4 ms·

I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting these numbers. If I look at deliberate practice in musical proficiency amongst the general populace, it'll look like d

I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting these numbers. If I look at deliberate practice in musical proficiency amongst the general populace, it'll look like deliberate practice is responsible for almost all of the proficiency. However, if I look at the top 100 musicians in the world, they would have all practiced thousands of hours and I expect practice to have diminishing returns, so it should be responsible for very little of the variation in their ability. I would expect also that in more multifactorial activities which are often the basis of professions that it is both A) difficult to ascertain what expertise is (often reducing to an empty social credential) B) difficult to evaluate what good deliberate practice is. The meta-analysis talks about such factors as the predictability of the environment correlating with the effect size of deliberate practice. I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.

jtmarmon 9y ago
The top 100 didn't all practice the same way, have the same experiences
JamesBarney 9y ago
I think you're right. What separates the average from the good is practice. What separates the good from the great is something different.
- roceasta 9y ago
  My guess is that 'low-latent inhibition' plus a great memory plus long practice make for mastery. http://www.lowlatentinhibition.org/what-is-lli/ http://www.lowlatentinhibition.org/what-is-lli/ (And those who force themselves to practice are going to get injuries like repetitive strain which are really a kind of 'inner rebellion' against this forcing.)
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    Never heard of LLI as lying on a spectrum that includes OCD, ADHD etc so thank you for that link.
6stringmerc 9y ago
As basically a lifetime musician (and second generation) I'd like to give some counter-points to your hypothesis regarding the "diminishing returns" notion and deliberate musical practice. I'll try to keep this light hearted - so as a guitarist, one learns the rules, and practices them, then grows and grows and grows. Eventually, one learns how to break a rule, but over time, bend it into something that resembles an existing rule or otherwise still interests an audience, and create rules whereby none existed before. Sometimes minor mistakes or oddities become wholesale innovations in the right hands (ex: Jimi Hendrix, Tom Morello) but are very much a byproduct of deliberate, routine, intense attention and practice. My experience is that music performance has an incredible power to both be-shaped-by-and-reciprocally-shape the human brain. The inherent elasticity and plasticity cross cultures. Generations. One of the most consistent observational effects though is that practice makes better in most cases.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  There's one or more quotes about this, one of them supposedly by Picasso: "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."
lj3 9y ago
> However, if I look at the top 100 musicians in the world, they would have all practiced thousands of hours and I expect practice to have diminishing returns, so it should be responsible for very little of the variation in their ability. I think you're talking about two different things here. There are lots of musicians and artists and writers who have mastered their craft but have no amount of creativity. The opposite is also true. There are quite a few writers and musicians and artists who are rather poor from a technical perspective, but they manage to use what they have to create enduring pieces of art. Peanuts would be a great example for art. Snow Crash for writing. Technical skill is one thing, but the ability to create an emotionally engaging piece of art is something else. Deliberate practice can only help with the former. As for the latter, John Cleese has an interesting perspective seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g

jtmarmon 9y ago

The top 100 didn't all practice the same way, have the same experiences

JamesBarney 9y ago

I think you're right. What separates the average from the good is practice. What separates the good from the great is something different.

roceasta 9y ago
My guess is that 'low-latent inhibition' plus a great memory plus long practice make for mastery. http://www.lowlatentinhibition.org/what-is-lli/ http://www.lowlatentinhibition.org/what-is-lli/ (And those who force themselves to practice are going to get injuries like repetitive strain which are really a kind of 'inner rebellion' against this forcing.)
- sah2ed 9y ago
  Never heard of LLI as lying on a spectrum that includes OCD, ADHD etc so thank you for that link.

6stringmerc 9y ago

As basically a lifetime musician (and second generation) I'd like to give some counter-points to your hypothesis regarding the "diminishing returns" notion and deliberate musical practice. I'll try to keep this light hearted - so as a guitarist, one learns the rules, and practices them, then grows and grows and grows. Eventually, one learns how to break a rule, but over time, bend it into something that resembles an existing rule or otherwise still interests an audience, and create rules whereby none existed before. Sometimes minor mistakes or oddities become wholesale innovations in the right hands (ex: Jimi Hendrix, Tom Morello) but are very much a byproduct of deliberate, routine, intense attention and practice. My experience is that music performance has an incredible power to both be-shaped-by-and-reciprocally-shape the human brain. The inherent elasticity and plasticity cross cultures. Generations. One of the most consistent observational effects though is that practice makes better in most cases.

Can_Not 9y ago
There's one or more quotes about this, one of them supposedly by Picasso: "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."

lj3 9y ago

> However, if I look at the top 100 musicians in the world, they would have all practiced thousands of hours and I expect practice to have diminishing returns, so it should be responsible for very little of the variation in their ability. I think you're talking about two different things here. There are lots of musicians and artists and writers who have mastered their craft but have no amount of creativity. The opposite is also true. There are quite a few writers and musicians and artists who are rather poor from a technical perspective, but they manage to use what they have to create enduring pieces of art. Peanuts would be a great example for art. Snow Crash for writing. Technical skill is one thing, but the ability to create an emotionally engaging piece of art is something else. Deliberate practice can only help with the former. As for the latter, John Cleese has an interesting perspective seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g