[affectsk]

As someone who's recently gotten into deliberate practice, I, too, started reading this worried I'm heading in the wrong direction.

And it left me with a similar feeling: the author suggests that acquiring tacit knowledge is more important than deliberate practice, when in fact deliberate practice is the most effective way to acquire tacit knowledge.

In the bicycle example, that would mean trying out different approaches, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and working with a coach (parent) to practice more effectively.

So, pitting these concepts against one another seems wrong, but keeping tacit knowledge in mind when applying deliberate practice might make it more efficient.

[mannykannot]

I am completely with the author on his defense of the reality of tacit knowledge, but his argument against deliberate practice depends on pedantic, hair-splitting definitions that would be better presented as second-order refinements applicable in certain circumstances, such as when you are "in a field where no ‘highly-developed, broadly accepted training methods’ exist." It may be that this style of presentation is a reaction to highly specific claims that some proponents of deliberate practice insist are universal truths.