|
|
|
|
|
|
by wapapaloobop
3665 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.