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

Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#31

Post by AstralStorm »

klum wrote: post #27
hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

I think in a similar way, and one of the nice consequences of this is, as you mention, that there's hope: you can try to attack your problem in as many ways as possible from as many angles as possible and find the "tiny unspoken thing" in a context one might not normally expect it.

Might be that creativity is a heritable part of talent too. Generating multiple contexts, finding those tiny inspirations.

An interesting counterpart is that our current education systems are trying their best to suppress creativity and give fish instead of a fishing rod.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#32

Post by nylsaar »

hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

Your theory suggests all people are equivalent, but learn by happenstance. To further your theory, would people in a set of skills have random attributes? It would be interesting to see if all chess grandmasters share any common traits, or not.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#33

Post by reitanqild »

carsongross wrote: post #5
bagacrap wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a small, elite training club only take in a relatively small number of athletes that have already shown innate talent? Likewise, top universities will turn out a large number of top scientists. They've already selected for potential at the point of admission.

You may as well try to reason a Catholic out of the Virgin Birth, friend. I should know. I'm Catholic.

Heads up: I think you are downvoted mostly because people fail to see the link (I didn't either).

(Yes, another Christian here, although not Catholic. There seems to be a few of us here only it seems we mostly try to stay technical.)

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#34

Post by something_ »

Growing up, my grandfather tried to instill two major ideas in me and my siblings. The first being that perfect was an impossible goal, only achievable under artificial circumstances. Secondly, that practice makes permanent, so be mindful of what you're practicing.

The first part always seemed reasonable, but I have had a lot of trouble with the second part. I recently gave up playing golf when I finally realized I had spent 20 years practicing being angry.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#35

Post by hnarn »

mikebenfield wrote: post #23

I read The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, co-edited by K. Anders Ericsson, the psychology professor mentioned in this article. His work inspired Malcolm Gladwell's popular work on deliberate practice. I found Ericsson and co's ideas to be completely counter to their data. A lot of the articles were based on case studies. They studied wrestlers and wrestling coaches, for instance. The wrestlin…

When you say "these guys were in a position to win local and regional powerlifting competitions with basically no training at all", do you have any similar examples for things like chess tournaments? Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player but I have a hard time seeing how a genius who never played chess before just sits down, learns the game and then beats a grand master on the first try through genetics alone.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#36

Post by lightedman »

AstralStorm wrote: post #24
bradhe wrote: post #16

I used to have a band teacher who said "practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."

Except nobody knows how that works. And even perfect practice will not help a person who is actually tone deaf.

"And even perfect practice will not help a person who is actually tone deaf."

Worked out well enough for Beethoven, Smetana, and Faure.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#37

Post by gcav »

hnarn wrote: post #35
mikebenfield wrote: post #23

I read The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, co-edited by K. Anders Ericsson, the psychology professor mentioned in this article. His work inspired Malcolm Gladwell's popular work on deliberate practice. I found Ericsson and co's ideas to be completely counter to their data. A lot of the articles were based on case studies. They studied wrestlers and wrestling coaches, for instance. The wrestlin…

When you say "these guys were in a position to win local and regional powerlifting competitions with basically no training at all", do you have any similar examples for things like chess tournaments? Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player but I have a hard time seeing how a genius who never played chess before just sits down, learns the ga…

I think there should be at least somewhat of a distinction between athletic events and other activities. Not to dismiss the technical complexity of a deadlift (especially at those poundages), but it's fair to assume most people have picked up an object off the ground. Through general human movement they have more experience/practice with the activity as opposed to chess or the piano

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#38

Post by neom »

hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

In my opinion, this is why dyslexic folks think differently and neurodiversity is real.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#39

Post by hal9000xp »

nylsaar wrote: post #32
hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

Your theory suggests all people are equivalent, but learn by happenstance. To further your theory, would people in a set of skills have random attributes? It would be interesting to see if all chess grandmasters share any common traits, or not.

My theory doesn't suggest that all people are equivalent. As I stated pure intellect lies in metacognition.

I also think that learning or solving problems is not deterministic algorithm, it's a heuristic. If it's heuristic there are lots of random elements and tuning.

Obviously, everybody have their own "hardware" limit determined by genes but often people make big mistake thinking they already reached their limit by simply getting stuck in some topic without seriously and very fundamentally reconsider their whole approach to the problem or learning process itself.

I think often in these situations, possible limit is much, much, much higher than one might think.

Re: Practice Doesn't Make Perfect

#40

Post by dwaltrip »

nylsaar wrote: post #32
hal9000xp wrote: post #14

I have my own theory. The idea is that there are lots, lots and lots of tiny unspoken things which could make huge difference in long run. And those who successful doesn't necessary know their own tiny things they got right. Let's say there are two persons A and B who is training in chess. Person A trained for X hours and became chess master. Person B trained for 10X hours and didn't get even close to master level. T…

Your theory suggests all people are equivalent, but learn by happenstance. To further your theory, would people in a set of skills have random attributes? It would be interesting to see if all chess grandmasters share any common traits, or not.

I'm not OP, but I don't think that was an intended implication. It is my understanding that the genetic component of intelligence is widely acknowledged. I think the OP's model is still valid and useful, despite genetically-driven differences.
Post reply on HN