4 ms·
First "expert" should be defined. If by expert you mean someone better than 90% of all humanity at some task X, then the time to get to this level could be ord
by jfaucett 11y ago
First "expert" should be defined.
If by expert you mean someone better than 90% of all humanity at some task X, then the time to get to this level could be orders of magnitide smaller than a 95%, which itself is orders of magnitude smaller than 99.9% i.e. (pro/olympic athletes, concert pianists, etc).
If you don't agree please offer a counter example. Besides all sports, lets consider juggling. Here, 1-2 hours can make you better than about 80% of the population, but becoming a passable street juggler will take months, and a proffesional artists who can innovate as a juggler probably many years.
Essentially, my hypothesis is that improvements in a task X decrease exponentially over time.
- nandemo 11y agoSee The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance by Ericsson. The data supports your hypothesis.
- nandemo 11y agoSee The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance by Ericsson. The data supports your hypothesis.
- Jtsummers 11y agoDoes it actually make sense to define an expert as skill relative to others? If I define my own programming language and am the only one that knows it, I'm inherently an expert in it by this definition. I'm better than |world population| - 1 people with this language. However, I may not actually be an expert. I could have created something beyond my ability to truly master (or that I haven't mastered to the level of expert yet).