ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th December 2018, 11:37 PM   #1
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Peak: Secrets From The New Science of Expertise

I've just started reading the book Peak, by Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool about the science of learning and skill acquisition, and particularly discussing "deliberate practice" as the most effective known method for doing so.

I'd heard about these ideas peripherally, and incorporated them into my own training for some time. To some extent it is what I was already doing, but having a coherent framework for these ideas does seem to help, and the book is offering me new insights, or at least a clearer picture.

I'm curious if others have read the book, your impressions of it, or the ideas of "deliberate practice" in general.

I only just started the book yesterday, so it will probably be a day or two before I've finished it.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 11:47 PM   #2
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,168
I haven’t read it but it sounds fascinating. I just bought an audible version. I’ll let you know when I’ve finished.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:52 AM   #3
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
I've heard of deliberate practice. It all sounds a bit common-sense to me. Deliberate practice is basically how I learned to play music when I was 7 - ie, concentrate on becoming fluent in increasingly-difficult exercises with immediate feedback from an instructor. It's not new - it's just that someone has now given the method a name.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 01:52 AM   #4
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,256
Have not read the book, just looked at the deliberate practice wiki link.
That must be wrong.

Sure you can get better at anything with practice, but I think achieving expert levels of performance will always be beyond your capabilities in some areas, no matter how long and deliberately you practice. They deny innate talent.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 20th December 2018 at 01:54 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 02:54 AM   #5
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,014
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Have not read the book, just looked at the deliberate practice wiki link.
That must be wrong.

Sure you can get better at anything with practice, but I think achieving expert levels of performance will always be beyond your capabilities in some areas, no matter how long and deliberately you practice. They deny innate talent.

I think the whole point is that 'innate talent' counts for very little compared to hours upon hours of effective practice.


Did Judit Polgár have any natural talent for Chess? Or is her brilliance only due to many hours of effective practice?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:41 PM   #6
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,374
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think the whole point is that 'innate talent' counts for very little compared to hours upon hours of effective practice.


Did Judit Polgár have any natural talent for Chess? Or is her brilliance only due to many hours of effective practice?
No dichotomy necessary. I'll take talent PLUS a modicum of practice any day.

And as far as expertise inn the real world, you need talent to go beyond what you have been practicing. Every field of endeavor I have ever been in necessitated such expansion.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:43 PM   #7
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,374
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think the whole point is that 'innate talent' counts for very little compared to hours upon hours of effective practice.


Did Judit Polgár have any natural talent for Chess? Or is her brilliance only due to many hours of effective practice?
If all it took was practice, Eniac would have bveen the Chess Grand Wzoo in the 40s.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 01:35 PM   #8
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,772
The contradiction is that endless hours or study and practice make the peak performance seem to be a natural talent, but you shouldn't let the apparent effortlessness fool you. The effort you made in the past was what enables you to perform at the level that you now master. That only a modicum of practice is necessary is an illusion.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 04:29 PM   #9
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
No dichotomy necessary. I'll take talent PLUS a modicum of practice any day.

And as far as expertise inn the real world, you need talent to go beyond what you have been practicing. Every field of endeavor I have ever been in necessitated such expansion.
What 3point14 said. It turns out that "talent" is largely a myth. Anyone can get good at anything if they are motivated to practice enough. What happens is that people mistake motivation to practice for natural talent.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 06:31 PM   #10
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Have not read the book, just looked at the deliberate practice wiki link.
That must be wrong.

Sure you can get better at anything with practice, but I think achieving expert levels of performance will always be beyond your capabilities in some areas, no matter how long and deliberately you practice. They deny innate talent.
If you read the book you'll find that they don't deny innate talent, but they certainly downplay it. He suggests that there are some genetic factors that can't be improved with practice (like height) which do impact upon performance, but that those factors are much less present than we tend to think.

Further, "talent" in a particular field may simply be "motivation or drive to engage in deliberate practice". In a study on violinists they found that the best violinists simply practiced more than the merely "very good" violinists, and this discrepancy continued down the skill ladder. This doesn't mean that there's no genetic component to that motivation or drive, but it does suggest that deliberate practice can be very effective.

There may be other components to talent, but that's not really what the book is about. It's about the fact that deliberate practice is the most effective way to improve one's skill at any particular endeavour, and that it's available to anyone.

He also discusses the fact that the sort of mindless practice that many people engage in is ineffective. They don't make improvements over time, and in fact often get worse.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 06:45 PM   #11
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I've heard of deliberate practice. It all sounds a bit common-sense to me. Deliberate practice is basically how I learned to play music when I was 7 - ie, concentrate on becoming fluent in increasingly-difficult exercises with immediate feedback from an instructor. It's not new - it's just that someone has now given the method a name.
He discusses music specifically as one of the areas in which deliberate practice has already been well established as the way to train for a long time. It was in part through studying the way in which world-class musicians train that he came up with this framework. What's novel is perhaps the idea that it can be applied to anything.

And while it may seem like common sense, having this sort of framework in mind can help us to get out of bad habits. Yesterday when I was teaching handstand one of my students was working on hitting a perfect single leg mount and kept missing it. I was watching her and giving feedback as she was doing it, which is usual for me. But I noticed that she wasn't really reacting to the feedback particularly well and was just putting in a lot of repetitions. I told her to make sure that she stopped between each jump, and took a moment to mentally visualize the handstand before doing it again. After she took on that advice I then added that she should think about the previous attempt and try to understand why it failed and how to correct it before making the next attempt. For the next few attempts I engaged in the process with her, pointing out what the problem was and how to correct it, and after 3 attempts like this she stuck a perfect handstand, whereas prior to that she'd jumped maybe 20 times with some good but not perfect and many more attempts. I then left to her to focus on other students and she spent the rest of the training session with both good form and much longer holds in balance than usual.

I generally have encouraged my students to use this sort of approach to training but:
A) It requires more focus than just banging out reps, and that mental effort can be exhausting and is not always so fun, so they will often slack on it.
B) Having this framework fresh in my mind helped me to realise more quickly the problem with her approach and address it. On another day I might have tried to address only the technique problems with what she was doing, without thinking about the training approach, the need to slow down, focus, address each attempt individually, etc.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 06:54 PM   #12
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
I've also used this approach teaching sword combat. Two people will have an exchange, one will hit, and then I stop and ask the one who was hit "what went wrong just then?" Beginners can't tell you. Once they have some more experience, they can break down the movements and see in what way they were out of position. Then we do the exchange again. Immediate feedback is an important part of the process.

There was a podcast episode on this subject that I heard a while back, but I can't remember which show it was. It might have been Science Vs but I'm not sure. There are probably a few, come to think of it, that have covered the subject.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 07:01 PM   #13
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 20,353
"Deliberate practice" seems like a good way to become at least reasonably proficient at some skills, playing a piano or sword fighting. Physical skills, perhaps. But I didn't become a good engineer by "deliberate practice". I had to spend years doing it and learning from mistakes and from those around me. I don't think you can deliberately practice that kind of thing.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 07:17 PM   #14
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,530
Athletics illustrates the value of both talent and practice.

In some athletic endeavors, talent can be measured with reasonable precision by observing how rapidly performances improve with prescribed practice.

Example: My own training and performances indicated that, with another two or three years of intensive training, I probably could have run a 2:40 marathon. Maybe even 2:30. Conceivably 2:25, but that would have been very unlikely. No matter how much I might train, I was never going to run 2:10 or faster. Not enough talent.

Which presented me with a choice. Did I want to put in the practice necessary to achieve my full potential as a runner? I did not.

No one has enough time to put in enough practice to develop their ultimate potential in everything they might do. Realistic assessment of your talents can help you to decide which activities are worth the practice.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 20th December 2018 at 08:23 PM. Reason: added omitted word (in gray)
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 08:17 PM   #15
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
"Deliberate practice" seems like a good way to become at least reasonably proficient at some skills, playing a piano or sword fighting. Physical skills, perhaps. But I didn't become a good engineer by "deliberate practice". I had to spend years doing it and learning from mistakes and from those around me. I don't think you can deliberately practice that kind of thing.
In what way does the highlighted activity not count as deliberate practice?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 09:21 PM   #16
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In what way does the highlighted activity not count as deliberate practice?
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 09:32 PM   #17
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,194
Deliberate practice vs passive absorption?? Is there something about this no-brainer I'm missing?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 09:37 PM   #18
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Athletics illustrates the value of both talent and practice.

In some athletic endeavors, talent can be measured with reasonable precision by observing how rapidly performances improve with prescribed practice.

Example: My own training and performances indicated that, with another two or three years of intensive training, I probably could have run a 2:40 marathon. Maybe even 2:30. Conceivably 2:25, but that would have been very unlikely. No matter how much I might train, I was never going to run 2:10 or faster. Not enough talent.

Which presented me with a choice. Did I want to put in the practice necessary to achieve my full potential as a runner? I did not.
There are certainly physical differences between people (height is one, for marathons another is body proportions like leg length to torso, or the structure of the ankle that all impact on efficiency) that can impact on atheletic performance.

However, the idea that you can know that you were never going to run 2:10 or faster isn't clear. Perhaps if you continued training as you were that outcome might be guaranteed. But one of the points of deliberate practice is that it includes problem solving when plateaus are reached to attempt to alter training methods to break through to the next plateau.

He begins the book by discussing an experiment he did on training a subject to memorize strings of numbers, read at one digit/second. At this point no one had ever been able to memorize more than 15 digits in this way, and most people could do around 7. His subject was typical, maxing out around 7-8 digits initially. One might have thought that with some practice he could reach what was achieved by the best memory experts, around 15 digits. After two years he was able to consistently repeat back strings of more than 80 digits.

He later took on another subject who used and improved on the methods developed by the first and was able to memorize more than 100 digits. There's no reason to beleive that either of them had a particular talent for memorizing digits, yet both became the best in the world (at the time) with some training.


Quote:
No one has enough time to put in enough practice to develop their ultimate potential in everything they might do. Realistic assessment of your talents can help you to decide which activities are worth the practice.
Sure, but making such assessments isn't simple.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 09:49 PM   #19
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,278
I recommend also reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers where the author discusses the 10,000 hour rule.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 09:54 PM   #20
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Gladwell's discussion of the "10,000 hour rule" actually comes from Ericsson's work, and in the book he gives a bit of a criticism of Gladwell's description of his research.

(I did read Outliers a few years ago and agree that it's worth reading. )
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 10:12 PM   #21
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,278
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Deliberate practice vs passive absorption?? Is there something about this no-brainer I'm missing?
You must be unaware there are charlatans out there who want to convince others that incredible skill and talent can be acquired without hard work.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 10:14 PM   #22
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
I recommend also reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers where the author discusses the 10,000 hour rule.
...which has been largely debunked, including by Gladwell himself.

I saw an interview with him once (maybe on Colbert? It was a few years ago now) where he said basically "yeah, a lot of people have taken that the wrong way".
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 10:27 PM   #23
Elvis666
Critical Thinker
 
Elvis666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What 3point14 said. It turns out that "talent" is largely a myth. Anyone can get good at anything if they are motivated to practice enough. What happens is that people mistake motivation to practice for natural talent.
Not in my experience. I've been a musician for all but the first few years of my life. I have a degree in music performance and have been practicing exactly as described for a lot more than 10,000 hours over 55 years. I am a really good amateur trombonist, but I cannot play as well as the professionals with whom I've played.

Deliberate practice can give you a lot of technique, even mastery, but it cannot give you what you lack in raw talent, at least in the music field. Musical ability is like an asymptotic curve. When you get to a certain level, an hour's practice gets you less of a increase in proficiency. You never stop improving, but you improve less and less. Of course, if you stop practicing, your ability immediately begins to drop. So you practice anyway.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Elvis666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 10:38 PM   #24
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
Not in my experience. I've been a musician for all but the first few years of my life. I have a degree in music performance and have been practicing exactly as described for a lot more than 10,000 hours over 55 years. I am a really good amateur trombonist, but I cannot play as well as the professionals with whom I've played.

Deliberate practice can give you a lot of technique, even mastery, but it cannot give you what you lack in raw talent, at least in the music field. Musical ability is like an asymptotic curve. When you get to a certain level, an hour's practice gets you less of a increase in proficiency. You never stop improving, but you improve less and less. Of course, if you stop practicing, your ability immediately begins to drop. So you practice anyway.
And again, it has been found and demonstrated that raw talent is a lot less significant than it seems. You enjoy performance, so you do it a lot. You want to get better at it. You are motivated to spend time that you consider to be simple pleasure, rather than practice, and you interpret that as talent. But it isn't.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 11:14 PM   #25
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
However, the idea that you can know that you were never going to run 2:10 or faster isn't clear.
It was clear enough to me.

A 2:11 marathon is five minutes per mile, sustained over 26+ miles.

To do that, I'd have to be able to run shorter distances at a considerably faster pace than five minutes per mile. Empirical studies have estimated the correlation between race times at various distances. For example, this particular calculator was able to estimate my best marathon time to within two minutes. To run a 2:11 marathon, according to that same calculator, I'd need to run about 100 miles per week and lower my 5km time to something on the order of 13:00 (which is 4:11 per mile). To run 5km at a 4:11 pace, I'd first have to be able to run one mile in 4:11.

Sorry, but not everyone has enough talent to run a mile in 4:11, no matter how well they practice. Heart volume and maximum heart rate are pretty much fixed (although the maximum heart rate declines with age). I was blessed with a high maximum heart rate, so I could sustain 180 beats per minute with reasonable comfort, but my heart volume was not much greater than average (so my resting heart rate never dropped below 50, even when I was in excellent shape). That's before we even get into fast/slow twitch ratios, height, body type, and mechanics, which were reasonably favorable for me but not good enough for world class performances to be a realistic ambition.

Yes, some people like to say practice is what matters and talent is "a lot less significant than it seems." They should come back and say that after they've practiced enough to run a mile in four minutes and eleven seconds.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 11:20 PM   #26
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,834
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Sorry, but not everyone has enough talent to run a mile in 4:11, no matter how well they practice. Heart volume and maximum heart rate are pretty much fixed (although the maximum heart rate declines with age). I was blessed with a high maximum heart rate, so I could sustain 180 beats per minute with reasonable comfort, but my heart volume was not much greater than average (so my resting heart rate never dropped below 50, even when I was in excellent shape). That's before we even get into fast/slow twitch ratios, height, body type, and mechanics, which were reasonably favorable for me but not good enough for world class performances to be a realistic ambition.
That's not talent, that's biological characteristics.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 12:33 AM   #27
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's not talent, that's biological characteristics.
What is talent but "biological characteristics"? We accept that bodies are physically different to one another, and that can lend itself to different abilities, the brain is part of that physical body so why wouldn't there be brains that can lend themselves to different abilities?

For example one of the techniques for remembering lists uses the ability people have to "see" something in their mind's eye, that technique is useless for me. (See method of loci.)

Not saying that practice can't help pretty much everyone to improve, and that the type of practice is important but since bodies are different in so many ways some bodies will have a "talent" for certain abilities, for example someone 1.95m tall is going to have a "talent" for basketball when compared to someone 1.5m tall.

I can't see how the brain and neurosystems being different would not result in some people having a "talent" for something when compared to other people. An example comes to mind: absolute/perfect pitch, some people have this others don't. *


*Checking on my recall of what absolute/perfect pitch is before I posted it seems there may be a "learning window" for someone to learn absolute pitch, which is interesting but I hope not to derail the thread whilst we argue if perfect pitch is a learned or innate talent. If you disagree with it as an example my argument still stands.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 12:34 AM   #28
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,530
Marilyn Monroe had talent.

To which she added deliberate practice.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 04:42 AM   #29
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,772
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
*Checking on my recall of what absolute/perfect pitch is before I posted it seems there may be a "learning window" for someone to learn absolute pitch, which is interesting but I hope not to derail the thread whilst we argue if perfect pitch is a learned or innate talent. If you disagree with it as an example my argument still stands.

You should probably stress "may be":

Quote:
The evidence for such a period is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development, but nonetheless is widely accepted. The nature of such a critical period, however, has been one of the most fiercely debated issues in psycholinguistics and cognitive science in general for decades. Some writers have suggested a "sensitive" or "optimal" period rather than a critical one; others dispute the causes (physical maturation, cognitive factors). The duration of the period also varies greatly in different accounts.
In second-language acquisition, the strongest empirical evidence for the critical period hypothesis is in the study of accent, where most older learners do not reach a native-like level. However, under certain conditions, native-like accent has been observed, suggesting that accent is affected by multiple factors, such as identity and motivation, rather than a critical period biological constraint.Critical period hypothesis (Wikipedia)

About 35 years ago I read a book about ESL and interlanguage (Wikipedia). I don't remember the title of the book or the name of the author, but he claimed that he had met a couple of people who had learned a foreign language as adults at a level where they were indistinguishable from native speakers. One of them was training to become a spy!
So even if the window ought to be closed for good, you may actually be able to open it again if your life depends on it!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 21st December 2018 at 04:43 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 06:03 AM   #30
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,014
I'm reminded of the virtuoso pianist who got mildly annoyed at the "Oh, you're so lucky to be so talented" comments. He believed it belittled the literal thousands of hours of graft that had been required to get to where he was.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 21st December 2018 at 06:05 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 06:26 AM   #31
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,292
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You should probably stress "may be":




About 35 years ago I read a book about ESL and interlanguage (Wikipedia). I don't remember the title of the book or the name of the author, but he claimed that he had met a couple of people who had learned a foreign language as adults at a level where they were indistinguishable from native speakers. One of them was training to become a spy!
So even if the window ought to be closed for good, you may actually be able to open it again if your life depends on it!
I've known a lot of musicians from attending and teaching in music schools, including some musicians with very unusual absolute pitch abilities. (Kevin Gibbs, aka Kevin Kern being one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kern)

I had very good relative pitch and ability to take musical dictation, and I acquired the ability to hear the e3 of the 6th string of a guitar in my imagination, but with variable accuracy. However proud of my talents I was, I was completely blown away by Kevin. His ear is nothing like mine. His pitch identification is instant and infallable, and his memory was "photographic" seemingly when he wanted it to be. When he hears a pitch, there's no need for him to mentally compare it some reference, he already knows what it is by itself.

I've never known a musician to aquire such abilities in their teens or later. Believe me, many of us would have liked to have that ability. This is my point.


This by itself doesn't translate into a high conceptual level. In fact, it makes having sophisticated theory somewhat unnecessary. But it's absolutely great for being the house pianist, or being able to sit in in any situation, or being able to function in an atonal space-jam. If you're a performer, it's a great advantage.

The wiki puts absolute pitch at 1 in 10,000. I'd go with that number unless I hear something more solid.

Heh. Kevin would correct someone in class, and then say: "Perfect pitch is NEVER WRONG!"
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 07:00 AM   #32
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,014
Here's one of my favourite youtubers with a little discussion of perfect pitch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD9zdaYVk48


(Mostly Adam discusses musical concepts that are so far beyond me it's ridiculous. But I still watch them. Incidentally, here's a rollercoaster ride of a vid about how not to gig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD9zdaYVk48)
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 08:05 AM   #33
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
What is talent but "biological characteristics"? We accept that bodies are physically different to one another, and that can lend itself to different abilities, the brain is part of that physical body so why wouldn't there be brains that can lend themselves to different abilities?
That applies to some things more than others. Many genetic factors can be deal-breakers when considering sports, such as 100m or arm wrestling (there are some incredible examples of genetic mutation creating champions in the latter), whereas there are none of any significance in, say, illustration.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 09:00 AM   #34
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
The wiki puts absolute pitch at 1 in 10,000. I'd go with that number unless I hear something more solid.
He discusses perfect pitch in the book and brings up an experiment in which children were trained to develop it at a young age. A very high percentage of them (I'll have to double check to see how high, it may have been 100%) did so.

I expect that many skills become harder to develop as well age.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 09:04 AM   #35
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post

Sorry, but not everyone has enough talent to run a mile in 4:11, no matter how well they practice. Heart volume and maximum heart rate are pretty much fixed (although the maximum heart rate declines with age).
Are they fixed at adulthood, or at birth? Those are very different statements. Training at a young age isn't what I would consider to be "talent", yet it may be what differentiates someone who is able to run a 4:11 mile from someone who isn't.

As I said in the post that you are responding to I certainly agree that there are physiological and even genetic differences that impact upon performance in running (and other sports). What's not clear is how strong that impact is.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 10:06 AM   #36
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post

Heh. Kevin would correct someone in class, and then say: "Perfect pitch is NEVER WRONG!"
But perfect pitch can be a problem sometimes. I knew a singer with perfect pitch who was unable to transpose a song if needed. That made it a different song in her ears! Intervals was apparently a weaker concept to her than the absolute pitches.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 11:25 AM   #37
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,374
Hmm, I bet you could divide the posters here into the shame two groups whether the discussion is Talent, IQ, Meritocracy.... The one group believes ALL people are interchangeable units and ought to have the same outcomes. The other group believes that the individual is as unique as a snowflake. And one group calls the other group racists. Hmmmm...
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 03:50 AM   #38
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,772
How much do you want to bet?
Has anybody in this thread called anybody racist?
That practice almost always makes (if not perfect, then at least) better is a fact, not an ideology. That you can excel at playing the piano without practice, however, is an ideology. Nobody has claimed that biology or genetics doesn't play a role; the size of your hands, the length of your fingers, for instance, do. If you are short and chubby, you won't stand much of a chance as a ballet dancer. But you won't be better off in that field if you're tall and slim but insist that you don't need to practice because ballet skills come naturally.
If you're dyslexic, you'll never excel at reading, but the right kind of practice can make you pretty good.
(Have you considered why you would hate the answer no to another one of your own hypotheses?)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 06:24 AM   #39
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,374
Originally Posted by dann View Post
How much do you want to bet?
Has anybody in this thread called anybody racist?
That practice almost always makes (if not perfect, then at least) better is a fact, not an ideology. That you can excel at playing the piano without practice, however, is an ideology. Nobody has claimed that biology or genetics doesn't play a role; the size of your hands, the length of your fingers, for instance, do. If you are short and chubby, you won't stand much of a chance as a ballet dancer. But you won't be better off in that field if you're tall and slim but insist that you don't need to practice because ballet skills come naturally.
If you're dyslexic, you'll never excel at reading, but the right kind of practice can make you pretty good.
(Have you considered why you would hate the answer no to another one of your own hypotheses?)
Dan, I wasn't talking about the facts involved in this discussion, I was talking about the posters and how they choose sides in various topics. I noticed a pattern, something I have a talent for.

I'm sure you've heard of Temple Grandin, "Do you think in words or pictures"? I figured for me, pictures. But I took a test on line, it said "concepts". Ms Grandin mentioned "patterns" in her TED talk, so bingo. I do see things a little differently from most people. Which is a Talent. An inborn difference. It makes me really good at diagnosis, but lousy at rote learning. I aced chemistry, flunked German due to the rote memory involved in the schtoopid grammar with genders. But I could read it, I had the definitions of the words, the "concepts".

I tried to learn music. But it's all rote memory. I couldn't even remember whether the alphabetic notes went up or down on the grid, I had to make a cheat sheet for that. So I tried to leanr the rules that the rote stuff was based on. Like for the naming of "keys". Like why is "B flat minor" denoted with those particular number and arrangement of hash marks? Why is it called "B flat minor" ? No soap. Rote memory needed. I don't have that talent. But I remember who Avogadro was, and I remember six point oh two to the 23rd. Because I have the concept down.

So I suspect that those who think there is no such thing as "talent", haven't found their own. Perhaps they have a talent for rote memory, but never recognized it as such. They probably "think in words".
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 08:12 AM   #40
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,836
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Dan, I wasn't talking about the facts involved in this discussion, I was talking about the posters and how they choose sides in various topics. I noticed a pattern, something I have a talent for.
Which side do you think I would fall on?

Quote:
I tried to learn music.
How much time did you spend trying to learn music?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.