bdub77: If you ask me, if the work you do mentally exhausts you, you're probably doing something right.
moothemagiccow: It wasn't a rule, it was that dipshiat journalist Gladwell's ridiculous hypothesis. God that book was farking terrible.
Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly you've never seen me masturbate.
nmrsnr: Similarly with physical exercise. I don't think anybody who does squats with just the bar every day and curls with 5 pounds weights would ever say "Hey, why am I not getting stronger, I lift for an hour a day, every day?"
bdub77: It also depends how you practice. Practice should be HARD. Not repeat the same easy section for an hour, but repeat a hard section over and over until it sounds perfect, until you can do it 10 out of 10 times consistently. Which in some cases can be quite physically and mentally challenging.I've played the cello for more than 25 years (lately not very much) and let me tell you from personal experience, if you aren't practicing regularly AND practicing the right way, you'll never improve to a master level, let alone get through a difficult piece without some passages sounding like chickenscratch.Same goes with chess. Unless you are playing better players than you and learning stuff from a book, you probably won't improve much. If you ask me, if the work you do mentally exhausts you, you're probably doing something right.
I_Am_Weasel: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly you've never seen me masturbate.[s.mlkshk.com image 330x186]
Glockenspiel Hero: You can't be great without some inborn talent. (And the crapton of practice as well)
mechgreg: Agreed, inborn talent and other stuff you are born with is super important. I mean you can spend half your life in a swimming pool, but if you are the wrong body type you will never be as good as Michael Phelps.
Benevolent Misanthrope: Practice does not make perfect. Practice makes permanent. If you do it wrong 10,000 times, you'll be really good at doing it wrong.
Linux_Yes: What this study did not tell you is that Practice will help you bring in the Dollars. even if you don't ever become famous or sought after or "great".and THAT is what it really is all about, Folks.
Snarfangel: moothemagiccow: It wasn't a rule, it was that dipshiat journalist Gladwell's ridiculous hypothesis. God that book was farking terrible.He only spent 5,000 hours writing it. His second book will be much better.
doyner: moothemagiccow: It wasn't a rule, it was that dipshiat journalist Gladwell's ridiculous hypothesis. God that book was farking terrible.THIS.Talk about tripe. I get the main point of his thesis being timing and time, but twards the end it just devolved into mindless drivvel.
hammettman: Gladwell peddles things that people like to hear, there's no mystery as to why he's popular.
moothemagiccow: hammettman: Gladwell peddles things that people like to hear, there's no mystery as to why he's popular.He always uses phrasing like "we're told X, but actually..." although we're never explicitly told X by anyone, and he doesn't bother to cite anyone spouting X. It sounds like he's challenging conventional wisdom, but he's just knocking over his own strawmen and tricking the reader into thinking they're being let in on some big secret.
dittybopper: See, the thing about practice, if done correctly, is that it can make you the best X you can possibly be. But there will always be people, all other things being equal, that will have more ability to do X than the average person even with the same amount and type of training.
mr0x: The paper is saying exactly what you are saying is WRONG!
mr0x: The first page says,More than 20 years ago, researchers proposed that individual differences in performance in such domains as music, sports, and games largely reflect individual differences in amount of deliberate practice, which was defined as engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain.The paper is saying exactly what you are saying is WRONG!
Captain Wingo: mr0x: The paper is saying exactly what you are saying is WRONG!Yeah, but I wouldn't get too excited about what the paper says. It's complete shiat. The data is open-source, and I suggest people go look at it. (There's a handy summarization spreadsheet.) We're talking about a tiny amount of data that has been extrapolated into la-la-land.For instance: the article talks about "games" and cites chess as an example. Well, the ONLY game with any coverage in the research is chess. (Plus one Scrabble club's annual data.) Ther is no coverage of video games, card games, board games. You can't extrapolate about all "games" from just chess. It's asinine. But that's pretty small potatoes compared to the other overreaching parts of this study.The data about how valuable study is on "real world tasks" is also complete shiat. It's based on looking at how well some kids do in college intro courses. How much did they say they studied? How did that affect their grades? The end. And since this was a survey study, it just used data from other people's studies. There's no way to tell how many of those kids were seriously studying, how many were hung over, how many were flat out lying.I wouldn't be upset about this if they didn't call this a "comprehensive study." They looked at chess, a couple of college sports, and college weeder courses. And not a whole lot else.And this right here? Not defensible:Macnamara cited one study looking into chess masters. One person received chess master status after 3,000 hours of deliberate practice. But another had not achieved that status until he had had over 23,000 hours of deliberate practice.This seems like almost deliberate misreading of the study. The study was based on how many hours somebody practiced in a chess club, which they called "deliberately practicing". Turns out, though, that you can also "practice" chess on your phone, anywhere, anytime. That's not "deliberate practice", though, so it wouldn't count toward the bullshiat ...
bdub77: Which is garbage on any kind of quantitative basis. I can deliberately practice a piece for 30 minutes, but if i don't know how to really practice hard a section of that piece for improvement in the first place, that practice will not be a waste of time per se but it will be mostly a waste of time. It would be VERY difficult to capture that real data.I would in fact argue maybe only a third or half of that time is needed if properly practiced. 10000 hours is a LOT of time, 3 hours a day consistently for a decade. -- An hour for 30 years. --
Want more stories with less ads? Try
It's what the cool kids are doing.It's also how we pay the bills.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 21 2017 12:02:00
Runtime: 0.432 sec (431 ms)