4 ms·

My issue is that since all hobbies are time-killing activities that time ceases to be a useful measure. The majority of people who spend 10,000 hours doing some

by Nadya 8y ago

My issue is that since all hobbies are time-killing activities that time ceases to be a useful measure. The majority of people who spend 10,000 hours doing something eventually become skilled or knowledgeable at that thing - but not always. If you remain poorly skilled and not very knowledgeable on a thing after 10,000 hours I'm going to assume those hours were spent "casually" and not with a lot of focus to learn and improve. In my view, if you only casually spend your time doing something that makes you a casual by definition. We use all sorts of labels that have an implied threshold before people will apply the label to another person. In your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? Where do you draw the line between "translator" and "can translate a few sentences between two languages"? Is anyone capable of swinging a tennis racket a tennis player? Is an advocate for homeopathic treatments the same as a doctor? If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, if I said I handle high-frequency financial transactions for a well-known, international, multi-million dollar company is your first thought a cashier at a McDonalds? For some reason gaming is somehow exempt in some people's minds. They apply the label so broadly that it may as well be meaningless.

beat 8y ago
Speaking as someone who has spent decades mastering a hobby craft (playing guitar)... first, if someone is involved in a hobby consistently at all, then the label applies. Terrible guitarists are as much guitarists as geniuses are. This is not to equate the players - only to equate the labels. You need something more precise to distinguish. My son is a hardcore gamer. My spouse is a gamer, but not a hardcore gamer. When more committed gamers say "That's not a real gamer", it's about exclusion and snobbery, not a real measure of anything else, including talent and skill (fwiw, my spouse would probably trounce you at her games). So be very careful when taking this position that you're being distinctive rather than judgmental. Another thing I've observed is that people who have committed their 10,000 hours and become really, really good are often in doubt about their own abilities. That's because they notice things that less experienced people do not. After 35 years of playing guitar, I feel I know less about it now than I did when I'd been playing for two years. The sense of scope of what I don't know is overwhelming sometimes.
- Nadya 8y ago
  I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby and I'm the first one in every morning by a few hours, giving me time to dabble with it alone. Dunning-kruger doesn't prevent them from being able to explain things (even if not necessarily in "formal terms", there are plenty of talented musicians out there who don't know a lick of music theory!) or perform at levels that an unpracticed person could. Almost anyone who picks up a guitar could learn a basic version of Deep Purple or Ironman or the intro riff to Enter Sandman in a few hours, barring any physical limitations. But you're not going to be cranking out improv solos or a jazz chord progression without any practice whatsoever. To ask again, in your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? I personally feel there is an important distinction, if only to convey information accurately, between saying "I am a master pianist", "I can play piano", and "I am learning to play piano."
  - beat 8y ago
    Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games. And I suck. This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.) Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure. So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.

by Nadya 8y ago

beat 8y ago

Speaking as someone who has spent decades mastering a hobby craft (playing guitar)... first, if someone is involved in a hobby consistently at all, then the label applies. Terrible guitarists are as much guitarists as geniuses are. This is not to equate the players - only to equate the labels. You need something more precise to distinguish. My son is a hardcore gamer. My spouse is a gamer, but not a hardcore gamer. When more committed gamers say "That's not a real gamer", it's about exclusion and snobbery, not a real measure of anything else, including talent and skill (fwiw, my spouse would probably trounce you at her games). So be very careful when taking this position that you're being distinctive rather than judgmental. Another thing I've observed is that people who have committed their 10,000 hours and become really, really good are often in doubt about their own abilities. That's because they notice things that less experienced people do not. After 35 years of playing guitar, I feel I know less about it now than I did when I'd been playing for two years. The sense of scope of what I don't know is overwhelming sometimes.

Nadya 8y ago
I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby and I'm the first one in every morning by a few hours, giving me time to dabble with it alone. Dunning-kruger doesn't prevent them from being able to explain things (even if not necessarily in "formal terms", there are plenty of talented musicians out there who don't know a lick of music theory!) or perform at levels that an unpracticed person could. Almost anyone who picks up a guitar could learn a basic version of Deep Purple or Ironman or the intro riff to Enter Sandman in a few hours, barring any physical limitations. But you're not going to be cranking out improv solos or a jazz chord progression without any practice whatsoever. To ask again, in your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? I personally feel there is an important distinction, if only to convey information accurately, between saying "I am a master pianist", "I can play piano", and "I am learning to play piano."
- beat 8y ago
  Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games. And I suck. This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.) Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure. So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.