3 ms·

I agree with the first half of your comment - the "deliberate" in "deliberate practice" is definitely necessary to understand what the 10,000 hour rule means.

I agree with the first half of your comment - the "deliberate" in "deliberate practice" is definitely necessary to understand what the 10,000 hour rule means. However, I think you take it too far at the end. To say that the nature half of nurture+nature is unnecessary goes against a significant amount of research. In sports, this becomes pretty clear. What are the odds that short people never work hard enough to become good swimmers, for example? It seems drastically more likely that nature has an enormous impact. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is necessary, but by no means sufficient, for success at most sports. It is less obvious in other domains, but there is still research to the effect that some people simply aren't wired for certain things, just like short people are can't swim at world-class levels. In HN's favorite domain, programming, there is reason to believe that some people simply can't think in the right way. Here's a reasonable article on the subject: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/is-it-true-that-not-everyone-can-be-a-programmer/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/is-it-.... PG's lazy rule sounds good, but only in the absence of opposing evidence. It behaves like Occam's razor - it leads in the right direction, but don't take it for truth.

tokenadult 13y ago
What are the odds that short people never work hard enough to become good swimmers, for example? I cited K. Anders Ericsson's publication list in my first comment. He specifically mentions physical stature (after growth to adult height is completed) as an exceptional case of a prerequisite to top-level performance in some sports domains that is not malleable to practice. Even at that, I have been impressed during my lifetime, which appears to be longer than yours, at what body types that used to be considered "impossible" for top performance in some sports have since been vindicated as the body types of champions. For example, before Usain Bolt set Olympic records after training very hard, he was believed to be too tall to be a successful sprinter. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2009/08/taking_sprinting_to_new_heights.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/200... The way to find out what body types strictly limit sports performance is to have people of all body types come out for the sport and engage in deliberate practice, and see what happens. The same principle generalizes to performance that mostly relies on brain activity, especially because we have even less information about how brains differ "inherently," and we know the brain is the organ more than any other human organ that responds to its environment. See also the photograph of the identical twins Otto and Ewald for malleability of body type. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/control-gene-expression/#axzz2UhOexA7F http://www.marksdailyapple.com/control-gene-expression/#axzz... This photograph is often shown to students at the University of Minnesota, a center for studies of identical twins, in their introductory courses on genetics.
buzzcut 13y ago
But your physical form w/r/t a sport isn't really a matter of controversy since no one thinks a 5'7" person is going to become a basketball great, although it's not totally impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb But even in athletics it's more about the type of practice as shown by this study of swimmers: http://www.lillyfellows.org/Portals/0/Chambliss-Mundanity%20of%20Excellence.pdf http://www.lillyfellows.org/Portals/0/Chambliss-Mundanity%20... What I mean is, of course there is "natural talent" in being 6'7" that pushes you towards one sport and away from another, but that's not that interesting I don't think. What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth. Now, the interesting question you raise is why do some people keep going and others give up.
- thedufer 13y ago
  > What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth. Its not clear to me that you actually read what I wrote, since I addressed this exactly, albeit in the domain of programming. There is significant reason to believe that, at least in that domain, talent is innately important in the same way that physical structure is in sports - that is, that it can eliminate a majority of people (but doesn't really differentiate between the significant minority that remains).
  - buzzcut 13y ago
    Oh I read it, but since it was confined to programming only, leaving out the vast domain that is the rest of the world, and with the weight of evidence so far is on the other side, it didn't seem as interesting to me. In addition to the possible methodological problems mentioned in the Ars article. In any case, the state of the evidence, always subject to revision of course, is that innate talent is largely not in play.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  thanks for the link - that was very interesting!
ronaldx 13y ago
> just like short people are can't swim at world-class levels. This is not immediately obvious to me: world-class training programs favour people of a tall stature[0] in the belief that they're faster. This may just as well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. [0] http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/other-sports/206763-uk-talent-team-search-2016-olympians http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/other-sports/206763-uk-tal...
hosh 13y ago
What's a good swimmer? You're going to be measuring it against other people. This points to the same significant flaw in the article: conflating "mastery" with "success". The "10,000" rule is well known in Chinese culture as Gong Fu. Gongfu in any skill, whatever that might be, is accumulated little by little over a lifetime. It's part of the oral tradition that someone with talent and doesn't practice will not be good as someone without talent and does practice. And that someone with both talent and practice will have far greater skill than someone with mere talent or hard practice. There is a balance of both accepting your limitations as well as knowing how your potential greatly exceeds your perceived self limitations. This is part of the fabric of Chinese culture and no one really questions it too deeply. It's been thrashed out in centuries of folk lore and literature such as Confucius. But I think, this offends American sensibilities in a deep way. So we have lots of discussion about it. American culture has deep roots in: fairness, equal opportunity, upward mobility, and self-determination. What we're thrashing out here with the "10,000" hours isn't really anything about nurture, or nature at all. Underlying all of that is our deep seated feelings and values about fairness, equal opportunity, upward mobility, and self-determination. You can have mastery without "success". Success is the outward, social recognition of your upward mobility. Saying you can achieve "success" with 10,000 hours of practice arises from the self-determination -- that the world is fair, and that we all have an equal opportunity at "success". Which we don't. Because "success" is always defined relative to other people so it is inherently ephemeral and unstable. Mastery, though, is a knowing of yourself, and something anyone can achieve throughout the vicissitudes of outward "success". Upward mobility give rise to aspirations to grow beyond your limits. The trouble is when you confuse self-perceived limitations and the limitations imposed by reality. You don't argue with gravity (in day-to-day life). You don't argue with a hurricane when it comes to town. We confuse self-perceived limitations and limitations of reality because there's a strong need for self-determination. It can be argued that many of our technologies have allowed us to exceed our "natural" abilities. We can live anywhere in the world! Medicine extends our lifespan! Agricultural technologies let us feed a much greater population! The thing is, with many of these technologies, we're creating an illusion of exceeding limitations by deferring its cost. We're like the child with hands on the ears: "La la la la la la la la la la la..." A little navel-gazing is in order: Who are you? Why are you here? What are you doing here? Where are you in life?

tokenadult 13y ago

What are the odds that short people never work hard enough to become good swimmers, for example? I cited K. Anders Ericsson's publication list in my first comment. He specifically mentions physical stature (after growth to adult height is completed) as an exceptional case of a prerequisite to top-level performance in some sports domains that is not malleable to practice. Even at that, I have been impressed during my lifetime, which appears to be longer than yours, at what body types that used to be considered "impossible" for top performance in some sports have since been vindicated as the body types of champions. For example, before Usain Bolt set Olympic records after training very hard, he was believed to be too tall to be a successful sprinter. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2009/08/taking_sprinting_to_new_heights.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/200... The way to find out what body types strictly limit sports performance is to have people of all body types come out for the sport and engage in deliberate practice, and see what happens. The same principle generalizes to performance that mostly relies on brain activity, especially because we have even less information about how brains differ "inherently," and we know the brain is the organ more than any other human organ that responds to its environment. See also the photograph of the identical twins Otto and Ewald for malleability of body type. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/control-gene-expression/#axzz2UhOexA7F http://www.marksdailyapple.com/control-gene-expression/#axzz... This photograph is often shown to students at the University of Minnesota, a center for studies of identical twins, in their introductory courses on genetics.

buzzcut 13y ago

But your physical form w/r/t a sport isn't really a matter of controversy since no one thinks a 5'7" person is going to become a basketball great, although it's not totally impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_Webb But even in athletics it's more about the type of practice as shown by this study of swimmers: http://www.lillyfellows.org/Portals/0/Chambliss-Mundanity%20of%20Excellence.pdf http://www.lillyfellows.org/Portals/0/Chambliss-Mundanity%20... What I mean is, of course there is "natural talent" in being 6'7" that pushes you towards one sport and away from another, but that's not that interesting I don't think. What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth. Now, the interesting question you raise is why do some people keep going and others give up.

thedufer 13y ago
> What's interesting are those things-- chess, music, writing, film making, etc.-- that aren't tied to physical types, and so far the evidence seems to be that talent is largely a myth. Its not clear to me that you actually read what I wrote, since I addressed this exactly, albeit in the domain of programming. There is significant reason to believe that, at least in that domain, talent is innately important in the same way that physical structure is in sports - that is, that it can eliminate a majority of people (but doesn't really differentiate between the significant minority that remains).
- buzzcut 13y ago
  Oh I read it, but since it was confined to programming only, leaving out the vast domain that is the rest of the world, and with the weight of evidence so far is on the other side, it didn't seem as interesting to me. In addition to the possible methodological problems mentioned in the Ars article. In any case, the state of the evidence, always subject to revision of course, is that innate talent is largely not in play.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
thanks for the link - that was very interesting!

ronaldx 13y ago

> just like short people are can't swim at world-class levels. This is not immediately obvious to me: world-class training programs favour people of a tall stature[0] in the belief that they're faster. This may just as well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. [0] http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/other-sports/206763-uk-talent-team-search-2016-olympians http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/other-sports/206763-uk-tal...

hosh 13y ago

What's a good swimmer? You're going to be measuring it against other people. This points to the same significant flaw in the article: conflating "mastery" with "success". The "10,000" rule is well known in Chinese culture as Gong Fu. Gongfu in any skill, whatever that might be, is accumulated little by little over a lifetime. It's part of the oral tradition that someone with talent and doesn't practice will not be good as someone without talent and does practice. And that someone with both talent and practice will have far greater skill than someone with mere talent or hard practice. There is a balance of both accepting your limitations as well as knowing how your potential greatly exceeds your perceived self limitations. This is part of the fabric of Chinese culture and no one really questions it too deeply. It's been thrashed out in centuries of folk lore and literature such as Confucius. But I think, this offends American sensibilities in a deep way. So we have lots of discussion about it. American culture has deep roots in: fairness, equal opportunity, upward mobility, and self-determination. What we're thrashing out here with the "10,000" hours isn't really anything about nurture, or nature at all. Underlying all of that is our deep seated feelings and values about fairness, equal opportunity, upward mobility, and self-determination. You can have mastery without "success". Success is the outward, social recognition of your upward mobility. Saying you can achieve "success" with 10,000 hours of practice arises from the self-determination -- that the world is fair, and that we all have an equal opportunity at "success". Which we don't. Because "success" is always defined relative to other people so it is inherently ephemeral and unstable. Mastery, though, is a knowing of yourself, and something anyone can achieve throughout the vicissitudes of outward "success". Upward mobility give rise to aspirations to grow beyond your limits. The trouble is when you confuse self-perceived limitations and the limitations imposed by reality. You don't argue with gravity (in day-to-day life). You don't argue with a hurricane when it comes to town. We confuse self-perceived limitations and limitations of reality because there's a strong need for self-determination. It can be argued that many of our technologies have allowed us to exceed our "natural" abilities. We can live anywhere in the world! Medicine extends our lifespan! Agricultural technologies let us feed a much greater population! The thing is, with many of these technologies, we're creating an illusion of exceeding limitations by deferring its cost. We're like the child with hands on the ears: "La la la la la la la la la la la..." A little navel-gazing is in order: Who are you? Why are you here? What are you doing here? Where are you in life?