NationStates Jolt Archive

I tend to get irritated with people at work when they say the are unable to do something and won't even try - say things like "there is no point I just won't be able to do it, I just know". Now I know that I am not very good at languages but I think if I put in the practice I could overcome the problems I have. I have also read a few books and articles recently that say all it takes is ten thousand hours of practice to become an expert at something. The main difference between a concert pianist and everyone else is the amount of practice they put in, not the amount of talent they started with.

Ohh yeah I totaly agree, as I have said in the writing therad.

Who has time for 10000 hours of practice? That's a full year's work.
Sure, perhaps "in theory" you can be come an expert at anything without having a talent for it, but in practice it may still very well be impossible. The bootstrapping problem is the 10000 hours it takes to becomes an expert at self-motivation needed to put in 10000 hours of work at becoming an expert at something.

I'm 5'10". I don't think I'll ever become the worlds tallest man even with 10 000 hours of practice.

Actually there's a big debate as to how much of talent is down to practice and how much may be down to natural competencies.

I'd say someone can become good, very very good at something with practice but after a point all the practice in the world won't help without natural ability.

I'm 5'10". I don't think I'll ever become the worlds tallest man even with 10 000 hours of practice.

Quitter :p

I tend to get irritated with people at work when they say the are unable to do something and won't even try - say things like "there is no point I just won't be able to do it, I just know". Now I know that I am not very good at languages but I think if I put in the practice I could overcome the problems I have. I have also read a few books and articles recently that say all it takes is ten thousand hours of practice to become an expert at something. The main difference between a concert pianist and everyone else is the amount of practice they put in, not the amount of talent they started with.

It's not quite that simple. The research that came up with the figure 10,000 hours for concert pianists also concluded that this must happen before the age of 18, preferably starting as young as 6 years old.

Yes, developing a skill takes time, and that's hard at times in childhood when there are numerous other things to do, but these pianists haven't come out of nowhere, they are supported and/or 'forced' by interested parents. Parental interests plays a large part in developing a child's ones as those will be the things they are exposed to earliest and most often. Almost all concert pianists will have had amateur musicians as parents, and an environment at home where music was often heard or played.

Imagine trying to expect a child in a white British home, where popular or classical music is the norm, and they try to learn the sitar and Indian ragas. Sure, with enough practice they will develop the techniques and mental ability, but it would be far easier to have learnt the piano as its characteristics and use in Western music would already by a young age be well-known by the child.

That said, there may well be genetic factors as parents with developed musical brains may pass on genes to code for specialism in these areas. Certainly amusia can be genetic.

im 51 years old. i can learn to play the piano but ill never be good at it no matter how much i practice.

that doesnt bother me. im quite happy with being a rudimentary player of popular songs out of easy fake books. if i had wanted to be a professional i would have started earlier. (but i never had what it takes to be a professional musician)

I tend to get irritated with people at work when they say the are unable to do something and won't even try - say things like "there is no point I just won't be able to do it, I just know". Now I know that I am not very good at languages but I think if I put in the practice I could overcome the problems I have. I have also read a few books and articles recently that say all it takes is ten thousand hours of practice to become an expert at something. The main difference between a concert pianist and everyone else is the amount of practice they put in, not the amount of talent they started with.
it takes both talent and dedication to become a concert pianist.

same with probasketball players.

there are too many people wanting the job for it to be available to anyone without innate talent and thousands of hours of practice.

Actually there's a big debate as to how much of talent is down to practice and how much may be down to natural competencies.

I'd say someone can become good, very very good at something with practice but after a point all the practice in the world won't help without natural ability.

I would think it's the other way around. Natural ability can only get one so far without developing it through practice.

I would think it's the other way around. Natural ability can only get one so far without developing it through practice.
There's unlocking potential with practise, which people with talent need to do, at least a bit, and then there's plateauing because your 'talent' is just your exceptional patience rather than inate ability.

If something is important enough to me, I'll give it a try. Even if I don't have any talent for it, usually I can become good enough at it for my own purposes.

Conversely, if I don't want to do it, it doesn't matter how talented I am, it's not going to happen.

I'm 5'10". I don't think I'll ever become the worlds tallest man even with 10 000 hours of practice.If by practice you mean culling every man taller than you, then maybe.

I think it's a bit of both.

While practice and determination does go a long way, those with a talent (natural inclination, whatever) simply progress so much quickly.

I encounter this a lot in teaching. There are examples of someone just not having the necessary wiring to accopmlish some things, but that is VERY RARE. Example: people who are genuinely tone-deaf are as rare as those who have perfect pitch: roughly one in 100K or so.

The rest is practice and willingless to accept one's own maximum pace in learnign something.

As Edison said "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration "
therefore with practice and hard work you can achieve almost anything

As Edison said "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration "
therefore with practice and hard work you can achieve almost anything
...

Renowned historian Joseph Brereton said "People from Holland are horrible and hate freedom almost universally"

Therefore Holland is bad. Note that this is not true, I meant "les wallons" instead of 'people from Holland.

Right?

As Edison said "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration "
therefore with practice and hard work you can achieve almost anythingYeah, but Edison was an asshole. Consider Nikola Tesla,

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”

Who has time for 10000 hours of practice? That's a full year's work.
Sure, perhaps "in theory" you can be come an expert at anything without having a talent for it, but in practice it may still very well be impossible. The bootstrapping problem is the 10000 hours it takes to becomes an expert at self-motivation needed to put in 10000 hours of work at becoming an expert at something.

yeah. a talented person may be able to devote their time to their chosen art/skill/whatever, through going to art schools, getting scholarships, grants, being able to start somewhere up the rung (so to speak). but the rest of us have to fit learning whatever it is, as a hobby, around the rest of our lives. becoming an expert may be possible, but being born with talent sure fucking helps. there's a difference between possible and reality imo

This thread strongly reminds me of a discussion Dante and Randal once had about Randal's cousin Walter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0DASNUWpig)...

Sometimes, practice does not make perfect, no matter how hard you try.

My view is going to be based off a religous standpoint. Since I believe God designed each person and gave them their own gifts then each individual person has strenghts and weaknesses. Im not saying somebody can't be good at something by practicing a lot. However, for example, a person may have natural talent at something...say a musical instrument. With natural tallent that person will find it easier adapting to that instrument and will find it easier to learn new things. So I believe that natural ability actually allows you to get better...but you still have to put in the practice. I also believe that somebody whom is "bad" at something naturally can still adapt and eventually become good at something.....however..these are just my personal beliefs.

Hmm, this thread makes me want to end my sentences with (Surname, 200X).

I am never going to be a six foot tall super model, and that's all there is to it.

I tend to get irritated with people at work when they say the are unable to do something and won't even try - say things like "there is no point I just won't be able to do it, I just know".

That's more an anxiety thing I think.

How quickly one can pick something up DOES depend on talent and on having mastery of similar things (a new musical instrument for someone who is already accomplished on some other instrument, for example.)

So saying "I won't ever be able to do that" could just be wanting their own "little corner of the shop" where their skills aren't contrasted with anyone else's in the same role. They see doing something that someone else can do well as nothing but an opportunity to fail.

I would say a supportive learning environment can fix that, maybe some team-building exercises where everyone does something they've never tried before ... but unfortunately, lots of people come out of school already thinking that there are things they will never be able to do.

It can be pretty ingrained. For me, it's foreign languages. The anxiety makes it very hard to learn anything ... as if the easiest thing is to fail at the first steps. Easier to say "I'm useless" than prove that you're useless.

If this makes any sense ... ;)

If you learn how to do something, people might actually expect you to do it.

Learning how to crack walnuts with my testicles was one of the worst decisions of my life. :(

This thread strongly reminds me of a discussion Dante and Randal once had about Randal's cousin Walter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0DASNUWpig)...

Bah, youtube.

Sometimes, practice does not make perfect, no matter how hard you try.

Perfection should not be the aim, then. Only improvement.

I don't think I can post on this thread

If you learn how to do something, people might actually expect you to do it.

If you do it slowly enough, they might forget that they asked you to?

Learning how to crack walnuts with my testicles was one of the worst decisions of my life. :(

So how do you ... d'oh. Don't even give me a hint.
No nutcrackers, no cracked nuts will be my policy.

Bah, youtube.
Maybe - although what you should've said is "Yay, Clerks. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109445/)"

Please tell me you ain't ignorant of Clerks!?!

Learning how to crack walnuts with my testicles was one of the worst decisions of my life. :(
Did you at least play some Tchaikovsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKDJ6Z_stvg) while performing the feat?

Did you ever hear of the "curve" for grading in school? Well the same principle applies at work. There will always be people who are "bottom-fishers" or "mediocre" in everything they do, including "putting their mind to it." In fact, those are the very people who make others at work shine or appear to excel, even if those others are not at the concert pianist level.

As I just posted in the writing thread, practice is hugely important but talent isn't just a product of hard work. I could never have been a star soccer player. It doesn't matter how early I started or how dedicated I was - I simply wasn't born with the requisite athleticism and coordination. And a brilliant pianist will come out of the womb with a formidable advantage - she could have thrown the talent away by not playing the piano enough. But it doesn't work in reverse - no matter how much someone less fortunate tried, they could never draw a crowd.

I think that there are very few "geniuses," but I agree some people are born with certain talents which either they develop and use or don't develop and use.

I'm divided on the issue, where physical limitations aren't present, I'm just not sure there's a genetic aptitude for ability. I suspect it's more a case of the butterfly flap - events early on have a disproportionate effect on the future.

I've seen people think they can't do something but then be shown in a different way and pick it up immediately. Sometimes, it's just getting past that initial roadblock.

One experiment I'd like the funding for is to start a group on, say Tetris, at beginner level and see how long it takes them to achieve at the highest level compared to a group who start on that highest level, how long before they master the game.

Another interesting piece that came out at a similar time to the promotion of Malcolm Gladwell's new book - on which I suppose this thread is based - was dyslexia discrepancies where a second language was learned.

Dyslexia seems more and more clearly to be a hearing problem, not a visual problem.

The brain, our last frontier.

YUCK! people who, when faced with a small challenge, need to make a big deal out of it.
A:"Where has our blank gone?"
B:"It is in the other of the two places we always keep it"
A:"URRRRGH I WHY DO WE ALWAYS LOSE THINGS!!"
Thank you for disturbing us all for no reason what so ever

I'm divided on the issue, where physical limitations aren't present, I'm just not sure there's a genetic aptitude for ability. I suspect it's more a case of the butterfly flap - events early on have a disproportionate effect on the future.



I reckon there is. It's not something that's comfortable to face up to because it makes us less powerful, it takes options out of our hands and that's a scary thought. With something like height it's so obvious that we can't deny it. With other things, we kid ourselves that with a bit of effort we can be world beaters.

I reckon there is. It's not something that's comfortable to face up to because it makes us less powerful, it takes options out of our hands and that's a scary thought. With something like height it's so obvious that we can't deny it. With other things, we kid ourselves that with a bit of effort we can be world beaters.

I'd take an opposite on that, that by saying someone's a natural at something, it excuses us from putting in the hard work required to achieve a certain level.

It's easier to believe one either has aptitude or doesn't.

There could be another big point here. People dont want to work. they are slack. The excuse they are unable or couldnt learn is just a cover for saying "I dont want to do that"

I'd take an opposite on that, that by saying someone's a natural at something, it excuses us from putting in the hard work required to achieve a certain level.

It's easier to believe one either has aptitude or doesn't.

The thing that sort of colours my pov is that I have personal experience of being the "lucky" one. I've been very fortunate in that I'm very good at my job and I've been well rewarded as a result. I know I don't work as hard as others, I didn't work very hard in University and I didn't work very hard at school. The difference is that I sucked at school & uni but I'm good at my job. It's tempting to justify my success as the result of my actions but if I look at it honestly and rationally then I no more deserve my rewards than a lottery winner deserves his or her winnings. Do I work harder than some people? Sure. But that's no different than the fact that some people don't buy lottery tickets.

Edit: With references to lottery winners and such, I've talked myself up far more than reality actually reflects. I almost sound like a basketball player :D I do okay was basically all I was trying to say!

The thing that sort of colours my pov is that I have personal experience of being the "lucky" one. I've been very fortunate in that I'm very good at my job and I've been well rewarded as a result. I know I don't work as hard as others, I didn't work very hard in University and I didn't work very hard at school. The difference is that I sucked at school & uni but I'm good at my job. It's tempting to justify my success as the result of my actions but if I look at it honestly and rationally then I no more deserve my rewards than a lottery winner deserves his or her winnings. Do I work harder than some people? Sure. But that's no different than the fact that some people don't buy lottery tickets.

Edit: With references to lottery winners and such, I've talked myself up far more than reality actually reflects. I almost sound like a basketball player :D I do okay was basically all I was trying to say!

I doubt your phenomenal success, the constant Emmy's, the red carpets, the leading ladies on your arm, was achieved without practice, and I'm not sure that schooling, which perhaps wasn't overly interesting to you, had much effect on whether you enjoyed, and practiced, writing or not.

Quitter :p

Damn straight. If there is one thing I don't need practice at, it is giving up when the going gets tough.

I doubt your phenomenal success, the constant Emmy's, the red carpets, the leading ladies on your arm, was achieved without practice, and I'm not sure that schooling, which perhaps wasn't overly interesting to you, had much effect on whether you enjoyed, and practiced, writing or not.

As I type this from my private jet I wonder "is it time for more champagne?" but I also wonder if I really practiced more than the thousands of people who bombard Hollywood screenplay competitions with sucky scripts every year? William Goldman reckoned that it was something that you don't neccessarily improve upon past maybe your second attempt - although obviously he had a lot of practice with another kind of writing.

...

Sorry, I had to go tell Halle Berry to wait until I was done writing my post. She said that since it's Barringtonia she understands that I have to prioritise.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, I would love to be a stand up comic. It's easy work, it's fun and it's cool. And it's actually very easy to write an acceptable routine because the general standard is terrible. But I can't perform - my speaking voice is rubbish, I have no presence, I don't have enough charisma, I don't keep my cool and I generally can't perform. And then you realise why the general standard of stand up comedy is terrible - because you're looking at a joke writing pool that is tiny because only people with the above attributes have a look in.
And you can see it withing successful comedians too - a crap comedian like Andy Parsons practices as much as a giant like Daniel Kitson but the difference is that former is a bore and the latter is a genius. Maybe that's unfair because Parsons doesn't have lofty ambitions but he still gets outshone every Mock The Week by Boyle (who is hardly aiming for art). Same amount of practice and effort, different result.

As I type this from my private jet I wonder "is it time for more champagne?" but I also wonder if I really practiced more than the thousands of people who bombard Hollywood screenplay competitions with sucky scripts every year? William Goldman reckoned that it was something that you don't neccessarily improve upon past maybe your second attempt - although obviously he had a lot of practice with another kind of writing.

...

Sorry, I had to go tell Halle Berry to wait until I was done writing my post. She said that since it's Barringtonia she understands that I have to prioritise.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, I would love to be a stand up comic. It's easy work, it's fun and it's cool. And it's actually very easy to write an acceptable routine because the general standard is terrible. But I can't perform - my speaking voice is rubbish, I have no presence, I don't have enough charisma, I don't keep my cool and I generally can't perform. And then you realise why the general standard of stand up comedy is terrible - because you're looking at a joke writing pool that is tiny because only people with the above attributes have a look in.
And you can see it withing successful comedians too - a crap comedian like Andy Parsons practices as much as a giant like Daniel Kitson but the difference is that former is a bore and the latter is a genius. Maybe that's unfair because Parsons doesn't have lofty ambitions but he still gets outshone every Mock The Week by Boyle (who is hardly aiming for art). Same amount of practice and effort, different result.

Hence early circumstance and the theoretical butterfly flap may certainly have a large impact on future development.

The Gladwell essay - and I wish he'd stick with essays rather than elongating them into books that make the same point ad nauseam - also points to circumstance in this way. The heads of Microsoft, Google (as in Eric Schmidt), Apple and, I think, Sun, were all born in the same few years (52-57) and in certain circumstances that gave them access to programming. The age that they were born meant that they were of university age when programming was highly lucrative to those highly adept at it, through practice.

I'd say the confidence to do something has a large effect, and that is shaped by circumstance over a wide variety of factors.

Someone extremely adept at humour of a particular age may not be appreciated in the way as someone breaking ground, taboos and etc., and is therefore seen as worse in that circumstance. The overall skill at their particular humour may simply be wrong for their times, it may be appreciated differently by different people.

It's not just aptitude, the circumstance under which one develops a skill, how it's rewarded and more play a part.

Yet the basic ability to become expert in a field through constant practice, barring physical limitations, is probably roughly the same.

Then again, the .002 difference may be all there is between success and failure, a butterfly wing in itself.

I'm divided on the issue, where physical limitations aren't present, I'm just not sure there's a genetic aptitude for ability. I suspect it's more a case of the butterfly flap - events early on have a disproportionate effect on the future.

I've seen people think they can't do something but then be shown in a different way and pick it up immediately. Sometimes, it's just getting past that initial roadblock.

I like the butterfly analogy, it seems to capture something of my thoughts on this. Events in childhood have hugely more impact on our development than events past the age of 18. Almost all geniuses have practised their skill throughout childhood, and at a precocious rate often.

I feel that sometimes people focus too much on the 'expert' of a field. If we're taking up a new skill, saying, 'I'll never be any good', is just comparing too much to those who have been practising the skill for years. The focus should be on personal improvement and the effects thereof, both in self-confidence and perhaps the pleasure/admiration of others.

Another interesting piece that came out at a similar time to the promotion of Malcolm Gladwell's new book - on which I suppose this thread is based - was dyslexia discrepancies where a second language was learned.

Dyslexia seems more and more clearly to be a hearing problem, not a visual problem.

Indeed, though oddly I know a strongly dyslexic person with very good notation reading skills and instrumental playing. I've never heard him sing, though his speaking is not noticeably affected. However, I'm not clear how problems in 'p'/'b' discrimination can manifest itself in inability to perceive written letters correctly and in the right order.

Another interesting piece that came out at a similar time to the promotion of Malcolm Gladwell's new book - on which I suppose this thread is based - was dyslexia discrepancies where a second language was learned.

Dyslexia seems more and more clearly to be a hearing problem, not a visual problem.



What rubbish. It is true that many people with dyslexica have problems with 'hearing' certian sounds, easpecily when young. But as dyslexcia is all about how the brain deals with input data, then you can see how the two can be linked huh.

What rubbish. It is true that many people with dyslexica have problems with 'hearing' certian sounds, easpecily when young. But as dyslexcia is all about how the brain deals with input data, then you can see how the two can be linked huh.

Deals with input data from where?

Hearing.

Although there's many conditions lumped under the generic term dyslexia, I'm talking about slow learning issues in terms of reading and writing.

There are things I can think of that I would gladly spend 10,000 hours practicing.

Any willing female coaches available?

Deals with input data from where?

Hearing.

Although there's many conditions lumped under the generic term dyslexia, I'm talking about slow learning issues in terms of reading and writing.

No you just totaly misunderstood huh.

From all sensory organs. It is not a problem with sight, nor a problem with hearing, athough these are the symptoms. It is a problem with how the brain deals with this data.

Slow learning issues may be conected with dyslexica, and they may not be.

Talent by itself can make you passable or even good without that much work.

Hard work by itself can make you passable or even good.

Talent plus hard work can make you great.

No you just totaly misunderstood huh.

From all sensory organs. It is not a problem with sight, nor a problem with hearing, athough these are the symptoms. It is a problem with how the brain deals with this data.

Slow learning issues may be conected with dyslexica, and they may not be.

The study he was talking about showed that the type of information dyslexics have most trouble with is written and heard language. They hypothesise that these are related. Yes it is to do with processing of data, but considering these brain areas are interrelated, looking at one may help understand another. When people read a word they activate pre-vocal areas of the brain which are also involved with hearing and discrimination of sounds into phonemes in language.

The study he was talking about showed that the type of information dyslexics have most trouble with is written and heard language. They hypothesise that these are related. Yes it is to do with processing of data, but considering these brain areas are interrelated, looking at one may help understand another. When people read a word they activate pre-vocal areas of the brain which are also involved with hearing and discrimination of sounds into phonemes in language.

Which has what to do with what I said? *confused*

Hence early circumstance and the theoretical butterfly flap may certainly have a large impact on future development.

The Gladwell essay - and I wish he'd stick with essays rather than elongating them into books that make the same point ad nauseam - also points to circumstance in this way. The heads of Microsoft, Google (as in Eric Schmidt), Apple and, I think, Sun, were all born in the same few years (52-57) and in certain circumstances that gave them access to programming. The age that they were born meant that they were of university age when programming was highly lucrative to those highly adept at it, through practice.

I'd say the confidence to do something has a large effect, and that is shaped by circumstance over a wide variety of factors.

Someone extremely adept at humour of a particular age may not be appreciated in the way as someone breaking ground, taboos and etc., and is therefore seen as worse in that circumstance. The overall skill at their particular humour may simply be wrong for their times, it may be appreciated differently by different people.

It's not just aptitude, the circumstance under which one develops a skill, how it's rewarded and more play a part.

Yet the basic ability to become expert in a field through constant practice, barring physical limitations, is probably roughly the same.

Then again, the .002 difference may be all there is between success and failure, a butterfly wing in itself.

It's definitely the case that little, early things can make a difference. But wouldn't that also fall under the category of "things we can't change"? Although I guess there is some comfort in knowing that we can change it for our children.

Gladwell does make interesting points but he's also guilty of ignoring items that don't fit in with his meta narrative as happens all too often with these kinds of things (see also: Naomi Klein et al). What about the other google boys? What about another thousand examples of people who weren't born in the "right enviroment" but succeeded? It shouldn't be forgotten that sometime poster boy for meritocracy and hard work, Bill Gates was born to incredibly intelligent and rich parents. We know, for example, that intelligence is to a large extent heridetary (through tests with seperately adopted twins for example). Yes, what you're saying is true and yes hard work is obviously incredibly important but I can't help but doubt that Jordan's children will ever become rocket scientists despite their private education and whatever else she can afford to throw at them.

Which has what to do with what I said? *confused*

You were saying his comments about hearing difficult were missing the point. They were not, and I explained why.

So why would anyone who thinks that they can't change anything actually practice a skill? Is this the real difference - if you have a fixed view of the world there is no point putting in hours of practice because you will never get any better?

You were saying his comments about hearing difficult were missing the point. They were not, and I explained why.

No I was saying that he was wrong when he said that dyslexcia has more to do with hearing than sight.

Dyslexica has nothing to do with either hearing or sight and all to do with the brain.

So why would anyone who thinks that they can't change anything actually practice a skill? Is this the real difference - if you have a fixed view of the world there is no point putting in hours of practice because you will never get any better?Well, no. I play the guitar. I enjoy playing the guitar. I will never be an Eric Clapton or a Django Reinhardt, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy bumming around on the guitar.

It's definitely the case that little, early things can make a difference. But wouldn't that also fall under the category of "things we can't change"? Although I guess there is some comfort in knowing that we can change it for our children.



i dont think you can change it for your children. you dont know exactly what will give them the extra push.

havent you read "freakonomics"? your best bet for "superior" children is to mate with a woman who has the qualities you want them to have. trying to improve them after the fact is no where near as effective as starting them out with the right material.

and you should choose a name from the achiever list of names provided in the book (its undoubtably obsolete now so i guess you would have to get a new list from the authors)

Did you at least play some Tchaikovsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKDJ6Z_stvg) while performing the feat?

At couple times. It sets the mood nicely. :)

i dont think you can change it for your children. you dont know exactly what will give them the extra push.

havent you read "freakonomics"? your best bet for "superior" children is to mate with a woman who has the qualities you want them to have. trying to improve them after the fact is no where near as effective as starting them out with the right material.

Well, yeah. I'm arguing that the right material is the important stuff. So I'm with you on that.

and you should choose a name from the achiever list of names provided in the book (its undoubtably obsolete now so i guess you would have to get a new list from the authors)

I'm not sure it works like that :D

I tend to get irritated with people at work when they say the are unable to do something and won't even try - say things like "there is no point I just won't be able to do it, I just know". Now I know that I am not very good at languages but I think if I put in the practice I could overcome the problems I have. I have also read a few books and articles recently that say all it takes is ten thousand hours of practice to become an expert at something. The main difference between a concert pianist and everyone else is the amount of practice they put in, not the amount of talent they started with.

LOL
10'000 hours practice is around 3 years practicing 10 hours a day every day.
10'000 hours practice is around 5 years practice assuming a 40 hour work week.

Anyways, I did competitions in swimming at a national level in Italy when I was young (my times on 100 m crawl and 100 m breaststroke were under 1 minute) and one thing I can assure you is that talent IS what makes the difference when you put the same amount of practice in doing something.
Also at the university I had friends putting MORE effort and practice in studying than me having WORSE rsults than I did.
Practice does make you better at doing something and the amount of practice you indicated does make one a professional in that field but talent is what distinguishes the average professional from the masters in that field.

Well I'm pretty sure no matter how much math I take I will never move onto AP Calculus and Quantum Mathematics. Nope I will always be lucky enough to figure out Algebra

it may take more effort and practise for some so "results may vary" but in the end I'm head on with the OP.
10,000 hours is a very short amount of practise to true masters of most any field.....

y so lazy?

Well, yeah. I'm arguing that the right material is the important stuff. So I'm with you on that.



I'm not sure it works like that :D
your name is what gives people their first impression of you (when they dont meet you in person right off the bat) a good name makes them think well of you whether you deserve it or not.

in the US, people with "black names" dont get job interviews as often when the interviewees are scheduled based on resumes only.

it may take more effort and practise for some so "results may vary" but in the end I'm head on with the OP.
10,000 hours is a very short amount of practise to true masters of most any field.....

y so lazy?10,000 is not a small amount. Especially since there's no guarantee that you'll be an expert at the end of it. After all, it's not just 10,000 of practice; it's 10,000 hours of good, efficient practice. If you practice something wrong for 10k hours, what was the point?

No I was saying that he was wrong when he said that dyslexcia has more to do with hearing than sight.

Dyslexica has nothing to do with either hearing or sight and all to do with the brain.

You misunderstand the way our hearing and sight works. Most of our perception of these is from the way the brain processes it. Separating hearing or sight from brain organisation is pointless; they are far too interconnected to do this. When he said it was about hearing, he was including in this both our ear apparatus and the brain parts that process this.

You misunderstand the way our hearing and sight works. Most of our perception of these is from the way the brain processes it. Separating hearing or sight from brain organisation is pointless; they are far too interconnected to do this.

Not at all.

The way it was worded, 'It seems dyslexcia has more to do with hearing than sight' could easyily (and was by me) be read as meaning, dyslexcia is a problem with the workings of the ear.

Deafness, or hearing problems in general are more than likely to occour within the ear, and less likey to occour with the brain's ability to deal with the sense data from the ear.

So you can see why I posted as I did.

At couple times. It sets the mood nicely. :)
:tongue: Classy!

Not at all.

The way it was worded, 'It seems dyslexcia has more to do with hearing than sight' could easyily (and was by me) be read as meaning, dyslexcia is a problem with the workings of the ear.

Deafness, or hearing problems in general are more than likely to occour within the ear, and less likey to occour with the brain's ability to deal with the sense data from the ear.

So you can see why I posted as I did.

Fair enough - my point was more in response to people I know who think dyslexia is a result of not being able to see the difference between say a 'b' and a 'd' - it's more about being unable to match the sound to the symbol but it's more a sound processing issue not a sight processing issue.

Though I can see why you clarified that it's not an ear problem - though in some cases it is exactly that.

Not at all.

The way it was worded, 'It seems dyslexcia has more to do with hearing than sight' could easyily (and was by me) be read as meaning, dyslexcia is a problem with the workings of the ear.

Deafness, or hearing problems in general are more than likely to occour within the ear, and less likey to occour with the brain's ability to deal with the sense data from the ear.

So you can see why I posted as I did.

Ok, I see what you were getting at, though he has cleared that up now. :)

Depends how you define 'hearing problem' really. A brain defect that manifests itself as a hearing problem may well be labelled as such. It's probably better to say 'ear problem' or 'auditory brain area(s) problem'. Silly semantics.

What I find interesting in some studies are the attempts to help dyslexics by having them sing which emphasises consonant differences, and thus should help the brain identify letters to sounds when reading. Not sure how successful it has been in the long-term, though.

Fair enough - my point was more in response to people I know who think dyslexia is a result of not being able to see the difference between say a 'b' and a 'd' - it's more about being unable to match the sound to the symbol but it's more a sound processing issue not a sight processing issue.

Though I can see why you clarified that it's not an ear problem - though in some cases it is exactly that.

Ohh yeah but in such cases, it's not really dyslexcia that is the problem.

Heh sorry to be so pedantic about it, but I do hear so much shit about dyslexcia, what it is what it isn't, I don't want people to go away beliving that it is not real, nor a real problem. Some have even told me it is a catch word for being lazy!

Yeah, but Edison was an asshole. Consider Nikola Tesla,

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”

A powerful electromagnet would also be useful.

A powerful electromagnet would also be useful.

Or more simply a match.

Or more simply a match.

Ladies and gentelma, may I present to you all, Raaaambhutan! Your Winner!