[wapapaloobop]

So, practice is necessary but not sufficient. It cannot compensate for lack of talent. We don't know why some people are talented and some aren't. We can only recognise it in certain fields (e.g. athletics, music). However, and switching to personal speculation: although people know different things and are interested in different things, there is only one kind of talent, is my guess.

[khedoros]

Did we read the same article?

> When I spoke with Ericsson by phone in May, he told me that people who think practice can only get you so far aren't talking about the same kind of practice as he is.

> As for whether genetic differences - say, in cognitive or physical ability - account for variations in achievement, Ericsson is skeptical.

The whole article, Ericsson sticks to "deliberate practice" (as defined by him) as being the sole determiner of mastery of a skill. Other researchers claim to debunk his findings. He claims that they conflate "practice" with "deliberate practice" and therefore didn't debunk him.

I don't know enough to judge which is correct (Ericsson or his detractors), but your comment isn't how I'd summarize the article, or the conclusions I'd draw from it.

[wapapaloobop]

You're correct: I misread the piece.

>he claims that they conflate "practice" with "deliberate practice" and therefore didn't debunk him.

This seems unfalsifiable since we don't (and presumably he doesn't) have theories about either talent or intentions which might distinguish the two cases.

Myself I practiced the piano very deliberately in my late twenties and it didn't lead to improvement. In fact it lead to RSI. However, in overcoming the RSI I learnt about what talent means (inexplicitly, I'm afraid, so I can't explain it yet). Hence my claim that it is singular across all disciplines. This includes purely intellectual skill which, following Michael Polanyi, can be thought of as a connoisseurship of ideas.

[khedoros]

> Myself I practiced the piano very deliberately in my late twenties and it didn't lead to improvement.

You had a teacher who provided a lesson plan and guidance, until such time as you could follow the plan on your own and self-correct mistakes? As another element, were you constantly pushed to do things that were just out of your reach? His claim is that 10,000 hours of practice/learning structured in that way would make you an expert piano player. Somehow, I suspect that if you hit 90% of his requirements, he'd "no true Scotsman" you and say that it wasn't "real" deliberate practice.

Personally, I'm dubious about Ericsson's claims too. Some people have more limitations than others do, either physical or mental. Plasticity has its limits.