3 ms·

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 horoscop

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.
  - lief79 17y ago
    I agree with the last 3 points, I was only responding to your previous post. Take a look at the original studies, or the Scientific American article for a quicker read. (I read it in paper form, so you can probably find it as easily as I can). As for deliberate practice, the idea sheds some light onto the right and wrong ways to do it. It seems to come back to the theme of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Deliberate practice is paying attention to the quality of the practice, and continuing to improve the quality. If this is accurate, then it should increase the differences in skill, as the individuals address their own various physical limits. It seems that the difference in the quality of the practice is one of the reasons people pay more for experts to teach them. I think the Olympics can just as easily be used to support the idea, as everyone's practice routines will vary. Furthermore, studies of conventional wisdom often reveal conventional wisdom to be wrong, so I can't dismiss them. If the results make it easier for people to successfully perform "deliberate practice", then they will probably be well worth the money spent.
skmurphy 17y ago
My answers are yes, yes (everyday gets opportunities every day, but as Edison observed "too often they are dressed in overalls and look like work"), mix of ability and practice, and I agree that people are different and different teams get different opportunities. But it sounds like relying on luck and innate differences is an excuse for not learning from your mistakes. This is a "Random Walk" model for startup success where you begin at a random point (your innate abilities) and wander buffeted by luck in some kind of entrepreneurial Brownian motion. Clearly luck plays a role, but I believe, like Pasteur, that "inspiration only favors the prepared mind." You have to know what you are looking for in advance. And it turns out this skill can be learned as well. Reasonable men may differ, but I think there is considerable evidence that experience helps startups differentiate beyond naive ability or luck, and that deliberate practice prevents you from experiencing the same event over and over without learning from it. For another take on this see Carol Dweck's mindset model at http://www.mindsetonline.com/ http://www.mindsetonline.com/ which documents research that folks who believe that effort makes a difference learn faster than those who trust to innate ability. What's most pernicious about this belief is that it can lead you to manage people in a way that doesn't admit of their ability to improve.

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.
- lief79 17y ago
  I agree with the last 3 points, I was only responding to your previous post. Take a look at the original studies, or the Scientific American article for a quicker read. (I read it in paper form, so you can probably find it as easily as I can). As for deliberate practice, the idea sheds some light onto the right and wrong ways to do it. It seems to come back to the theme of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Deliberate practice is paying attention to the quality of the practice, and continuing to improve the quality. If this is accurate, then it should increase the differences in skill, as the individuals address their own various physical limits. It seems that the difference in the quality of the practice is one of the reasons people pay more for experts to teach them. I think the Olympics can just as easily be used to support the idea, as everyone's practice routines will vary. Furthermore, studies of conventional wisdom often reveal conventional wisdom to be wrong, so I can't dismiss them. If the results make it easier for people to successfully perform "deliberate practice", then they will probably be well worth the money spent.

skmurphy 17y ago

My answers are yes, yes (everyday gets opportunities every day, but as Edison observed "too often they are dressed in overalls and look like work"), mix of ability and practice, and I agree that people are different and different teams get different opportunities. But it sounds like relying on luck and innate differences is an excuse for not learning from your mistakes. This is a "Random Walk" model for startup success where you begin at a random point (your innate abilities) and wander buffeted by luck in some kind of entrepreneurial Brownian motion. Clearly luck plays a role, but I believe, like Pasteur, that "inspiration only favors the prepared mind." You have to know what you are looking for in advance. And it turns out this skill can be learned as well. Reasonable men may differ, but I think there is considerable evidence that experience helps startups differentiate beyond naive ability or luck, and that deliberate practice prevents you from experiencing the same event over and over without learning from it. For another take on this see Carol Dweck's mindset model at http://www.mindsetonline.com/ http://www.mindsetonline.com/ which documents research that folks who believe that effort makes a difference learn faster than those who trust to innate ability. What's most pernicious about this belief is that it can lead you to manage people in a way that doesn't admit of their ability to improve.