
Practice does not always make perfect, finds study of violinists - EwanToo
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/21/practice-does-not-always-make-perfect-violinists-10000-hour-rule
======
anthony_doan
> “Practice makes you better than you were yesterday, most of the time,” she
> said. “But it might not make you better than your neighbour. Or the other
> kid in your violin class.”

I like the ending.

Self improvement should be more important than just comparing yourself with
others for most things. And it is up to oneself to figure out if it's worth
continuing or that the skill is worth your time.

~~~
abootstrapper
Practice makes better.

~~~
CalRobert
My choral director long ago liked the phrase "practice makes permanent".
Practicing the wrong technique can be deleterious.

------
blue_devil
2 methodological issues:

>> They interviewed three groups of 13 violinists [...] before having them
complete daily diaries of their activities over a week.

You're basically priming interviewees, and without a control group, you're
unable to partial out the variance due to "being interviewed". They need
diaries from people who were interviewed _after_ taking diaries, and a group
of people never interviewed.

>> [... ] complete daily diaries of their activities _over_a _week. While the
less skilful violinists clocked up an average of about 6,000 hours of practice
by the age of 20, there was little to separate the good from the best
musicians, with each logging an average of about 11,000 hours

Extrapolation from a 1-week diary to your entire life until age 20?

------
scottlocklin
Gee, something Malcolm Gladwell said in one of his wormy love letters to the
upper middle class might be completely false? I'm terribly surprised!

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/malcolm_gladwell_no...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/malcolm_gladwell_no/)

[https://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/am-...](https://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/am-
i-missing-something-or-is-malcolm-gladwell-a-fraud/)

[http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu/?p=541](http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu/?p=541)

~~~
swsieber
So, I get that you like to hate on Malcom Gladwell, but I feel this particular
instance it's a little overblown.

There is a huge difference between "Excellence requires 10,000 hours of
deliberate practice" and "If you log 10,000 you will be excellent".

The article would disprove the second, but I always came away with the
impression of the first (after reading the book).

So to me, in this instance, I'd say "Gee, a misinterpretation of what somebody
else said is false? What a surprise".

~~~
genghizkhan
The issue is that Malcolm Gladwell wanted a catchy number/title, and 10,000
hours happened to be one which caught his (and admittedly even my own) fancy.
The book "Outliers" does not try to delve into the places where the 10,000
rule doesn't work.

And more importantly, if you read the literature, you'll find that there's a
great deal of dependence on the kind of practice you do. Merely performing
mindless repetition isn't going to help at all. You require a certain kind of
focussed practice to get the benefits of the 10,000 hours rule Gladwell
extols. The book "Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise" goes in
depth about the fallacies in Galdwell's book. One of the authors of that book
is the guy whose research formed the basis of Gladwell's own book. I would
recommend you read that in order to understand where Gladwell misleads.

In summary, if what you want from a book is pseudo-scientific reasoning for
increasing practice time, Malcolm Gladwell is your man. If his words motivate
you to practice harder, go ahead and read him. However, if you want scientific
reasoning behind why practicing works and how to extract the most out of it,
you'd best look elsewhere. The statement "Excellence requires 10,000 hours of
deliberate practice" is itself untrue. This varies wildly with the kind of
practice you do, the kind of feedback you get, and the field in which you wish
to gain excellence. Oversimplification, as Gladwell does, is an easy way to
make yourself a target of accusations of quackery. The statement that
"Excellence requires many hours of deliberate practice, and you'd better
practice things the correct way for your practice routine to work for you"
might be a better characterisation of the science as is currently understood.

------
vintermann
Anyone who knows anything about violins or violinists, know that the
difference between the "best" and the merely "very good" is rather arbitrary,
subjective and down to fashion (or even nonmusical factors). It's thus not
surprising practice makes little difference - all those violinists are as good
at the technical aspects as you can sensibly get.

~~~
sirspacey
As a classically trained violinist with decades Of experience as a
professional musician, this is not at all my experience.

At the age of 16 I was dedicating 6 to 8 hours a day practicing. That was the
norm among my classmates.

The lead violinist in our orchestra was a prodigy who picked up and mastered a
piece in two weeks which most of us would never be able to play.

Trained violinists can tell the difference between many levels of ability and
performance.

The truth is that there are people who can play the instrument beyond the
reach of everyone else.

That’s true for any highly technical instrument, of which the violin is
certainly one.

If studying violin taught me anything, it is that there is a power law to
human ability and deliberate practice is simply an augmentation (which is also
an unevenly distributes ability).

------
AceyMan
One of my canonical examples of "first, start with talent" is found in the
world's great football (soccer) players.

As the most popular sport in the world—and one which a huge share of young
persons try to attain some mastery AND where scouts comb every corner of the
earth in search of talent—the stars of the sport are outliers on the orders of
1 in 10^7.

This YT clip (2m33s) of Neymar, Jr doing "The Crossbar Challenge" demonstrates
how far out on the long tail the best players are.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zre-
uH2p4M0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zre-uH2p4M0)

I think it's not controversial to claim no amount of practice could take you
to this level unless you "have it."

~~~
perl4ever
If talent, luck, resources, and a temperament for hard work are assigned
randomly, some people will have all of them, and you will find them at the
top. What stories they tell themselves or others about the key to success are
irrelevant, because only people with _every_ advantage can be the best. That's
what being the best is. How can one factor be more important?

------
bsder
I believe that the current phrase is: "Practice makes _permanent_."

It's up to the person to make sure that what they practice is correct.

~~~
kcoul
Exactly - I have done a number of research studies focused on how musicians do
or do not develop robust memory models of the pieces they learn, based on how
they practice, and the data consistently pointed to a correlation between
robustness and practice approach.

Anyone who has taught piano for example knows the most common mistake of
novice students is to omit sharp or flat notes (the black notes) when learning
notated music which begins to include them. In this case, the student will
practice the wrong notes for long enough before their next lesson that the
wrong notes become engrained in their memory model, resurfacing under duress
such as in recital. There are similarities for other instruments (strings:
intonation, woodwinds: embouchure, percussion: rhythmic accuracy, etc.)

The most talented students seem to gravitate consistently towards robust
memory models for their respective instruments technique as a way of freeing
themselves up as quickly as possible for the more enjoyable aspects of
perfecting a piece of music: refining expression.

Perhaps one day there will be tools which can assist those less naturally
predisposed to developing robust memory models, before it's too late for their
brain, the way the most talented students do.

------
kerng
After reading this article I'm not sure if I read or learned anything new. The
article tries to challenge the 10000 hours rule, but fails to provide details
or numbers that suggest what other factors would be more important. It briefly
mentions things like "talent", but after reading Growth Mindset I'm convinced
that talent alone just provides a starting advantage. The book gives plenty of
examples of that.

The article should highlight more what kind of practice they refer to and what
they think is the main contributing factor.

I think to become an expert in something like playing a musical instrument
focused practice and repetition is necessary, so having the right coach is
extremely important.

However, the most crucial piece might actually be the passion or willingness
to learn in my opinion.

~~~
Blackstone4
I feel like I hold two conflicting beliefs...growth mindset (the brain is a
muscle which can be exercised) and inherit talent...

My belief in growth mindset has help me improve my communication skills both
oral and written. However I also recognise that I have certain limitations
based on natural talent. For instance, I’m likely to never to be as good at
word games (i.e. scrabble) as many friends and family members. This is at odds
with my growth mindset to a certain extent.

Maybe any skill can be improved upon but natural talent gives us an inherit
advantage over the rest of the field.

~~~
apersona
The model I have right now is that talent is learning rate, so I don't see how
the beliefs conflict with each other.

Some people pick things up faster than others, but if you put more effort you
can still catch up.

It also explains why even talented people still need to practice/learn/etc. to
be at the top of their fields.

~~~
kerng
A friend of mine is a professional violinist. People say she is really
talented and skilled. The interesting thing is that she gets very upset when
people say: you are so talented.

The reason she explained to me once is that people see her perform and play
and think that's just how easy it is for her.

She said to me once: "Noone sees the thousands of hours I practiced by myself
in a dark rehearsal room without even a window at school". That was quite
enlightening to me.

So, if someone says it's just "talent", its quite offensive to her. It's hard
and dedicated work.

~~~
AstralStorm
But it is true. Take any random person and get them to train for this many
hours, they won't even come close.

Both are necessary.

She gets upset because she bought into the culture that tells us we control
everything about ourselves. Which is somewhat of a lie in many ways.

~~~
kerng
No, she gets upset because people ignore the fact that she had to work to
become that good.

Also, any random person can learn to play violin sufficient enough to play in
an orchestra (besides a physical or mental disability maybe). Maybe not
professionally because that needs addition passion and dedication and there is
a lot of competition. But playing good enough for a community orchestra that
requires audition, pretty much anyone can achieve.

------
ChrisRR
As a learning violinist with 2 years experience I can understand this
completely, especially with good teaching and focused practice.

I noticed a real difference between when I switched from a teacher more suited
to children to one more for adults. My practice became more focused, my time
was better spent and overall the quality of my playing drastically improved.

Additionally, if my teacher is away for a week and I go without a lesson, I
notice that I can spend a lot of time creating bad habits which then become
muscle memory.

So I can understand why 10k hours of poor quality practice can be worth 5k
hours of good, focused practice

------
chasing
> In the book, Gladwell states that “ten thousand hours is the magic number of
> greatness”.

> “The idea has become really entrenched in our culture, but it’s an
> oversimplification,” said Brooke Macnamara, a psychologist at Case Western
> Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

Yeah, that's because Malcolm Gladwell peddles bullshit.

~~~
juniusfree
The 10,000-Hour Rule Was Wrong, According to the People Who Wrote the Original
Study

[https://www.inc.com/nick-skillicorn/the-10000-hour-rule-
was-...](https://www.inc.com/nick-skillicorn/the-10000-hour-rule-was-wrong-
according-to-the-people-who-wrote-the-original-stu.html)

~~~
lonelappde
That article is a list of irrelevant nitpickery and mischaracterization of
Gladwell.

[https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-
scene/complexity-a...](https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-
scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule)

------
irjustin
I feel like this is responding to the extreme simplification simply practicing
more produces results which is analogous to the 10,000 hour Gladwell comment.

Most people would agree simply spending hours on something doesn't usually get
you very far. It's the quality of that training tied to your own aptitude for
the subject.

Sadly or thankfully, since we don't know the limits of our own aptitudes, we
can really only do high quality training to see where we peak out.

I think it's easy to believe that the above statement is widely understood,
but it's not. Meet any kid who has been forced to do piano, swimming or
whatever by their parents.

My parents and I know so many others who simply forced their kids to practice
practice practice in hopes it will lead somewhere.

12 years of piano. I barely even know how to read music and play any
instrument.

~~~
iovrthoughtthis
Repetition without feedback (from reflection or assessment) is just
repetition.

You need some feedback about how wrong you are and in what dimension. You then
have to adjust that dimension proportionally to the feedback.

All of that is hard.

------
Daub
As an art teacher, I have certainly seen the best artists evolve naturally
from those who also work the hardest. As Weisberg mentions in 'Creativity:
Beyond the Myth of Genius', when the Beatles moved to Hamburg, they were a run
of the mill band. When they returned, they were the Beatles as we know them.
The reason: gigging four hours a day, seven days a week over one year.

However, I have also seen other factors play a part. Certainly, the very
intelligent artists are prone to self-destruictive criticism, and frequently
fade from view. But in my experience, the most important thing an artists can
posses is a coherent sense of self.

~~~
majos
When you think of the "best artists" you've seen, are you making any
distinction between technical and creative skill? For example, there are many
great studio musicians who are nonetheless nowhere near as good as composers
of original music. I would expect that technical skill is a more natural
outgrowth of hard work than creative skill, even as the Beatles-in-Hamburg
story claims a growth in creative skill.

~~~
Daub
Well... generally I would say that a good artist is a mix of the technically
adept, some kind of sense of self, and ‘being there where it’s at’. That last
value refers to how in tune they are with the cultural zeitgeist. There are
ways around the first value, but not the second and third.

------
noelwelsh
It takes one look at a professional sports team to see that practice is not
sufficient to reach the highest levels of ability. This is particularly
pronounced in basketball. For example, compare the skill level between two
very good players: Steph Curry (6'3") and Shaq (7'1"). Shaq at 6'3" would
never have been a pro player. Steph at 7'1" would be the greatest player of
all time.

~~~
lonelappde
How do you know steph could have developed the same way it he were taller?

~~~
mc_blue
Exactly! If Steph was 7'1", my bet is he would rely more on playing closer to
the basket (like Shaq did) and would not have had a need to develop his
3-point shooting to the level that it is today. Also, how do we know that Shaq
at 6'3" wouldn't have developed into a different style of pro player?

------
CJKerr
For a much better treatment of the same general idea, read "Peak: Secrets from
the New Science of Expertise" by K. Anders Ericsson.

------
seieste
1\. Deliberate practice is different than merely putting in hours. So 5,000 of
difficult practice could build skills more than 10,000 of mindless repetition.

2\. "10,000 hours" is a necessary, not sufficient, condition. Further, some
fields (like chess) can enable expert performance with fewer hours than other
fields (like history) due to the difference in skills required.

~~~
rehasu
The deliberate part is so often overlooked since most people only know
training with a teacher, where they give the responsibility for the deliberate
part to the teacher without even knowing.

If you start learning by yourself from every 10 hours of practice maybe only
1-2 might count as deliberate. If that efficiency is tracked as well, one
could argue that even a motivated learner might take up to 20k hours to get to
his 10k hours of deliberate practice.

~~~
AstralStorm
Interesting theory, but is it backed by anything other than supposition?

Longitudinal, crossectional pilot studies at least?

~~~
rehasu
I have the same google that you have (assuming that you don't live in a
country with a "Secret Special Google" project).

What you find feel free to share it here for others to read. :)

------
plaidfuji
My karate instructor always said “perfect practice makes perfect”. Your
teacher helps you define what “perfect” is, and it’s up to you to slow down or
break up what you’re practicing in order to achieve that standard.

------
lawn
I like "perfect practice makes perfect" and "practice makes permanent". It's
why you often have to spend a lot of time unlearning bad practices before you
can move forward to a higher level.

------
astura
Seems obvious, I think we've all worked with that one person who's been
writing software for 20 years and still sucks, making the same mistakes over
and over again.

------
lonelappde
Article is just a long-winded confusion of correlation vs causation. Nothing
to see.

------
delidumrul
But the perfectness always comes with the practicing.

