, almost everybody can become great at anything given the right motivation, hard-work, and coaching. I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced coaches say, and my own experience through 19 years of schooling. In other words, a lot of (…

> I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent.

Several recent books are doing that. But I think the common claim is that people who have become great have done so through training, and the effect of innate talent seems to be secondary at best.

They don't claim the opposite - that with the right training anyone will be great. Only that greatness is primarily due to the right training. It implies that a person of normal natural abilities has a shot at becoming world-class, but it's not a guarantee.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#24

Post by kenjackson »

spottiness wrote: post #22
nerfhammer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a whole book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842948/ref=as_li_tf_tl?...

I read this book and although I enjoyed it and found it interesting, I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. According to the author, almost everybody can become great at anything given the right motivation, hard-work, and coaching. I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced coaches say, and my own experience through 19 years of schooling. In other words, a lot of (…

I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced couches say

Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective?

With that said, there is a guy, Dan, who is testing this theory with golf. We still have a few more years to see if it works.

http://thedanplan.com/

"Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have become Nobel Prize winners in Physics given the right nurturing conditions?". According to the author of this book, almost all of them

I haven't read the book, but have read articles. I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level. There's a pretty big gap between being a Chem expert and winning the Nobel prize in it.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#25

Post by crb »

wccrawford wrote: post #4

I actually disagree with the 'play perfectly' example. It emphasizes the beginning of the practice and de-emphasizes the end. If playing the whole thing 20 times is boring, imagine how boring it is to play the beginning over and over until you get the whole thing perfect 5 times? Guitar hero has a mode that lets you practice pieces of a song. You can practice each segment to perfection, then play the whole song. This…

I had a teacher in intermediate school (age 11/12) whose variant was "practice makes /permanent/". If you practice something wrong a certain number of times - in his example, 7 - you're learning it wrong, and your muscle memory will retain the 'wrong' method.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#26

Post by spottiness »

kenjackson wrote: post #24
spottiness wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this book and although I enjoyed it and found it interesting, I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. According to the author, almost everybody can become great at anything given the right motivation, hard-work, and coaching. I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced coaches say, and my own experience through 19 years of schooling. In other words, a lot of (…

I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced couches say Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective? With that said, there is a guy, Dan, who is testing this theory with golf. We still have a few more years to see if it works. http://thedanplan.com/ "Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have…

>>Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective?

:) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.)

>>there is a guy, Dan...

Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other.

>>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level.

Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" with great coaching. The author doesn't make any distinction between expert level and super high achievers.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#27

Post by kenjackson »

spottiness wrote: post #26
kenjackson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced couches say Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective? With that said, there is a guy, Dan, who is testing this theory with golf. We still have a few more years to see if it works. http://thedanplan.com/ "Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have…

>>Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective? :) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.) >>there is a guy, Dan... Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other. >>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level. Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,…

Not the same Dan. This is just some guy who read about the 10,000 hour thing and decided to test it on himself.

Regarding how good can one get -- the term used by the research is expert. But, at least in the papers I read, they don't make it clear what expert is. For example read:

http://www.ida.liu.se/~nilda/Anders_Ericsson/Ericsson_delib_...

But in my own personal theory... you become Michael Jordan by doing the 10,000 hours+ and having innate gifts. You get a basketball scholarship (D1-D3) by doing the 10,000 hours.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#28

Post by spottiness »

kenjackson wrote: post #27
spottiness wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective? :) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.) >>there is a guy, Dan... Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other. >>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level. Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,…

Not the same Dan. This is just some guy who read about the 10,000 hour thing and decided to test it on himself. Regarding how good can one get -- the term used by the research is expert. But, at least in the papers I read, they don't make it clear what expert is. For example read: http://www.ida.liu.se/~nilda/Anders_Ericsson/Ericsson_delib_... But in my own personal theory... you become Michael Jordan by doing the 10…

Thanks for the pointers. I'll read it later tonight...

My own personal theory is similar to yours: among the genetically very tall males, there is a lot of people with the innate abilities of Michael Jordan (let's make it 40% of the original set). From that subset, those that put the 10,000 hours with great teachers plus other things will become the likes of Michael Jordan.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#29

Post by spottiness »

Isamu wrote: post #23
spottiness wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this book and although I enjoyed it and found it interesting, I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. According to the author, almost everybody can become great at anything given the right motivation, hard-work, and coaching. I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced coaches say, and my own experience through 19 years of schooling. In other words, a lot of (…

> I think that the author undervalues the importance of innate talent. Several recent books are doing that. But I think the common claim is that people who have become great have done so through training, and the effect of innate talent seems to be secondary at best. They don't claim the opposite - that with the right training anyone will be great. Only that greatness is primarily due to the right training. It implie…

>>It implies that a person of normal natural abilities has a shot at becoming world-class

The key lies in the definition of normal. Does it mean no less than 1 standard deviation below average? Does it mean above average? Above 1 standard deviation and less than 2? See, people in all those ranges are normal, and just by reducing a little the scope of "normal" a lot of people are filtered out.

My conjecture is that at least above average innate abilities are required, which by definition leaves out half the population.

Re: How to do deliberate practice

#30

Post by nandemo »

wccrawford wrote: post #4

I actually disagree with the 'play perfectly' example. It emphasizes the beginning of the practice and de-emphasizes the end. If playing the whole thing 20 times is boring, imagine how boring it is to play the beginning over and over until you get the whole thing perfect 5 times? Guitar hero has a mode that lets you practice pieces of a song. You can practice each segment to perfection, then play the whole song. This…

> Guitar hero has a mode that lets you practice pieces of a song. You can practice each segment to perfection, then play the whole song. This targeted practice should be a lot more effective and still obey the idea of what he's saying.

That's exactly what he's saying: "a violin student trying to perfect a short, tough passage in a song". Passage, not the whole piece. To practice the whole piece, you divide it in overlapping passages and master each passage. It's "boring" but it works.

Post reply on HN