5 ms·

Do you know anyone who has practiced drawing for, literally, thousands of hours and is not competent at it? I find that difficult to believe. There are people w

by scott_s 10y ago

Do you know anyone who has practiced drawing for, literally, thousands of hours and is not competent at it? I find that difficult to believe. There are people who can't form mental images, but that is considered a neurological condition (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11554894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11554894). I believe such people may never be competent at drawing, but that's not usually what people mean by "visual thinker." Personally, I think people put too much emphasis on "natural talent." There may be such a thing, but yes, I think that dedicated, deliberate practice over long periods of time is what makes the biggest difference, and it can beat out "natural talent" in the long run. But, I'm not entirely convinced "natural talent" is a thing. I'm unsure what is real and what is perceived and cultural myth on this subject.

nostrebored 10y ago
Right. Programming is also a terrible example. I think anyone who is not mentally handicapped would become an excellent programmer with 10k hours of practice. That's three and a half years of a 9-5 if you work 7 days a week. 5 years if you work 5 days a week. And I mean work to learn not work to put out a sub par product.
Fricken 10y ago
I was into BMX when I was young, and really wanted to learn how to manual (coasting on the back tire). I practiced this every day for 6 months, I got to being able to manual about 30 feet on a good run. One day, my friend who was a natural athlete but had no particular interest in BMX decided to give it a try. He had it figured out within an hour. It was pretty clear that 10,000 hours would get him a hell of a lot further than it would get me, and that it was time to divorce myself from any aspiration of becoming a professional, or even competent BMX rider. I rage quit. Natural talent is huge.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  Do you know how many hours he put into athleticism before that day? If you are a clutz like me, you probably did an hour less of athletic activity every day of your life than someone with an aptitude. Aptitude plants a seed that grows.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Agreed with your sentiment. What makes Fricken say his friend is a "natural athlete"? Is it just because Fricken did not see his friend practice athletic activities since being very young, or did Fricken's friend really excel at athletics without any practice? There are a lot of examples of athletes crossing over from one sport to another, because their prior sport's skills transfer well. I wouldn't say they are a "natural" at the new sport.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
asdf1234567890 10y ago
>Personally, I think people put too much emphasis on "natural talent." There may be such a thing... It's comforting to think that we are all capable of greatness. That doesn't make it so. It seems easier to accept with physical prowess. Do you think any amount of practice will bring me, an average Joe, even remotely close to the sprinting abilities of Usain Bolt? Clearly he was born with a physique that I was not. It's plain to see and so, natural physical talent is not something that is hard to accept. Why would natural mental talent be any different? btw: i'm a high school teacher. I see the difference between gifted, middle of the road and ... um how to put it kindly, academically challenged individuals all the time. It may not be very PC, but there are loads of dummies among us and there's not much they can do do lift themselves up to even basic levels of intelligence. And just to be clear I'm not talking about the intellectually disabled. > deliberate practice over long periods of time is what makes the biggest difference, and it can beat out "natural talent" No. It will only beat out natural talent that never bothered to hone the same skills. Combining natural talent with practice is simply unbeatable and no amount of deliberate practice will allow you to reach the same heights. This is patently obvious with physical ability. Why so hard to accept the same with mental ability?
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  > there's not much they can do do lift themselves up to even basic levels of intelligence. > And just to be clear I'm not talking about the intellectually disabled. below basic levels of intelligence, but not intellectually disable? Then what are you talking about? Perhaps you are talking about kids who have squandered their potential, or had it squandered by others.
  - asdf1234567890 10y ago
    you do realise that intelligence, like any other trait has variability among individuals? We don't all magically get the same amount at birth.
- scott_s 10y ago
  My main reservation with these discussions is how much unsubstantiated claims there are, based on anecdotes. You're assuming such a thing called "natural talent" exists, and ascribing success to it. There are other plausible explanations.
scottlocklin 10y ago
Yes, as a matter of fact, I know a woman who has been trying to be a representational painter for 10 years. The first time I saw a picture in her studio which was decent, it was her husband's first attempt at a portrait (he'd never used a paintbrush before). You may think natural talent doesn't count; but you can only think this because you've never been exposed to a sport, game or skill where someone had 4 sigma of natural talent on you.

by scott_s 10y ago

nostrebored 10y ago

Right. Programming is also a terrible example. I think anyone who is not mentally handicapped would become an excellent programmer with 10k hours of practice. That's three and a half years of a 9-5 if you work 7 days a week. 5 years if you work 5 days a week. And I mean work to learn not work to put out a sub par product.

Fricken 10y ago

I was into BMX when I was young, and really wanted to learn how to manual (coasting on the back tire). I practiced this every day for 6 months, I got to being able to manual about 30 feet on a good run. One day, my friend who was a natural athlete but had no particular interest in BMX decided to give it a try. He had it figured out within an hour. It was pretty clear that 10,000 hours would get him a hell of a lot further than it would get me, and that it was time to divorce myself from any aspiration of becoming a professional, or even competent BMX rider. I rage quit. Natural talent is huge.

srtjstjsj 10y ago
Do you know how many hours he put into athleticism before that day? If you are a clutz like me, you probably did an hour less of athletic activity every day of your life than someone with an aptitude. Aptitude plants a seed that grows.
- scott_s 10y ago
  Agreed with your sentiment. What makes Fricken say his friend is a "natural athlete"? Is it just because Fricken did not see his friend practice athletic activities since being very young, or did Fricken's friend really excel at athletics without any practice? There are a lot of examples of athletes crossing over from one sport to another, because their prior sport's skills transfer well. I wouldn't say they are a "natural" at the new sport.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

asdf1234567890 10y ago

>Personally, I think people put too much emphasis on "natural talent." There may be such a thing... It's comforting to think that we are all capable of greatness. That doesn't make it so. It seems easier to accept with physical prowess. Do you think any amount of practice will bring me, an average Joe, even remotely close to the sprinting abilities of Usain Bolt? Clearly he was born with a physique that I was not. It's plain to see and so, natural physical talent is not something that is hard to accept. Why would natural mental talent be any different? btw: i'm a high school teacher. I see the difference between gifted, middle of the road and ... um how to put it kindly, academically challenged individuals all the time. It may not be very PC, but there are loads of dummies among us and there's not much they can do do lift themselves up to even basic levels of intelligence. And just to be clear I'm not talking about the intellectually disabled. > deliberate practice over long periods of time is what makes the biggest difference, and it can beat out "natural talent" No. It will only beat out natural talent that never bothered to hone the same skills. Combining natural talent with practice is simply unbeatable and no amount of deliberate practice will allow you to reach the same heights. This is patently obvious with physical ability. Why so hard to accept the same with mental ability?

srtjstjsj 10y ago
> there's not much they can do do lift themselves up to even basic levels of intelligence. > And just to be clear I'm not talking about the intellectually disabled. below basic levels of intelligence, but not intellectually disable? Then what are you talking about? Perhaps you are talking about kids who have squandered their potential, or had it squandered by others.
- asdf1234567890 10y ago
  you do realise that intelligence, like any other trait has variability among individuals? We don't all magically get the same amount at birth.
scott_s 10y ago
My main reservation with these discussions is how much unsubstantiated claims there are, based on anecdotes. You're assuming such a thing called "natural talent" exists, and ascribing success to it. There are other plausible explanations.

scottlocklin 10y ago

Yes, as a matter of fact, I know a woman who has been trying to be a representational painter for 10 years. The first time I saw a picture in her studio which was decent, it was her husband's first attempt at a portrait (he'd never used a paintbrush before). You may think natural talent doesn't count; but you can only think this because you've never been exposed to a sport, game or skill where someone had 4 sigma of natural talent on you.