3 ms·

Certainly he's very good, but there's still a huge gulf between him and the best marathon runners. And that's why this ten thousand hours thing is pretty rando

by hugh3 16y ago

Certainly he's very good, but there's still a huge gulf between him and the best marathon runners. And that's why this ten thousand hours thing is pretty random, yet pretty unfalsifiable. In any specialised activity, the first hundred hours of dedicated practice is good enough to make you better than most people. Keep practicing and you'll be better than 80% of the world. Keep it up for a bunch more time and you'll be better than 90% of the world. By the time the irrelevant ten thousand hours milestone pops by, you'll certainly be impressive at your activity, but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). So for some definition of "expert", it's fair to say that ten thousand hours will make you an expert.

scott_s 16y ago
but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. If that statement is self-evident to you, I've talked to people who don't consider it so. For example, I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming, and I've taught programming to people who said similar things.
- orangecat 16y ago
  If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. I'd agree with that, which is a very different claim than "there's no such thing as innate talent". I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming I'd also agree with that, and I don't think it's contradictory. Have you really not observed that some people pick up programming far easier than others? I believe that almost anyone can get to the point where they can write basic software, but not that everyone is capable of becoming the next Dennis Ritchie.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    I think that initial aptitude at a task is not a good predictor for how well you can do after doing it for a decade. It is a good predictor for likelihood at actually pursuing it for a decade, because it often determines whether or not you like the activity. Put another way, people become good at things that they like because they keep doing them. We get positive reinforcement. But I don't think there are a class of people who have the "mind" for programming. Also note that by bring up Dennis Ritchie, you've now introduced the "what does it take to be a genius" discussion, which is different from achieving expert status.
- ahlatimer 16y ago
  Well, you probably wouldn't ever get in the top 5% of marathon runners if you didn't have legs [1]. I'd argue that it's similar for something like programming. I think you'll find that some people lack the mental acuity or analytical reasoning skills to be in the top 5% of programmers. Those skills can be taught to a certain extent, I suppose, but I don't doubt you'll find people that would plateau well before breaking into "expert" territory. You'd likely find the same for someone trying to reach that point in golf or any other number of skills. Do most people lack those necessary skills? I'm not really sure. [1]: For the purpose of the argument, ignore prosthetics. AFAIK, there isn't anything similar to prosthetics for someone that lacks certain necessary abilities to be an "expert" programmer.
tokenadult 16y ago
So for some definition of "expert", it's fair to say that ten thousand hours will make you an expert. I've just been using Google to find a crisp definition of "expert" that I can cite to one of Ericsson's papers. Some of those are in nonsearchable .PDF documents. The short answer is that the formal scientific literature on acquisition of expertise does not bless anyone who desires the title "expert" with that title, but rather uses objective performance measures to identify persons with statistically reliably superior performance. I'll post this now, and look for more definitions and references, and try to edit this post during the edit time limit if I find something more on-point for you to look up. Ericsson's seminal paper on the issue http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/ericsson-charness-am-psychologist.pdf http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/eric... has already been linked to by at least two participants in this thread. From http://web.me.com/pw70/ACE_lab/Publications_files/2007%20Ericsson%20Ward%20CDPS.pdf http://web.me.com/pw70/ACE_lab/Publications_files/2007%20Eri... we can find this extensive discussion of the definition of expertise: "Since [Bedard's and Chi's (1992)] review, researchers have become increasingly dissatisfied with studies that define experts by social criteria (e.g., peer nominations), by extended domain experience, or by (high) education. When scientists measured the level of real-world performance of so-called experts they found that many were not reliably better than their less-experienced colleagues. For example, reviews (Ericsson, 2006) have described studies showing that a psychotherapist’s level of education and clinical experience is unrelated to their treatment outcomes. Recent reviews of performance in health-related fields show that extended experience of doctors and nurses (beyond the first couple of years of practice) is not associated with continued improvements, as most people had thought. In fact, performance has frequently been found to decrease without continued training (Choudhry, Fletcher, & Soumerai, 2005; Ericsson 2004). "There are numerous domains of expertise in which some performers are reproducibly superior to most others engaging in the domain.For example, chess masters, bridge experts, and experts in other games consistently beat less-skilled individuals. More generally, in the arts and the sciences some individuals reliably generate superior products that are selected for presentation in journals, conferences, and competitions. Some individuals are able to perform at a reproducibly higher level in professional domains too. Our framework focuses on understanding the mechanisms that mediate consistently superior performance, and to distinguish this approach from the traditional study of expertise we will refer to it as the expert-performance approach (see Feltovich, Prietula, & Ericsson, 2006, for a description of the historical development of several approaches to the study of expertise using psychological methods)."

by hugh3 16y ago

scott_s 16y ago

but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field). I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. If that statement is self-evident to you, I've talked to people who don't consider it so. For example, I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming, and I've taught programming to people who said similar things.

orangecat 16y ago
If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. I'd agree with that, which is a very different claim than "there's no such thing as innate talent". I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming I'd also agree with that, and I don't think it's contradictory. Have you really not observed that some people pick up programming far easier than others? I believe that almost anyone can get to the point where they can write basic software, but not that everyone is capable of becoming the next Dennis Ritchie.
- scott_s 16y ago
  I think that initial aptitude at a task is not a good predictor for how well you can do after doing it for a decade. It is a good predictor for likelihood at actually pursuing it for a decade, because it often determines whether or not you like the activity. Put another way, people become good at things that they like because they keep doing them. We get positive reinforcement. But I don't think there are a class of people who have the "mind" for programming. Also note that by bring up Dennis Ritchie, you've now introduced the "what does it take to be a genius" discussion, which is different from achieving expert status.
ahlatimer 16y ago
Well, you probably wouldn't ever get in the top 5% of marathon runners if you didn't have legs [1]. I'd argue that it's similar for something like programming. I think you'll find that some people lack the mental acuity or analytical reasoning skills to be in the top 5% of programmers. Those skills can be taught to a certain extent, I suppose, but I don't doubt you'll find people that would plateau well before breaking into "expert" territory. You'd likely find the same for someone trying to reach that point in golf or any other number of skills. Do most people lack those necessary skills? I'm not really sure. [1]: For the purpose of the argument, ignore prosthetics. AFAIK, there isn't anything similar to prosthetics for someone that lacks certain necessary abilities to be an "expert" programmer.

tokenadult 16y ago

So for some definition of "expert", it's fair to say that ten thousand hours will make you an expert. I've just been using Google to find a crisp definition of "expert" that I can cite to one of Ericsson's papers. Some of those are in nonsearchable .PDF documents. The short answer is that the formal scientific literature on acquisition of expertise does not bless anyone who desires the title "expert" with that title, but rather uses objective performance measures to identify persons with statistically reliably superior performance. I'll post this now, and look for more definitions and references, and try to edit this post during the edit time limit if I find something more on-point for you to look up. Ericsson's seminal paper on the issue http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/ericsson-charness-am-psychologist.pdf http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/eric... has already been linked to by at least two participants in this thread. From http://web.me.com/pw70/ACE_lab/Publications_files/2007%20Ericsson%20Ward%20CDPS.pdf http://web.me.com/pw70/ACE_lab/Publications_files/2007%20Eri... we can find this extensive discussion of the definition of expertise: "Since [Bedard's and Chi's (1992)] review, researchers have become increasingly dissatisfied with studies that define experts by social criteria (e.g., peer nominations), by extended domain experience, or by (high) education. When scientists measured the level of real-world performance of so-called experts they found that many were not reliably better than their less-experienced colleagues. For example, reviews (Ericsson, 2006) have described studies showing that a psychotherapist’s level of education and clinical experience is unrelated to their treatment outcomes. Recent reviews of performance in health-related fields show that extended experience of doctors and nurses (beyond the first couple of years of practice) is not associated with continued improvements, as most people had thought. In fact, performance has frequently been found to decrease without continued training (Choudhry, Fletcher, & Soumerai, 2005; Ericsson 2004). "There are numerous domains of expertise in which some performers are reproducibly superior to most others engaging in the domain.For example, chess masters, bridge experts, and experts in other games consistently beat less-skilled individuals. More generally, in the arts and the sciences some individuals reliably generate superior products that are selected for presentation in journals, conferences, and competitions. Some individuals are able to perform at a reproducibly higher level in professional domains too. Our framework focuses on understanding the mechanisms that mediate consistently superior performance, and to distinguish this approach from the traditional study of expertise we will refer to it as the expert-performance approach (see Feltovich, Prietula, & Ericsson, 2006, for a description of the historical development of several approaches to the study of expertise using psychological methods)."