3 ms·

Thanks for the excellent critique of my article! You're right, the point I'm making is that becoming THAT KIND of so-called "expert" isn't the point of a compa

Thanks for the excellent critique of my article! You're right, the point I'm making is that becoming THAT KIND of so-called "expert" isn't the point of a company. Actually I'm not refuting arguments about how to become an expert in the first place, I'm refuting the idea that you NEED to do that. I believe that theme is pretty clear throughout. Finally, if it really does take 10k hours and ONLY if it's a special kind of dedication, then it's almost a tautology, and an irrelevant activity for almost anyone on Earth.

orc 17y ago
I think this is an important question - do you "NEED" to become a 10,000 hour "expert" ? I would never want to stereotype the entire population of earth and say that you're a failure if you're not an expert at something. Is it good to be an expert? Of course. But it's not required - there are many paths to life.
skmurphy 17y ago
I think Jason is ignoring is the core of Ericsson's insight, the value of deliberate practice. Jason highlights the value of getting started, that startups are a "come are you are party" but seems to suggest that passion can substitute for learning from your mistakes. This sounds like the "Little Engine That Could" model (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could ) of repeating "I think I can, I think I can,..." which is no substitute for learning from your mistakes. What's the best way to learn from your mistakes? What Ericsson calls "deliberate practice." Here is a simple example that I think most entrepreneurs would find readily applicable, taken from an interview with Anders in Fast Company (see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html ): "Medical diagnosticians see a patient once or twice, make an assessment in an effort to solve a particularly difficult case, and then they move on. They may never see him or her again. I recently interviewed a highly successful diagnostician who works very differently. He spends a lot of his own time checking up on his patients, taking extensive notes on what he's thinking at the time of diagnosis, and checking back to see how accurate he is. This extra step he created gives him a significant advantage compared with his peers. It lets him better understand how and when he's improving. In general, elite performers utilize some technique that typically isn't well known or widely practiced." This model is certainly directly applicable to both engineering and sales & marketing problems.
- smartbear 17y ago
  To me, "deliberate practice" is a cop-out. If you practice like crazy and still aren't good, it's because it wasn't the RIGHT practice? It's like the horoscope saying "keep your eyes open for an opportunity today." If an opportunity doesn't appear, it's because I wasn't open enough. You can't tell me Michael Phelps is fastest because no one else practiced as deliberately. It sounds like an excuse to avoid admitting that there are also innate differences between people, and luck.
  - lief79 17y ago
    Well, it's rather obvious that 10,000 hours of practicing golfing strokes without spending any time learning how to aim would be a waste of time. From what I can see, this doesn't inherently conflict with your claims about innate differences or luck, but it does indicate that there is value in practicing things correctly and potentially little value in practicing things incorrectly. Obviously a fully grown 4 foot individual won't become center for the basketball team, but only practicing 3 point shots won't help someone who is 7 feet tall do much better in the pocket (under the net). Can you please explain what I am missing?
    - smartbear 17y ago
      What you're missing: That many people do "deliberate practice" and yet there are large differences in skill. Of course flailing around isn't practice. The notion that "perfect practice makes perfect" or "practices doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent" has been around forever, no need for special studies to explain that. But everyone at the Olympics, for example, has done extreme, deliberate practice, and yet most of the competitors are so bad they don't even televise it. Finally, the point of the article IS NOT about HOW to become an expert, it's questioning the notion that becoming an expert is necessarily the goal. Or, saying that you become successful at [anything] as a by-product of your work, not because you become "an expert" and THEN do interesting work. And further, that people (like Penelope) shouldn't get hung up on being "an expert" by some arbitrary definition when she's in fact quite successful and could be just focussed on what to do next.

orc 17y ago

I think this is an important question - do you "NEED" to become a 10,000 hour "expert" ? I would never want to stereotype the entire population of earth and say that you're a failure if you're not an expert at something. Is it good to be an expert? Of course. But it's not required - there are many paths to life.

skmurphy 17y ago

I think Jason is ignoring is the core of Ericsson's insight, the value of deliberate practice. Jason highlights the value of getting started, that startups are a "come are you are party" but seems to suggest that passion can substitute for learning from your mistakes. This sounds like the "Little Engine That Could" model (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could ) of repeating "I think I can, I think I can,..." which is no substitute for learning from your mistakes. What's the best way to learn from your mistakes? What Ericsson calls "deliberate practice." Here is a simple example that I think most entrepreneurs would find readily applicable, taken from an interview with Anders in Fast Company (see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html ): "Medical diagnosticians see a patient once or twice, make an assessment in an effort to solve a particularly difficult case, and then they move on. They may never see him or her again. I recently interviewed a highly successful diagnostician who works very differently. He spends a lot of his own time checking up on his patients, taking extensive notes on what he's thinking at the time of diagnosis, and checking back to see how accurate he is. This extra step he created gives him a significant advantage compared with his peers. It lets him better understand how and when he's improving. In general, elite performers utilize some technique that typically isn't well known or widely practiced." This model is certainly directly applicable to both engineering and sales & marketing problems.

smartbear 17y ago
To me, "deliberate practice" is a cop-out. If you practice like crazy and still aren't good, it's because it wasn't the RIGHT practice? It's like the horoscope saying "keep your eyes open for an opportunity today." If an opportunity doesn't appear, it's because I wasn't open enough. You can't tell me Michael Phelps is fastest because no one else practiced as deliberately. It sounds like an excuse to avoid admitting that there are also innate differences between people, and luck.
- lief79 17y ago
  Well, it's rather obvious that 10,000 hours of practicing golfing strokes without spending any time learning how to aim would be a waste of time. From what I can see, this doesn't inherently conflict with your claims about innate differences or luck, but it does indicate that there is value in practicing things correctly and potentially little value in practicing things incorrectly. Obviously a fully grown 4 foot individual won't become center for the basketball team, but only practicing 3 point shots won't help someone who is 7 feet tall do much better in the pocket (under the net). Can you please explain what I am missing?
  - smartbear 17y ago
    What you're missing: That many people do "deliberate practice" and yet there are large differences in skill. Of course flailing around isn't practice. The notion that "perfect practice makes perfect" or "practices doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent" has been around forever, no need for special studies to explain that. But everyone at the Olympics, for example, has done extreme, deliberate practice, and yet most of the competitors are so bad they don't even televise it. Finally, the point of the article IS NOT about HOW to become an expert, it's questioning the notion that becoming an expert is necessarily the goal. Or, saying that you become successful at [anything] as a by-product of your work, not because you become "an expert" and THEN do interesting work. And further, that people (like Penelope) shouldn't get hung up on being "an expert" by some arbitrary definition when she's in fact quite successful and could be just focussed on what to do next.