3 ms·

Ericsson's popular-market book Peak has much more than the paper (there are many citations in the back). I remember in particular a duscussion about music stud

Ericsson's popular-market book Peak has much more than the paper (there are many citations in the back). I remember in particular a duscussion about music students practicing for an optimum, or maybe maximum, number of hours per day. I'm in math and there are a number of people in math who also say four is the limit; a quick google found this for example https://theweek.com/articles/696644/why-should-work-4-hours-day-according-science https://theweek.com/articles/696644/why-should-work-4-hours-.... FWIW. Also well-konwn are the first two paragraphs of Littlewood's Miscellany, https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1986-littlewood-littlewoodsmiscellany.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1986-littlewood-littlewoodsm..., p 189.

agumonkey 7y ago
Four per day per domain ? or is it four hours of thinking/growth and more hours of rest ? By that I mean can we do more than one thing per day.
- em-bee 7y ago
  i would think it is 4 hours per domain. like crop rotation (or your analogy of choice), the brain needs to be engaged in different ways at different times. after hours of programming i am exhausted, but i can easily play an instrument for a few more hours, or do housework, etc...
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    Thanks And one can use overlapping synergies. Like hiking/running to let your brain creates solutions on the go :D
    - em-bee 7y ago
      which is what charles darwin in his schedule seems to be doing
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  I know of no hard information either way.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DenisM 7y ago
FWIW one might be able to find their own optimum by carefully listening to their body. In college when I overdid math I had a very distinctive buzz in my head (like the brain "shorting out"), that signified I am done for the day. Remarkably, the same material that stupefied me just prior to "shorting out" would become crystal clear the next morning. I think the brain needs to be pushed up to a certain limit before it considers the material important enough to be worth of serious "structural changes". The pay-off is non-linear. The difficult part is that you might be tempted to quit because you're "tired", even before you actually hit the wall, but then blowing past the limit in a fit of zealotry just destroys motivation without any extra benefit. The balance is hard to find. The best I came up with is try to observe my performance diminishing and use that as an "objective" signal. Easier in some areas than others.
- wainstead 7y ago
  > Remarkably, the same material that stupefied me just prior to "shorting out" would become crystal clear the next morning. Very much in line with what one reads in Barbara Oakley's "A Mind for Numbers," and her free Coursera course based on the book (both recommended).
- maxerickson 7y ago
  The Dunning-Kruger paper is really about the value and difficulty of self evaluation, not the "stupid people don't know they are stupid" that the internet memes it about. And this is nicely actionable. When learning a new task, it can be very valuable to consider how to evaluate success.

agumonkey 7y ago

Four per day per domain ? or is it four hours of thinking/growth and more hours of rest ? By that I mean can we do more than one thing per day.

em-bee 7y ago
i would think it is 4 hours per domain. like crop rotation (or your analogy of choice), the brain needs to be engaged in different ways at different times. after hours of programming i am exhausted, but i can easily play an instrument for a few more hours, or do housework, etc...
- agumonkey 7y ago
  Thanks And one can use overlapping synergies. Like hiking/running to let your brain creates solutions on the go :D
  - em-bee 7y ago
    which is what charles darwin in his schedule seems to be doing
jimhefferon 7y ago
I know of no hard information either way.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

DenisM 7y ago

FWIW one might be able to find their own optimum by carefully listening to their body. In college when I overdid math I had a very distinctive buzz in my head (like the brain "shorting out"), that signified I am done for the day. Remarkably, the same material that stupefied me just prior to "shorting out" would become crystal clear the next morning. I think the brain needs to be pushed up to a certain limit before it considers the material important enough to be worth of serious "structural changes". The pay-off is non-linear. The difficult part is that you might be tempted to quit because you're "tired", even before you actually hit the wall, but then blowing past the limit in a fit of zealotry just destroys motivation without any extra benefit. The balance is hard to find. The best I came up with is try to observe my performance diminishing and use that as an "objective" signal. Easier in some areas than others.

wainstead 7y ago
> Remarkably, the same material that stupefied me just prior to "shorting out" would become crystal clear the next morning. Very much in line with what one reads in Barbara Oakley's "A Mind for Numbers," and her free Coursera course based on the book (both recommended).
maxerickson 7y ago
The Dunning-Kruger paper is really about the value and difficulty of self evaluation, not the "stupid people don't know they are stupid" that the internet memes it about. And this is nicely actionable. When learning a new task, it can be very valuable to consider how to evaluate success.