The article then attempts to debunk oversimplification with an oversimplification…
Hmmm, which one?, cause I actually enjoyed the article.
All practice isn’t equal and Nurture has it’s limits.
if you visualize a kind of opaque ball that was called “10000 hour rule”, inside this ball there is a list of precise things it refers to along with particular conditions.
Generally the larger a ball the more vague it’s title is.
The article has it’s own few kinds of such a ball, however they are smaller. The article argues that the title of that ball is not true.
The article is correct because the title is not what it means, it’s all the things inside of it.
The article argues this with it’s own kinds of such a ball.
The issue is that the article isn’t actually arguing with the contents but it is using it’s own contents to argue with the title. It is taking the title as the literal meaning without any conditions as part of it’s argument.
This can go both ways.
Naturally, when we actually look at an article we do not get the contents of the ball given to us. It’s very terse and long to put all the meaning on the page without any ball.
We do however have our own kinds of ball that we know the meaning of, we have very many of these. Hence an article generally provides such kinds of ball and strings of meaning to help us know what aspects of the ball or what smaller variations of ball it is referring to,
In order to have consistent meaning we have similar language, that is a set of ball that actually attempts to mean the same thing or very much carry much of the same meaning. Large differences do exist since they can latch on like avalanches and are hard to spot precisely. Sometimes we even assign multiple of different ball the same title.
Hence the 10000 hour rule is not the literal language composition ‘10000 hours equate mastery’. It’s an oversimplification, so to say ball title. The article has dis-proven this oversimplification with the much smaller oversimplifications of deliberate [email protected] advice being best, among other things.
This is a super oversimplification, to explain how a oversimplification is contradicting another oversimplification.
Life is really not that simple.
Personally I have things I disagree with, like the nurture argument. but I have left out the explanation for this given it would make my post too long. One thing I would say is that possibility can sometimes be frightening, when you think you have considered all factors you often will find something entirely new, an entirely new conclusion that overturns everything, perfectly matching up to the data of the original conclusion you have had. Hence when you rely on the oversimplification even when it is only slight, you will often be surprised.
But I dont see any kind of rebuttal from you.
You say the article is self-cotradictory but I can’t still see why…
I got a bit carried away attempting new ways to talk about things so I will be a bit clearer.
There are two things for me:
- The way it refutes the 10000 hour rule is contradictory to me.
- Some of the points it makes I do not agree with.
For point 2, I won’t really go into too much depth, because a lot of people share the beliefs in the article, as much as I logically refute some of these.
So the main point is 1.
The important difference is that I actually do in a general sense agree with this, but the way the article states it, is actually contradicting an oversimplification with an oversimplification.
The reason for this is because the 10000 hour rule does not literally mean that you need to spend 10000 hours regardless of the task and that at this perfect hour you will achieve mastery. It is oversimplified, in reality there are very obvious points such as, that you can’t actually do a completely different task and expect mastery in another.
The article however refutes this claim in the context of ‘All practice isn’t equal’ (which I agree with), by using a statement such as:
The best way to get better at something is through something known as deliberate practice, which basically means practicing in order to get better: doing activities recommended by experts to develop specific abilities, identifying weaknesses and working to correct them, and intentionally pushing yourself out of your comfort zone. “This distinction between deliberate practice aimed at a particular goal and generic practice is crucial,” Ericsson says, “because not every type of practice leads to improved ability. You don’t get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal.”
The issue with this quote, is that you can throw simple contradictions in. For example: not all experts do the same activities, therefore experts recommendations will vary, therefore there will exist cases where some experts recommendation is better than another, therefore there is a possibility that someone will non-deliberately do the exact better recommendation. Disproving that deliberate practice is the best in all cases, and therefore that it is the best way to get better at something.
Naturally this contradiction is a bit senseless because the quote wasn’t really attempting to convey such literal point (it’s oversimplified). However, that is precisely the issue. If the article claims that these points are not supposed to be literal, claiming that the 10000 hour rule is literal, and contradicting it, is the same as attempting to contradict an oversimplification with an oversimplification.
Overall this point is very trivial which is why I didn’t expand on it initially, I meant it more as a joke.