4 ms·

I'm not sure it will work. I expect golf rewards basic aptitudes like co-ordination, strength and stamina, etc., and that pros' endowments on these are four or

I'm not sure it will work. I expect golf rewards basic aptitudes like co-ordination, strength and stamina, etc., and that pros' endowments on these are four or five standard deviations from the population norm. They were likely selected for those endowments prior to most of their practice. Where is Dan on that curve? But I suppose how much these endowments matter, or whether work can enhance them, is a rough part of this experiment. I am sure that I like his approach a damn sight better than yours. The guy is _working_. He'll have to beat all sorts of inner demons to get to 10,000 hours. He'll end up knowing a lot about learning, and himself, when he's done. That's my kind of guy. Meanhwile, you are lobbing poorly thought-out downerisms. "get great at playing the course"? Gee, do you think maybe he'll budget some of his 10k for that? or that the ability to hit his shot straight _every_single_time_ might help? or that all those hours will do something for his mental chops? Coding "has structured guidelines for success"? None of this is intelligent, never mind constructive. You're only 25, you were clearly a good athlete, you made YC, congratulations. No doubt worked your ass off up to this point. Well, some people have to grind it out even harder than you've had to. If you can't spare the time to think through helpful commentary, respect their dedication and keep your mouth shut.

SlipperySlope 16y ago
"[Pros] were likely selected for those endowments prior to most of their practice." That is exactly the point of the 10,000 hour practice - to provide a documented counterexample to that point of view, in accordance with recent theory on expertise training.
nl 16y ago
I'm not sure it will work. I expect golf rewards basic aptitudes like co-ordination, strength and stamina, etc., and that pros' endowments on these are four or five standard deviations from the population norm. In golf (unlike most pro sports) it isn't immediately obvious that this is the case. Sure, most golfers are in shape, but few aerobically fitter than a recreational 10K runner, and the variation in max drive length between successful pros shows that strength is pretty variable too. As an extreme example there are players like John Daly, who is overweight, smokes and is a double major winner.
- chernevik 16y ago
  We might, on close examination, find that pro golfers have extraordinary endowments on attributes subtler than sheer speed or strength. Stuff like depth perception, coordination of full-body motions, balance, maybe some cognitive attributes like executive control of focus, etc. As others have noted, the effort is in part a test of people's ability to enhance these endowments. I _think_ most people putting in 10,000 hours got feedback that their basic endowments give them some advantage. I suspect that something like that will operate here. If at some point Dan hits diminishing returns, and can't punch through by varying his approach and allowing for natural human slumps, that may be a signal that he lacks the physical tools to go all the way. Even then that isn't a waste of time, he'll have learned a lot about focus, and about detecting where his natural advantages do lie. That has to inform the search for his real calling. One way or the other, it'll be interesting.
dean 16y ago
"pros' endowments on these are four or five standard deviations from the population norm. They were likely selected for those endowments prior to most of their practice." In the Outliers book, Gladwell also talks about the topic of how kids are selected for in sports. He uses the example of hockey. Essentially, the kids start out young and there isn't much difference in their ability in the beginning. But the 'chosen' kids get more attention, instruction and practice. So over the years they become "four or five standard deviations from the population norm", to use your phrase, but they don't start out that way. In the hockey example, it comes down to size. A typical 6 and half year old is bigger, and that much more developed that a 6 year old, and they are slightly better players because of it. Essentially, this small advantage gets exaggerated. So, according to Gladwell, people all start out in a very similar place, and it's the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and work that makes the difference. I don't know if this guy will make the PGA (there aren’t too many spots), but I am confident he'll be several standard deviations better than the population norm.
- firebones 16y ago
  The book Soccernomics touches on a similar point: how socioeconomic factors influence the pool of candidates for spending inordinate amounts of time training. In the case of the English national football club, the fact that the pool of national team players was historically concentrated among players coming from working class backgrounds shrunk the sampling of genetic talent (since kids from upperclass backgrounds had more opportunities both athletically, academically and economically) which led them out of the pool. In the US, the position of golf within society constrains the genetic pool from which top players will emerge, which may in turn lead to tour pros being much more likely to come from classes and situations with easier or cheaper access to golf courses than due to innate ability. The range may still skew towards those with physical gifts doing better, but not as much as you would think. Given these constraints he may have a much better shot at achieving success in golf than in other sports that draw from larger genetic pools. (E.g., compare the number of kids playing competitive high school and college football to the number playing competitive golf.) That said, there are around 22,000 people in the US who could be considered "club pros" or instructors of golf, and around 150 slots on the PGA tour. His 1 in 100 shot would just about correspond to these numbers if you figure that most of those club pros have put in close to 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (allowing them to get paid to hang around the golf course) and it is certainly reasonable to believe that he will achieve that level with his current plan.

SlipperySlope 16y ago

"[Pros] were likely selected for those endowments prior to most of their practice." That is exactly the point of the 10,000 hour practice - to provide a documented counterexample to that point of view, in accordance with recent theory on expertise training.

nl 16y ago

I'm not sure it will work. I expect golf rewards basic aptitudes like co-ordination, strength and stamina, etc., and that pros' endowments on these are four or five standard deviations from the population norm. In golf (unlike most pro sports) it isn't immediately obvious that this is the case. Sure, most golfers are in shape, but few aerobically fitter than a recreational 10K runner, and the variation in max drive length between successful pros shows that strength is pretty variable too. As an extreme example there are players like John Daly, who is overweight, smokes and is a double major winner.

chernevik 16y ago
We might, on close examination, find that pro golfers have extraordinary endowments on attributes subtler than sheer speed or strength. Stuff like depth perception, coordination of full-body motions, balance, maybe some cognitive attributes like executive control of focus, etc. As others have noted, the effort is in part a test of people's ability to enhance these endowments. I _think_ most people putting in 10,000 hours got feedback that their basic endowments give them some advantage. I suspect that something like that will operate here. If at some point Dan hits diminishing returns, and can't punch through by varying his approach and allowing for natural human slumps, that may be a signal that he lacks the physical tools to go all the way. Even then that isn't a waste of time, he'll have learned a lot about focus, and about detecting where his natural advantages do lie. That has to inform the search for his real calling. One way or the other, it'll be interesting.

dean 16y ago

"pros' endowments on these are four or five standard deviations from the population norm. They were likely selected for those endowments prior to most of their practice." In the Outliers book, Gladwell also talks about the topic of how kids are selected for in sports. He uses the example of hockey. Essentially, the kids start out young and there isn't much difference in their ability in the beginning. But the 'chosen' kids get more attention, instruction and practice. So over the years they become "four or five standard deviations from the population norm", to use your phrase, but they don't start out that way. In the hockey example, it comes down to size. A typical 6 and half year old is bigger, and that much more developed that a 6 year old, and they are slightly better players because of it. Essentially, this small advantage gets exaggerated. So, according to Gladwell, people all start out in a very similar place, and it's the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and work that makes the difference. I don't know if this guy will make the PGA (there aren’t too many spots), but I am confident he'll be several standard deviations better than the population norm.

firebones 16y ago
The book Soccernomics touches on a similar point: how socioeconomic factors influence the pool of candidates for spending inordinate amounts of time training. In the case of the English national football club, the fact that the pool of national team players was historically concentrated among players coming from working class backgrounds shrunk the sampling of genetic talent (since kids from upperclass backgrounds had more opportunities both athletically, academically and economically) which led them out of the pool. In the US, the position of golf within society constrains the genetic pool from which top players will emerge, which may in turn lead to tour pros being much more likely to come from classes and situations with easier or cheaper access to golf courses than due to innate ability. The range may still skew towards those with physical gifts doing better, but not as much as you would think. Given these constraints he may have a much better shot at achieving success in golf than in other sports that draw from larger genetic pools. (E.g., compare the number of kids playing competitive high school and college football to the number playing competitive golf.) That said, there are around 22,000 people in the US who could be considered "club pros" or instructors of golf, and around 150 slots on the PGA tour. His 1 in 100 shot would just about correspond to these numbers if you figure that most of those club pros have put in close to 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (allowing them to get paid to hang around the golf course) and it is certainly reasonable to believe that he will achieve that level with his current plan.