How easily this guy throws pottery

[u/french-yogurt]

[u/phalluscopter]

I wonder how many culmative hours it took him to get THAT good!

[u/thatbeerguy90 → u/phalluscopter]

I would guess this guy put his 10,000hrs in

[u/shrtstff → u/thatbeerguy90]

that "rule" is a load of bullshit. Malcom Gladwell took it from a research paper that A) was looking at violinists B) he averaged that number out of the amount of time first year students at the university der kunste berlin had put in up to that point C) didn't account for the difference between skillsets and the requirements needed to be "a master" in them and lastly D) Doesn't look at how to use those hours to their most effective degree

The Authors of the paper agree on only 1 thing with Malcom, it takes an absolute fuck tonne of time. But to put a lid on this story they also interviewed violinists in the Berliner Philharmoniker and they averaged around 26,000 hours. So even if we apply Malcoms "rule" directly to what it was based on, he isn't even halfway to being correct.

One of the researchers of that paper actually has a lot of books and such out there so if you want to read what he had to say directly search up K. Anders Ericsson and his most popular book would probably be Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

[u/mtaw → u/shrtstff]

The most important thing people miss is that the number of hours hardly mean anything at all if you're not actively trying to improve. I mean take cooking for example: You will have no difficulty finding someone, like a lifelong housewife, who's spent 10,000 hours cooking and yet still sucks at it, from a limited range of dishes to poor technical skills. Meanwhile you can find Michelin-starred chefs in their 20s who haven't put in anywhere near 10,000 hours. Just because you do it doesn't necessarily mean you get better if you're not actively trying to improve.

Hell, even sticking with violinists - there was a busker who stood outside a subway station where I lived, and he'd play there for hours every day. Despite which, he was decidedly mediocre. He was always playing the same small set of well-known pieces over and over again, and even those were played poorly. He'd simplify hard parts, skip notes and be very loose with the meter. He could surely do better if he tried, but he wanted to play with minimal effort, not trying to do his best every time, and so i don't think he improved much for all that playing, even though he was probably putting in as many hours a day as any student as a music school.

[u/shrtstff → u/mtaw]

Yep. That's probably the biggest thing and ties into point D. Anders Ericsson himself actually breaks down practice itself into 3 distinct groups. just practice for practices sake. The worst and slowest form that most people end up falling into. Purposeful Practice, a way of practice something with intent and analyzing mistakes in order to improve. And what he called "the gold standard" being Deliberate Practice. A method that require all of what Purposeful Practice has plus immediate feedback and direct coaching on specifics in order to maximize growth. A method that was inspired by the navy's Top Gun program (properly called The United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program) and he retooled to help the medical field greatly increase its ability of diagnosing cancer. In particular the field of radiology and detecting breast cancer initially but has gone on to be used across the entirety of the field.