It may be wrong, but since it is based on far more research than your opinion, I’m going to go with the guy who has studied (heck, who founded) the field for now, unless you can present compelling evidence to the contrary. Yes, play can teach. Yes, that’s what it’s for. But the author argues that it only gets us so far. Using only play, you plateau, and to progress further, you must break down your skill into components that can be deliberately practiced individually, even if it’s boring (which it usually will be) in order to advance further. This is an empirical statement based on the study of experts.
Maybe we didn’t evolve to be experts, because the returns from achieving that level of greatness were not worth the extra time. But in the modern world, with the “superstar effect” and high levels of competition—and of free time—our cost/reward curve is different. I suspect many LWers would like to become really good at rationality. If so, they should study this material, not dismiss it.
Maybe we didn’t evolve to be experts, because the returns from achieving that level of greatness were not worth the extra time.
(Agreeing with particular part and expanding.) The most significant benefits we can expect while playing are those few instances where our play throws us into a situation we can’t quite manage without engaging full concentration with a small boost of ‘deliberate’ effort. Deliberate practice amounts to actively putting ourselves in the challenging situation over and over again for hours at a time.
If we are following the evolutionary reasoning we can consider deliberate practice to be ‘gaming’ the built in learning mechanism. This is similar to an RPG character scumming random monster encounters for experience or, more to the point, going to the gym.
The original article, cited by ~1800, from which the study of “deliberate practice” evolved, is free online:
The Role of Deliberate Practice In The Acquisition Of Expert Knowledge
It may be wrong, but since it is based on far more research than your opinion, I’m going to go with the guy who has studied (heck, who founded) the field for now, unless you can present compelling evidence to the contrary. Yes, play can teach. Yes, that’s what it’s for. But the author argues that it only gets us so far. Using only play, you plateau, and to progress further, you must break down your skill into components that can be deliberately practiced individually, even if it’s boring (which it usually will be) in order to advance further. This is an empirical statement based on the study of experts.
Maybe we didn’t evolve to be experts, because the returns from achieving that level of greatness were not worth the extra time. But in the modern world, with the “superstar effect” and high levels of competition—and of free time—our cost/reward curve is different. I suspect many LWers would like to become really good at rationality. If so, they should study this material, not dismiss it.
(Agreeing with particular part and expanding.) The most significant benefits we can expect while playing are those few instances where our play throws us into a situation we can’t quite manage without engaging full concentration with a small boost of ‘deliberate’ effort. Deliberate practice amounts to actively putting ourselves in the challenging situation over and over again for hours at a time.
If we are following the evolutionary reasoning we can consider deliberate practice to be ‘gaming’ the built in learning mechanism. This is similar to an RPG character scumming random monster encounters for experience or, more to the point, going to the gym.