Old article, but backing up (and preceding) the Gladwell book (well, the 10,000 hours part anyway). And it makes a couple of key additional points:
First, the 10,000 hours have to be on what has been called "deliberate practice." As an example, in golf:
"Simply hitting
a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why most golfers
don't get better. Hitting an eight-iron 300 times with a goal of
leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of the time,
continually observing results and making appropriate adjustments, and
doing that for hours every day - that's deliberate practice.
Second, consistency is crucial.
"Elite performers in many diverse
domains have been found to practice, on the average, roughly the same
amount every day, including weekends."
I haven't given it much thought before but my experiences in learning golf and learning photography have been quite similar.
Long hours of focused practice and a passion for the thing that keeps bringing you back.
Also, the thing that advanced both the fastest was simplification. So I shot pictures with one, fixed focal length almost exclusively for a year. Less gear, learn one thing well and build on it. I played round upon round of golf, just using 2 clubs.
People try to buy experience by buying lots of equipment, hoping it will substitute for learning and practice. Expensive cameras, fancy clubs.
Practice only makes perfect if you're paying attention.
According to Philip E. Ross, "Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but 'effortful study,' which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one’s competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time."
According to Sharon Begley, "Through attention, UCSF’s Michael Merzenich and a colleague wrote, 'We choose and sculpt how our ever-changing minds will work, we choose who we will be the next moment in a very real sense, and these choices are left embossed in physical form on our material selves.' The discovery that neuroplasticity cannot occur without attention has important implications. If a skill becomes so routine you can do it on autopilot, practicing it will no longer change the brain."
@Brad,
> ... what matters ... entails continually tackling
> challenges that lie just beyond one’s competence.
This connects with the weight training example, where pushing yourself beyond where you think you can push yourself is vital. Perhaps that is the sole purpose of any effective "teacher", be it sports coach, school teacher, or PhD supervisor -- to kick, cajole, convince us that what we think is a limit, is not.
And it may mean that the old advice given to kids of "it doesn't matter how you do, as long as you do your best" is misguided. Because how do we know we are doing our best if not by having someone else show us (possibly a competing student) what is possible?
>Perhaps that is the sole purpose of any effective "teacher", be it sports coach, school teacher, or PhD supervisor -- to kick, cajole, convince us that what we think is a limit, is not.
Sgt. Carter could only kick you into being an expert rifleman, not an expert violinist. And Josef Gingold wouldn't have been much help with your kalaripayat. Expert teachers can teach you new strategies, notice a subtle, but critical, bad habit, or remind you of what hasn't yet become a good habit.
Regarding "it doesn't matter how you do, as long as you do your best", I think that is just a reminder to set internal goals rather than external goals, such as winning. Even as a strategy for winning, that's sound advice. Don't keep your eyes on the prize, keep your eyes on the price, and make sure you pay it.