3 ms·
I understand the point they are trying to make, but I still think the anecdote is harmful. It gives the impression that it is more important to put in the work
by Ma8ee 7y ago
I understand the point they are trying to make, but I still think the anecdote is harmful. It gives the impression that it is more important to put in the work than any real effort. The only thing you’ll be good at after producing 1000 crappy pots is producing crappy pots.
- imtringued 7y agoHigh quality crappy pots.
- kortex 7y agoIt's also tinted by the fact that learning a skill is usually logarithmic. If you are a student with no pot-making skills, those first few pots are gonna give a lot of XP. I think it'd be a different outcome if done with more experienced potters.
- bityard 7y agoI think you are over-simplifying the situation. Malcom Gladwell's book Outliers popularized the notion that a person needs on average 10,000 hours of practice to truly master a given task. A lot of people took this to mean, "if you put in 10,000 hours of practice, you will become a master." This is not true. The 10,000 hours of practice is necessary, but not sufficient. The practice has to be _intentional_, guided, goal-oriented practice. Not just playing the same song or making the same shot over and over.
- Ma8ee 7y agoThat was exactly my point. It is harmful to believe that mindless practicing, or pottery, will make you a master just because you put in the time or prescribed number of pots. How am I oversimplifying?