|
|
|
|
|
by khedoros
3662 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
>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.