Did Ericsson study types of practice for beginners to good amateurs? The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (I believe this is your copy?) wouldn’t cite that research. Ericsson’s papers apparently all have to do with experts. There’s one cross-performance-levels paper, about college students, which finds that studying in quiet environments and going to class help more than studying longer, which is consistent with deliberate practice models but also with many others.
I’m not sure he personally studied them, or just discussed the previous work. eg. from his ’93 paper discussing the violinists:
It is important to note that our study shows only that the amount and distribution of practice is related to the level of performance of adult musicians. In fact, many additional factors consistent with the skill-acquisition framework could attenuate the differences among our three groups. Sosniak (1985) found that international-level pianists had spent considerable efforts to seek out the very best musical teachers during their musical development. Furthermore, it is likely that an analysis of the detailed activities during practice alone would reveal qualitative differences between violinists at different advanced levels of performance (Gruson, 1988; Miklaszewski, 1989).
I see your anecdote, and I raise it and the evidence hierarchy with Ericsson’s correlational research on “deliberate practice”.
I see your bizarre, not-quite-comprehensible retort, assume from your follow ups that you are contradicting the presented claim and raise you a “What the heck? Actually go read Ericsson et al. before you engage in this kind of petty condescension.”
This finding is entirely in keeping with the literature and this outcome is exactly what one would expect to observe in such a situation. Ericsson and other ‘real researchers’ have done extensive related studies on what kind of goal produces the best outcomes depending on level of expertise. The ‘quality’ goal fares consistently poorly for the beginner, across disciplines. (It is better to switch to aiming for quality once already at a reasonably high level.)
‘Deliberate practice!!!’ is an important finding, but it isn’t the only one out there. You have abused the appeal to the authority of Ericsson.
Out there in hypothesis land, I’m wondering whether beginners need something close to play—they can’t do directed practice yet because they don’t know what goals to aim for, but they do need to acquire a large quantity of tacit knowledge.
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook (you may remember that it was my pirated edition that LWers used for a while); where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook; where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
I am not, nor have I ever advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
This isn’t about time spent. This is about what goal the participants have while doing the activity, with all else being equal. ‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
I am not, nor have I ever, advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
How does the OP’s claim that the pottery students were better off producing as much as possible by weight not constitute advocacy of indiscriminate practice?
‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
You don’t know that it was an actual experiment of any kind, so it remains an anecdote: this story is now at least at third-hand—the source to the book to Atwood (to Konkvistador). Some searches turn up nothing beyond Atwood, and the book is not usefully available online (Google Books at least confirms some sort of passage like that is in it, but provides no context—like perhaps any mention by the author that it’s just a story he was once told or something like that).
This claims benefit from arbitrary practice; real research by real researchers where one can give real citations shows an overall effect that is opposite: that people who practice a lot can quickly plateau no matter how many decades they spend on it, and deliberate practice is necessary to go beyond that.
If the point of your original comment was to say that this contradicts Ericsson’s work, I suggest you rewrite it.
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of this claim, but calling it an “anecdote” evokes all the wrong ones. Frankly, I can only describe this usage as deceit. I blame the hierarchy of evidence.
Why do you care that it is third-hand? Do you think something was lost in the transmission from Atwood to Konvistador? It is easy to check that nothing was lost there. The fact that it is third-hand is evidence of memetic stability, but tracking down the book will not change that. (and I could level the same charge at Ericsson)
In fact, I did look at the book and I assert (sadly) that nothing was lost in Kevin Kelly’s transcription. It is the first paragraph of the section and moves on to drawing conclusions.
Sourcing is key because every step introduces error. And you misunderstand: Atwood to Konkvistador would be a fourth-hand, if one wanted to include it. Count the steps.
In fact, I did look at the book and I assert (sadly) that nothing was lost in Kevin Kelly’s transcription.
So then, it’s essentially worthless. There is no citation, no context, nothing to situate it in any time, place, country or year besides ‘the 20th century’: we can’t even tell how many steps we are removed from the origin since you say there was no context like “many years ago, an old friend of mine was taking a pottery class”.
Just another persuasive parable floating around.
I’ll stick with Ericsson’s research, thanks. Mindless practice is not useful; deliberate practice is useful.
I’ll stick with Ericsson’s research, thanks. Mindless practice is not useful; deliberate practice is useful.
I didn’t see this parable extolling the virtue of mindless practice rather than the virtue of doing huge amounts of work if you really want to create remarkable outliers.
I see your anecdote, and I raise it and the evidence hierarchy with Ericsson’s correlational research on “deliberate practice”.
Did Ericsson study types of practice for beginners to good amateurs? The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (I believe this is your copy?) wouldn’t cite that research. Ericsson’s papers apparently all have to do with experts. There’s one cross-performance-levels paper, about college students, which finds that studying in quiet environments and going to class help more than studying longer, which is consistent with deliberate practice models but also with many others.
I’m not sure he personally studied them, or just discussed the previous work. eg. from his ’93 paper discussing the violinists:
I see your bizarre, not-quite-comprehensible retort, assume from your follow ups that you are contradicting the presented claim and raise you a “What the heck? Actually go read Ericsson et al. before you engage in this kind of petty condescension.”
This finding is entirely in keeping with the literature and this outcome is exactly what one would expect to observe in such a situation. Ericsson and other ‘real researchers’ have done extensive related studies on what kind of goal produces the best outcomes depending on level of expertise. The ‘quality’ goal fares consistently poorly for the beginner, across disciplines. (It is better to switch to aiming for quality once already at a reasonably high level.)
‘Deliberate practice!!!’ is an important finding, but it isn’t the only one out there. You have abused the appeal to the authority of Ericsson.
Out there in hypothesis land, I’m wondering whether beginners need something close to play—they can’t do directed practice yet because they don’t know what goals to aim for, but they do need to acquire a large quantity of tacit knowledge.
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook (you may remember that it was my pirated edition that LWers used for a while); where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
I am not, nor have I ever advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
This isn’t about time spent. This is about what goal the participants have while doing the activity, with all else being equal. ‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
How does the OP’s claim that the pottery students were better off producing as much as possible by weight not constitute advocacy of indiscriminate practice?
Are you going to provide any cites?
I can’t parse your sentence, so I have no idea what you are saying, but two things that may be relevant:
This is a randomized controlled experiment, not an anecdote.
This experiment shows benefit from arbitrary practice, not deliberate practice.
You don’t know that it was an actual experiment of any kind, so it remains an anecdote: this story is now at least at third-hand—the source to the book to Atwood (to Konkvistador). Some searches turn up nothing beyond Atwood, and the book is not usefully available online (Google Books at least confirms some sort of passage like that is in it, but provides no context—like perhaps any mention by the author that it’s just a story he was once told or something like that).
This claims benefit from arbitrary practice; real research by real researchers where one can give real citations shows an overall effect that is opposite: that people who practice a lot can quickly plateau no matter how many decades they spend on it, and deliberate practice is necessary to go beyond that.
Well, it might even be a parable, which is even worse than an anecdote!
If the point of your original comment was to say that this contradicts Ericsson’s work, I suggest you rewrite it.
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of this claim, but calling it an “anecdote” evokes all the wrong ones. Frankly, I can only describe this usage as deceit. I blame the hierarchy of evidence.
Furthermore, if that was the point he should retract it in shame.
Why do you care that it is third-hand? Do you think something was lost in the transmission from Atwood to Konvistador? It is easy to check that nothing was lost there. The fact that it is third-hand is evidence of memetic stability, but tracking down the book will not change that. (and I could level the same charge at Ericsson)
In fact, I did look at the book and I assert (sadly) that nothing was lost in Kevin Kelly’s transcription. It is the first paragraph of the section and moves on to drawing conclusions.
Sourcing is key because every step introduces error. And you misunderstand: Atwood to Konkvistador would be a fourth-hand, if one wanted to include it. Count the steps.
So then, it’s essentially worthless. There is no citation, no context, nothing to situate it in any time, place, country or year besides ‘the 20th century’: we can’t even tell how many steps we are removed from the origin since you say there was no context like “many years ago, an old friend of mine was taking a pottery class”.
Just another persuasive parable floating around.
I’ll stick with Ericsson’s research, thanks. Mindless practice is not useful; deliberate practice is useful.
Where does Ericsson say this?
He doesn’t say that explicitly that I can recall; it’s just the theme running through his research, background research, and the theories.
Thanks for teaching me a lesson on second-hand sources.
I didn’t see this parable extolling the virtue of mindless practice rather than the virtue of doing huge amounts of work if you really want to create remarkable outliers.
What ensures “memetic stability”, Heisenberg compensators? Or just the fact that it was passed along?
Ah, the zeugma—always a classy figure of speech, but sometimes a risky one. Victor Hugo was good at them.
Part of gwern’s statement is that it’s not actually certain that this really happened. It might not even be an anecdote, but just a parable!