|
|
|
|
|
by kenjackson
5493 days ago
|
|
I find this principle wrong, based on what I've heard experienced couches say Maybe less time on couches and more time with coaches would change your perspective? With that said, there is a guy, Dan, who is testing this theory with golf. We still have a few more years to see if it works. http://thedanplan.com/ "Remember when you were in first grade, try to remember your classmates, what percentage of them could have become Nobel Prize winners in Physics given the right nurturing conditions?". According to the author of this book, almost all of them I haven't read the book, but have read articles. I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level. There's a pretty big gap between being a Chem expert and winning the Nobel prize in it. |
|
:) funny... (fixed the typo, thanks.)
>>there is a guy, Dan...
Is this Daniel Coyle? I read his "Talent Code" book too. Similar to "Talent is Overrated" but doesn't neglect innate talent as much as the other.
>>I thought the goal was "expert level", not Nobel Prize level.
Expert level in the book is as good as one can get after 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" with great coaching. The author doesn't make any distinction between expert level and super high achievers.