4 ms·
The paper only says the evidence available doesn't support the conclusion, i.e., we wouldn't be justified in claiming that deliberate practice is the key. This
by jfarmer 12y ago
The paper only says the evidence available doesn't support the conclusion, i.e., we wouldn't be justified in claiming that deliberate practice is the key. This doesn't mean it's NOT the key, only that we haven't been able to measure whether it is or not so far.
The only certainty is that the evidence isn't in yet. The sociological impact of the Protestant work ethic and whether it's value is supported by evidence will have to wait. :D
- pjscott 12y agoBut the evidence is in! That's what the paper is about! If deliberate practice were the Key to Success, then when you go to measure its effects, you'd expect to see a lot of the variance in outcomes explained by it. Well, lots of studies went to measure, and that's not what they found. For claims like this, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. (You could state this more precisely in terms of conditional probabilities, if you're bored and feel like doing some basic math.)
- avz 12y agoNot so fast. You seem to assume that measurement in this case is simple and non-controversial. In fact measuring the amount of deliberate practice is very hard. How do you account for the difference in the types of activities individuals engaged in as children? How do you account for different levels of dedication and passion? How do you account for different amount of support from friends, family and institutions?
- istjohn 12y agoI'm confused. Everything you listed are things other than deliberate practice.