21–30 of 66 posts
Actually, I find the debunking to be the opposite. It basically means, if you aren't already blessed - no amount of practice or training will get you very far anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? Being a mediocre hiker is perfectly adequate for a joyful day out with friends. Being a mediocre cook is sufficient for adding joy to your meals. Being a mediocre singer is enough to be a joyful and contributing member of a church choir. Thinking expertise is required to enjoy things definitely can blind you to the joy that can be found in mediocrity.
It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. It's very often used as an excuse to not even try. Nobody wants to be mediocre, just like nobody wants to be fat, but plenty of people will tell you they're perfectly happy in both of these scenarios. It's like most things in life, people don't care if you're mediocre or an expert, just don't brag about either
Hmm? I'm perfectly happy with my hiking performance that is usually about 30% slower than the estimated time for the marked trails i do. I see no reason to improve it because I don't make a living out of hiking.
Not all parts of your life have to be ultracompetitive.
"Which is why I find these debunkings of the 10,000-hour rule to be a complete relief." Actually, I find the debunking to be the opposite. It basically means, if you aren't already blessed - no amount of practice or training will get you very far anyways.
The author does not know what it is meant by "deliberate practice" nowadays. Everytime they use it, they should have written "rote practice" or, simply, "practice".
>Expert performance can, however, be traced to active engagement in deliberate practice (DP), where training (often designed and arranged by their teachers and coaches) is focused on improving particular tasks. DP also involves the provision of immediate feedback, time for problem-solving and evaluation, and opportunities for repeated performance to refine behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? Being a mediocre hiker is perfectly adequate for a joyful day out with friends. Being a mediocre cook is sufficient for adding joy to your meals. Being a mediocre singer is enough to be a joyful and contributing member of a church choir. Thinking expertise is required to enjoy things definitely can blind you to the joy that can be found in mediocrity.
It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. It's very often used as an excuse to not even try. Nobody wants to be mediocre, just like nobody wants to be fat, but plenty of people will tell you they're perfectly happy in both of these scenarios. It's like most things in life, people don't care if you're mediocre or an expert, just don't brag about either
After a point, it isn't about 'putting in the work'. If you are a mediocre cook, that's good enough. No need to put in any more work than that. You'll enjoy your food well enough and be able to feed yourself and your family healthy meals.
There is a lot to be said about something being good enough and not put any more effort in. This does include things like jobs: It doesn't matter much if you excel at mopping a store nor put the work in to be better: All anyone needs is good enough and effort is better used elsewhere.
And I'll brag if I want to. I generally don't, but I'm not going to say I suck at (hobby) when I don't believe it either. Society does not benefit by understating abilities.
Alternate title: “10k-hour rule confirmed though not quite as well as originally hoped” Much better link to the full text of the actual replication study, without the vox-splaining: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190327 From the abstract: “Overall, the size of the effect was substantial, but considerably smaller than the original study's effect size.” Regarding small sample sizes: “ The current s…
"replications with similar sample sizes (since that is all that is feasible) should also be allowed to enter the scientific record rather than be suppressed from publication." Fake it 'til you make it. That should be the slogan of the modern scientific process...
Actually, this is one step even better - version 1 of the manuscript, expect for results and discussion, was also preregistered.
The old - and wrong - scientific process was "only publish what is novel", leading to publication bias.
And all things considered, 10k hours is not that much, it is about five years in a full time job. A developer with 10k hours will not even have 5 years of job experience if you take into account time programming during school and university years if you start programming as a child or teenager. With that you have a good chance of not being a bad developer but less than 5 years of professional experience will almost certainly not make you a really good developer unless you started out as one of the rare gifted ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. It's very often used as an excuse to not even try. Nobody wants to be mediocre, just like nobody wants to be fat, but plenty of people will tell you they're perfectly happy in both of these scenarios. It's like most things in life, people don't care if you're mediocre or an expert, just don't brag about either
> It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. Hmm? I'm perfectly happy with my hiking performance that is usually about 30% slower than the estimated time for the marked trails i do. I see no reason to improve it because I don't make a living out of hiking. Not all parts of your life have to be ultracompetitive.
Again, nobody in the entire world prays for a mediocre life, a mediocre health, a mediocre salary, a mediocre partner. If you could put in the same amount of effort and get better results you'd accept on the spot. There is joy in things, no matter how good you are at them, but being mediocre at something certainly doesn't bring more than being average or good at it.
Alternate title: “10k-hour rule confirmed though not quite as well as originally hoped” Much better link to the full text of the actual replication study, without the vox-splaining: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190327 From the abstract: “Overall, the size of the effect was substantial, but considerably smaller than the original study's effect size.” Regarding small sample sizes: “ The current s…
This is very different from "10k-hour rule confirmed".
The study concludes that practice is positive, but it is a small part of being the best, practicing a lot won't make much of a difference to achieving elite status, although it is probably a requirement for it. The study also points out that the top players actually had practiced less than the average of good players.
And this is for violin playing (plus another meta-analysis on sports). While the 10k-hour rule is most often associated to Bill Gates, and technical, academic or business success (at least in HN circles). Very different domains where physical dexterity matters little and learning processes have nothing to do with internalizing complex movement.
The numbers discussed in the study are roughly around the 10k-hour ballpark (practice before the age of 18). But again, there's nothing indicating that this generalizes to anything other than violin playing. I think it is fairly obvious that different disciplines take different time to master, although I haven't looked into the studies about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this [1] is what 10000 hours of practice gets you there for example (the guy has been the World #1 for a good while now). This is false since it misses that tiny part called "ability", so there are plenty of people that can invest as much time and never get as good, but then I guess that's also taking it too literally. Though the solution to the latter part is not to create fake rules with such literal numbers to m…
This is very true which is why athletes with certain body types will simply never win in certain roles. With that said, I'm pretty confident that a swimmer with the wrong build could, with lots of practice, get within a small margin of a gold medal olympic swimmer that has the right build to win. Without that practice they would be laps behind.
So no, the whole point is that a swimmer with the wrong build wouldn't get anywhere close to gold just with lots of practice.