
Anders Ericsson on deliberate practice - josemrb
http://www.businessinsider.com/anders-ericsson-how-to-become-an-expert-at-anything-2016-6
======
talles
The "deliberate practice" the article mentions is the "ha" in _Shuhari_.

> In _shu_ , we repeat the forms and discipline ourselves so that our bodies
> absorb the forms that our forebears created. We remain faithful to these
> forms with no deviation. Next, in the stage of _ha_ , once we have
> disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make
> innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally,
> in _ri_ , we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative
> technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our
> heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari)

------
SmallBets
This author did an excellent podcast with James Altucher. Really crystalized a
lot of the principles in his book and made it actionable.

[http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2016/04/anders-ericsonn-
peak/](http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2016/04/anders-ericsonn-peak/)

------
Isamu
I recommend this book. Just an excerpt of the notes I took:

Ineffective practice is usually just repetition, expecting improvement without
focusing on correcting problems

Purposeful Practice \- has well-defined, specific goals \- Is focused (giving
practice your full attention) \- Involves feedback (success or failure) \-
Requires getting out of one’s comfort zone (is not easy, pushing barriers)

Harnessing Adaptability \- Practice and training can actually change the brain
\- London taxi drivers that master the standard training develop larger
hippocampus \- Regular training leads to changes in the parts of the brain
that are challenged by the training \- Younger brains are more adaptable than
adult brains, training can have larger effects \- Development in one area may
come at the price of regression in another \- Trained abilities fade after
lack of use

Mental Representations \- Blindfold chess illustrates the importance of
pattern memory \- Experienced chess players can remember chess positions from
a real game, but are not skilled at remembering random arrangements of pieces
- they remember patterns, familiar arrangements of several pieces \- Short-
term memory can be extended by referring to familiar patterns or chunks \-
Much of deliberate practice involves developing ever more efficient mental
representations for the activity under practice \- Familiar patterns are
internalized so that they can be automatically recognized and fluidly give
rise to the appropriate actions \- Knowledge of a domain has to be organized
and accessible in a way that can be used in expert performance \- Planning
separates novice performance from expert performance \- Experts tend to have
detailed planning processes that can be refined \- Experts have higher quality
mental representations that help guide them in performance, and can help
provide them with feedback to adjust their practice \- Physical activities are
mental too

------
acconrad
Deliberate practice has received an almost obsessive following by the HN
community - I feel like I see articles about this at least once a week.

What I fail to see are any recommendations of how to apply this to software
development. In my own personal investigations, things like programming
competitions have shown not to translate well to professional software
development (outside of maybe the search or AI algo developers at Google).
Practice problems like Eulers and Programming Pearls are a bit contrived and
limited, so I'm not sure where else to turn. Do others wonder the same thing?

Working on side projects may be practice, but not necessarily deliberate, and
many side projects may not be addressing our individual weaknesses.

~~~
nathanasmith
What works for me is downloading the source code of projects that are
generally considered to be examples of great code. I then go through it,
stopping at critical junctures asking myself, What would I do next? Then
comparing that to whatever the author of the program did. If I'm "wrong", I
attempt to figure out why and adjust accordingly.

This was directly inspired by the technique Benjamin Franklin used to become a
great writer.[0]

[0][http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6220/](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6220/)
Search for the word spectator in the link for the relevant paragraph.

------
eonw
i used to work in the adult entertainment industry... i was always amused(and
shocked) at who they would pick as "experts" when doing interviews on TV. it
really ruined all "experts" for me, as now i assume they are the equivalent in
their field as the goons whom were "speaking" for the adult industry were.

~~~
Loughla
Having been picked as an "expert" in my field several times in the past, the
cited expert is usually the first person they talk to that isn't already busy.

------
ozten
I'm looking forward to reading the book.

In my experience with deliberate practice, there are a couple of ingredients
from that brief article:

* Breaking a skill down into achievable progressions

* A roadmap of how progressions lead to different "sweet spots" of expertise within that practice

------
frandroid
Who knew? If you work a good trainer/mentor, you can get better at what you
do.

------
wapapaloobop
So, practice is necessary but not sufficient. It cannot compensate for lack of
talent. We don't know why some people are talented and some aren't. We can
only recognise it in certain fields (e.g. athletics, music). However, and
switching to personal speculation: although people know different things and
are interested in different things, there is only _one_ kind of talent, is my
guess.

~~~
khedoros
Did we read the same article?

> When I spoke with Ericsson by phone in May, he told me that people who think
> practice can only get you so far aren't talking about the same kind of
> practice as he is.

> As for whether genetic differences - say, in cognitive or physical ability -
> account for variations in achievement, Ericsson is skeptical.

The whole article, Ericsson sticks to "deliberate practice" (as defined by
him) as being the sole determiner of mastery of a skill. Other researchers
claim to debunk his findings. He claims that they conflate "practice" with
"deliberate practice" and therefore didn't debunk him.

I don't know enough to judge which is correct (Ericsson or his detractors),
but your comment isn't how I'd summarize the article, or the conclusions I'd
draw from it.

~~~
wapapaloobop
You're correct: I misread the piece.

>he claims that they conflate "practice" with "deliberate practice" and
therefore didn't debunk him.

This seems unfalsifiable since we don't (and presumably he doesn't) have
theories about either talent or intentions which might distinguish the two
cases.

Myself I practiced the piano very deliberately in my late twenties and it
didn't lead to improvement. In fact it lead to RSI. However, in overcoming the
RSI I learnt about what talent means (inexplicitly, I'm afraid, so I can't
explain it yet). Hence my claim that it is singular across all disciplines.
This includes purely intellectual skill which, following Michael Polanyi, can
be thought of as a _connoisseurship_ of ideas.

~~~
khedoros
> Myself I practiced the piano very deliberately in my late twenties and it
> didn't lead to improvement.

You had a teacher who provided a lesson plan and guidance, until such time as
you could follow the plan on your own and self-correct mistakes? As another
element, were you constantly pushed to do things that were just out of your
reach? His claim is that 10,000 hours of practice/learning structured in that
way would make you an expert piano player. Somehow, I suspect that if you hit
90% of his requirements, he'd "no true Scotsman" you and say that it wasn't
"real" deliberate practice.

Personally, I'm dubious about Ericsson's claims too. Some people have more
limitations than others do, either physical or mental. Plasticity has its
limits.

