... well, if I can learn to DRAW, and I was so BAD
at drawing initially, I can pretty much learn to do
anything.
I used to think like that. If I tried hard and applied myself I could do just about anything...until that sort of thing stopped working. It certainly helped but it won't take you to the stars. It just seemed that no matter how hard I tried, I never got better at what I had in mind.
I think this kind of thinking is helpful but it has its ultimate limits, which seem to be set to 'low' for me.
Drawing at the level of that book isn't a hard problem, as, say, learning organic chemistry. Or is it? some people seem to have a natural ability in some things. In fact, the idea that some children naturally fall into "try harder" vs "this is too hard" camp points to something influenced by biology.
How about creating new solutions to what are considered hard industry problems?
If it takes you 10,000 hours to learn the basics Organic chemistry, can you say you succeeded? That's almost five years learning what most people do in five or ten weeks.
The 10,000 hour thing is about mastery. Is someone who spent ten weeks learning about organic chemistry able to operate on the same level as someone who has been working in the field for decades? I suspect the answer is no.
Anyone can learn how to play golf in just a few minutes, but what does it take to become a PGA-level player? The theory is that it only takes 10,000 hours of focused practice and it is currently being put to the test: http://thedanplan.com/
- the test: learning science is done via text. no tangible tests. as opposed to the pioneer of the subject field. They didn't pop theory out of thin air. Lots of intermediate steps/theories failed, many experiences that produce hints. Education systems assume students can cut corners on this and reach the same level of intuitions as the masters ? .. seems wrong.
- 'meta': the first subject you spend 10K hours on to reach some level of mastery, the next subject won't require as much, a lot of the first 10K journey was mostly about learning yourself, teaching yourself patience with regard to the relationship between preciseness and scalability. How to keep moving smoothly cm by cm when your goal is 1M meter.. Also detaching ego,emotions and perception. Don't be angry or sadistically attached to solve the problem. Focus on .. focus, not missing data, immersing yourself. Less emotions means to me less distraction, the less you miss the faster you reach your goal. Now that you've experienced a 1M meter journey, it will probably feel a lot easier the next time.
Anyone can learn how to play golf in just a few minutes, but what does it take to become a PGA-level player?
The corollary is, what does it take different people to become a PGA-level player?
That is to say, the second question is, is being a PGA star within reach of anybody, so long as they can do 10,000 hours of golf? Or does it take Tiger 10,000 hours while it takes me 20,000 or 30,000 hours?
Couldn't tell you, but it would certainly fit with the concept of some folks having a bit of a "natural ability"; 'Everybody can become a master, but some people can get there faster'.
That's not really the point to the 10,000 hour rule though. It is about practice.
If it takes person A five weeks to learn the study and it takes person B 10,000 hours to learn the study, after the next 10,000 hours of working in the industry, can we consider both individuals masters? Or are you suggesting that mastery is somehow proportional to time to original training completion?
It is actually Anders Ericsson's[1] theory, popularized by Gladwell. Feel free to read Ericsson if you like, but he says basically the same thing, though neither he nor Gladwell ever said "put in the 10,000 hours and you will be the Tiger Woods". Ericsson has studied the realm of expert learning (for quite some time) and tries to tease apart what makes Tiger Woods, and those like him, able to attain the things they do. He has a lot of evidence that it is not some inborn talent but rather (shockingly) a shit-ton of hard work (and the quip "You'll never be Tiger Woods because your dad wasn't Earl Woods"). The book Talent is Overrated[2] is also a decent read on the topic. It also tells the somewhat humorous story of László Polgár[3], who wrote about how he was going to turn his yet to be born children into chess stars through rigorous training/practice, and then proceeded to do so.
I read somewhere that it's common for people to plateau at a certain skill level, but some people overcome that. My google fu is not working for me, but I think it was to do with changing the approach. I've also heard of changing how you view yourself, imagining you already have the ability, "what would X do?" (Usain Bolt actually peaked and burned out when was younger, regained with a new coach, less training, and exercises to compensate for a congenital spine defect). i.e. Also, while at a plateau at one specific thing, there are many other things where effort still works (not overgeneralize from that one thing). I'm also plateauing (at discrete mathematics), so I'm interested in the answer here. Many creative people talk about leaving something that they are stuck at, and doing other things (perhaps a short break, perhaps for a long time) - then the answer (sometimes) comes to them, when they see with a new point of view. Talking to people about it can help (even "explaining to a duck").
Of course, maybe there are attributes that we can't change, like height, that seem as insurmountable barrier. While these may be a limitation in themselves, we may be able to work around them (e.g. professional basketball players under 6 foot http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-shortest-nba-players.php). And, well, there are invasive ways to increase height, medically.
The cognitive phase where you think about what you are doing and develop strategies to complete the task.
The associative phase where you practice, eliminate mistakes and learn what works.
The autonomous phase where you don't have to think about what you are doing anymore.
It is likely you are reaching a plateau because you entered the autonomous cognitive phase. To get off this plateau you should : focus on staying in the cognitive phase by thinking about what you are doing. Set yourself goals in proficiency and most importantly, stay off you comfort by going (~10%)faster than your cruising speed or performing a task more difficult than you are comfortable with.
e.g : repeat the harder parts of songs you haven't mastered yet instead of playing the same old song you have mastered, type 10% faster on the keyboard and note the mistakes you make,...
I tend to have thoughts that maybe I have a genetic disadvantage that prevents me from excelling from things that I care about (programming, computer science, drawing, etc.), but I would rather die with the illusion that I could succeed in anything I set my heart to, than in to throw in the towel and accept that I'm hopeless. Having that mindset is working out for me so far.
Readjust what "failure" means for you. If you've improved, it's not a total failure. Pursue what you love, and steadily improve upon it.
It's common for people to always adjust their goals upwards when a milestone has been met. But it's also healthy to adjust them downwards, and take satisfaction in the act of improving.
I think this kind of thinking is helpful but it has its ultimate limits, which seem to be set to 'low' for me.