Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Ability (2014) [pdf] (gwern.net)
64 points by gwern on Feb 10, 2018 | hide | past | web | favorite | 82 comments

This paper appears to be deliberately misleading.

The "10,000 hours to expert performance" notion originated in Ericsson 1993 (http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...) , which defines a very specific term, "deliberate practice" -- "In contrast to play, deliberate practice is a highly structured activity, the explicit goal of which is to improve performance. Specific tasks are invented to overcome weaknesses, and performance is carefully monitored to provide cues for ways to improve it further. We claim that deliberate practice requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable." Ericsson adds more detail in the full paper.

It's not just "are you playing piano for X hours per day".

The paper in this post mentions deliberate practice in its review of the literature, but then all of a sudden and without explanation reverts to the more generic term "practice" for all of its contributions, which appears to be defined as "how many hours did you play your instrument".

Note that "play" and "practice" are explicitly disambiguated in Ericsson.

I have a hard time believing that the authors are unaware of this distinction, especially considering that they heavily reference Ericsson.

Whether intentional or not, I think the "deliberate practice" rebuttal is a bit of a "no true scotsman" dodge. Anyone who says they practiced a lot can be interrogated about how methodical their practice was, to see if it counts. The only way, then, to falsify Ericsson's hypothesis is to spend lot of energy on highly methodical practice over a long period of time even though you are not improving very much. Who would spend the time to do that, just to rebut Ericsson?

Ericsson's original paper says: "In this article we propose a theoretical framework that explains expert performance in terms of acquired characteristics resulting from extended deliberate practice and that limits the role of innate (inherited) characteristics to general levels of activity and emotionality." They want to claim that the only innate talent that matters is that you are active and emotional, and not that you have any innate talent for music. This paper shows that the amount of time spent practicing appears to have no effect at all on some of these basic musical skills. It shows the presence of innate musical talent, something Ericsson wants to deny.

Some people really like to believe the 10,000 hour rule. I have no desire to talk someone out of believing it if they find it motivational. But as a musician, it's obvious to me that inborn talent is absolutely necessary for high-level performance. The idea that anybody can be Joshua Bell if they just put in the time is a wishful fantasy, not reality.

This kind of "blank slatism" is popular because it satisfies our desire for the world to be fair and just. We want to believe that we can create a perfectly fair playing field where success comes from effort alone. This is a noble idea, but the danger is when we discount evidence to the contrary -- evidence that sometimes people really are different, possibly having different talents or desires. Because then we look for who to blame when things don't end up the way we thought they should.

Deliberate practice and natural talent are not mutually exclusive. I make a living as a regionally successful chess teacher. I have had many highly talented students who were not hard workers. I have had many hard working students who were not naturally very talented. Both turned out to be pretty good. Sadly for blank slatists, the talent seems to mean more, but "pretty good" isn't exceptional. I had one student who was a hard working genius who did deliberate practice and took four or five hours of lessons with me a week. He won a national championship for first grade.

Practice matters. Especially at the upper level. There are hordes of talented "strong casuals" out there.

Agreed that you need both talent and deliberate practice for chess but you also need to start early.

For becoming a chess GM you need 3 things: talent, grit(deliberate practice), starting early(10-12 is okay, 18 is too late these days).

One interesting aspect of starting early AND also persistent grit is being the youngest sibling in a chess family.

For example Hikaru had a master level older brother and of course there's Judith. The youngest siblings are ridiculously competitive against older ones.

I agree 100% with all of this. Deliberate practice is necessary, but not sufficient, for high level performance.

There's a more fundamental problem. This study tests two different musical skills - i.e. playing (which is what most people think of as practice) and listening.

No one with a musical background will be surprised that ear training (i.e the ability to hear musical details) is only distantly related to finger training, especially if the finger training happens on an instrument with discrete pitches, like a piano.

Ear training is a separate process, and has to be practiced separately. Playing will improve it a little, but won't fully develop it.

In fact amateur keyboard players are notorious for poor pitch discrimination. Keyboards are just switches. You don't have to find the pitch while listening for intonation, as you do on instruments that don't have frets and require very precise finger or mouth control, as well as the ability to listen to the rest of an ensemble.

That's not what Quincy Jones says.


David Marchese: You’re talking about business not music, but, and I mean this respectfully, don’t some of your thoughts about music fall under the category of “back in my day”?

Quincy Jones: Musical principles exist, man. Musicians today can’t go all the way with the music because they haven’t done their homework with the left brain. Music is emotion and science. You don’t have to practice emotion because that comes naturally. Technique is different. If you can’t get your finger between three and four and seven and eight on a piano, you can’t play. You can only get so far without technique. People limit themselves musically, man. Do these musicians know tango? Macumba? Yoruba music? Samba? Bossa nova? Salsa? Cha-cha?

I remember reading an interview with Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits. He mentions how glad he was that he never joined the singer/songwriter scene because leaning picking and rhyhhm guitar gave him the facility to play whatever he wanted.

Edit: here he expresses some of the same sentiment https://youtu.be/OG__SwkV3wg

You’re wrong Quincy agrees with the article. The emotion part is what the article addresses. You gotta have that “swing” and that can’t be learned or taught, it can be enhanced, but you can’t practice into having it. As Quincy says it comes naturally, but not everyone has it. If you have the emotion part you can develop the techniques, but no the other way around.

My wife is a very good piano player, but she doesn’t have “it”, she sounds like a robot playing, it’s painful to hear, but she plays in time, all the right notes, but it’s just not there.

In drawing it’s most evident, some people can draw and others can’t, no amount of practice will help me. The emotion side of things kicks in more so with drawing.

>In drawing it’s most evident, some people can draw and others can’t, no amount of practice will help me.

That isn't remotely true, we just don't teach children to draw. Most teachers believe that it's an innate ability and have no idea how to teach it even if they wanted to. Drawing is a straightforward skill that can be quickly learned, but it's highly counter-intuitive to most people. If you think you can't draw, pick up a copy of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards or Keys to Drawing by Bert Dodson.

I agree. I currently can’t draw for shit, but at one point I went from not being able to draw to being pretty good at it, because I practiced. Then I stopped practicing and now I can’d draw anymore. Some months ago I also watched and worked through a little bit of an online drawing course and was doing quite well, although I stopped due to lack of time and now can’t draw anymore once again.

I also have no talent for sleight of hand, I’ve never been good at it, until recently, when I deliberately started practivcing for a few hours every single day (learning sleights for card illusions and caradistry). I’m not particularly good yet, but the difference from even a couple of weeks ago is huge.

It takes deliberate practice, motivation and time. Sometimes, you also need a good teacher.

Yes. I see this with Japanese people. For some reason they are all able to draw better, judt like they all fold Origamis. I think it‘s just deliberate school practice.

>she plays in time, all the right notes, but it’s just not there.

In my limited experience, I find the "it" factor which cannot be learned is the ability to keep time; that "swing" you mention. Given that your wife possesses great technical ability, perhaps self-consciousness is a factor in the perceived lack-of-emotion in her playing?

I was thinking the opposite - it's possible to over focus on the technique and lack self consciousness for what the whole sounds like. Maybe it could be developed by recording and playing back, even having a go at music production.

I only know the words he said, I don't know if he has read the article or whether or not he agrees with it.

Going by his words: "You don’t have to practice emotion because that comes naturally. Technique is different." By that he means that you do have to practice technique. The title of the article is "No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Ability". That sounds like the words Quincy Jones said directly contradict the words in the title of the article, to me.

Not everyone can become Michelangelo, but anyone can become fairly proficient with a piece of charcoal with just a few months of instruction (given motor abilities that fall within the norm, but I don’t think this is what you were alluding to)

> My wife is a very good piano player, but she doesn’t have “it”

Absurdly subjective. If you can neither qualify nor quantify "it" you shouldn't start levying it as some standard of quality.

Its a good point, it just can’t be measured by lay people.

Anecdotally, I always use my sister and I as examples. We’re 18 months apart, similar IQ, same upbringing, etc. you can hand her any music producing instrument and she’ll be making music in a few minutes. I am the opposite, barely able to play Mary had a little lamb.

I’m pretty sure you can use tools like Myers Briggs to correlate personality traits to talents in certain areas. Some people are attracted to a career in accounting, which sounds like a vision of hell on earth to others. Ditto for music or other arts.

Nonsense. The reason we have the concept of ‘it’ and ‘je ne sais qois’ is because we (many of us) find that a useful concept. Subjective assessment of art is absolutely allowed without rigorous metrics.

The differences in timing, attack, etc from a good player and a merely competent player are objectively measurable, but a non expert can hear the difference and form an option without understanding what they are using to discriminate.

Edit: fixed French spelling.

Exactly, the English equivalent would be 'ineffable', as in ineffible beauty; which describes a quality of an aestetic that is beyond words and relates to how the sum of techniques used together is greater than the individual techniques employed by themselves in the context of art.

> the English equivalent would be 'ineffable' which describes a quality that is beyond words

also known as "inherently subjective"

just because you deem something to be inexpressible doesn't mean it actually is.

Language has inherent limits, it is an objective subset of subjective concepts that allows us to communicate. Thinking somthing is beautiful and having others think similarly doesn't inherently mean that the beauty can be communicated linguistically. Otherwise, why have music, visual art, etc? If language was capable of describing all concepts you could just describe these concepts linguistically and that would be enough to feel the same beauty about the concept.

L'orthographe français contient du... je ne sais quoi.

Pardon. Veuillez excuser mon erreur.

Il n'y a rien à excuser, Monsieur. :)

Except I failed in my attempt to fix it and now I’m embarrassed :( !

> ‘je ne sais cois’

if you're going to pompously bandy a term about, you should at least spell it correctly

I can’t avoid a subjective assessment of these posts, despite the objectively impeccable spelling.

the spelling of your posts is objectively not impeccable

Not at all, just listen to some of the musical channels on Twitch. Channels like pianoimproman (old man who is crazy good) and kylelandrypiano (young) are just leagues above the rest, yet there is no shortage of live musicians. I suggest watching just to see how pianoimproman gets a request for a song he has never heard, then plays his own version of that song based on only hearing a few seconds.

A sample from the young man: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/227075655

You have no idea how many hours these people practice, when they began playing, their practice methods, and so on.

And you’re comparing them to other random people on Twitch, who might be casual players just noodling around.

So what are we supposed to deduce from this?

My point was only about how there are great minds out there who clearly are not like the rest, whether it be music or ability to perform in another professional capacity. There are Dota2 players who have played the game all their lives, yet not achieved "much" compared to young kids who explode into the scene only to remain in a higher tier. This https://dota.rgp.io/mmr/ shows that in that particular game only the 99.95 percentile is pro-level.

I've personally played an instrument since I was 7 and while I was playing every day until I was 18 that didn't automatically make me able to produce good music that gives people goosebumps. But I've met plenty who can, without much practice. In fact their earlier music had an unrefined thing about it that made it unique. They were just good, I guess.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense.

Generally, I agree that some people clearly have a lot of raw talent.

But also I think we’re very attracted to this idea of the “natural,” who becomes a virtuoso almost effortlessly. In my experience, most people who reach the very highest skill levels have both raw talent and a tremendous work ethic. And a lot of people who show early promise never reach their potential because they won’t put in the time.

Sometimes the distinction between talent and effort isn’t even clear. There’s a documentary called Magnus about the chess champion Magnus Carlsen. It shows him as a kid, thinking about chess from the moment he wakes up to the moment he sleeps (and he probably dreamt about chess too). While others are playing, he’s staring off into space thinking about chess. That is some kind of talent, the ability to maintain complete focus like that over many years.

I’d bet some of these Dota2 players in the top 0.5% spend an extreme amount of time playing or thinking about the game.

I remember reading some interview or other with some pro gamers who said they basically practiced for 15 houars a day, every day.

It is pleasurable from an auditory perspective but i discern no difference in quality between the linked content and other more generic recordings of the same piece.

Again : just because "you" find that something speaks to "you" is in no way an indication that it possesses some inherent quality. More likely, it's an expression of your personal biases and/or group psychosis.

Perhaps, but they do get paid considerably by people to play like this regularly, live. So "you" here must be the viewership then.

As a former professional musician I was initially provoked since the title clearly does not align with what I experienced when working.

What the study refers to as musical ability is in fact the skill to discern different pitches and rhythms.

Obviously there is an enormous amount af practice required to master an instrument. But I still find it hard to “agree” with the paper, I’ve noticed large differences in how attuned I am to pitch and rhythm depending on how much I’ve practiced. Hearing pitch, at least for me, is a skill that can be both trained and lost. Which makes me think that maybe it is not the total amount of hours practiced that is important but also how recent that practice was. I can find no mention in the paper of how “fresh” the participants skills were. Also, there is a huge difference in how you practice, how efficient it is etc.

To be fair I didn’t fully understand the statistical stuff, but all in all this fells like a somewhat blunt study especially considering the provocative title.

Edit: spelling

The title is quite misleading: the notions "practice" and "ability" here refer to different things: "practice" is taken to mean practicing the creation of music with an instrument, while "ability" is taken to discriminate between auditory aspects of music one is listening to. I would expect significant causal relationships between practicing the creation of music and ability in the creation of music, and between practicing audio discrimination and ability in audio discrimination.

It's rather unfortunate that the title is so poor, as the paper itself is good aside from that; the study they mention a few times (Schellenberg & Weiss, 2013) found that "more music practice is significantly associated with better music ability" and I'm glad people are going through the effort of checking results like these for causation vs mere correlation.

>I would expect significant causal relationships between practicing the creation of music and ability in the creation of music, and between practicing audio discrimination and ability in audio discrimination.

Yes, and real musicianship is more complicated still since hearing and playing abilities co-evolve as one cycles round and round a new piece. For example, notes previously played too quietly can be played louder merely by hearing them as louder. At least that's the way I experience it. If true it adds a whole new meaning to 'active listening' since motor activity may be included in the loop.

Before anyone gets too excited about the headline, the "music ability" test they apply is strictly listening (no playing). It's disappointing that they don't appear to measure/estimate how much of subjects' practice time was spent specifically on ear training.

Frankly, I'm completely mystified by this paper. It appears to be built on a circular and self-contradictory logic.

The paper compares hours of music practice to scores in the Swedish Musical Listening Test (SMLT). It finds no significant correlation, concluding that there is no causal relationship between musical practice and musical skill. The SMLT does not directly measure practical musical skills, but is treated by the authors as a valid proxy measure because it correlates with hours of musical practice (Ullén et al, 2014).

Practice does not improve musical ability because hours of practice are not correlated with scores in the SMLT. The SMLT is a valid proxy measure of musical ability because scores correlate with hours of practice. See the problem?

Ullén, F., Mosing, M. A., Holm, L., Eriksson, H., & Madison, G. (2014). Psychometric properties and heritability of a new online test for musicality, the Swedish Musical Discrimination Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 87–93. (10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.057)

I've been playing music since 4 yrs old, and I've become quite a good musician. I really struggled with rigorous practice routines. I had a teacher once validate that my active listening to music was just as good practice as sitting down at the piano. That was a really important affirmation for me, since a lot of parents and teachers force practicing to a punitive degree, to the point where its possible to develop shame and negative self image around "not practicing enough".

Very interesting article!

Here's an analogy: say you get a discount on your health insurance if you visit a fitness center regularly. Except that going to fitness centers got you excited. You don't get anything out of them. But you do like biking, going on long hikes and you do a lot of physical activity in your work. So just because you don't go to the gym, should you give up on your fitness? Heck no! Lean into what energizes you to stay healthy.

Active listening seems to me to have the sams essential for deliberate practice. Is is where you put your attention an awareness.

A punitive practice will not force someone's awareness on the practice. Though someone might be bored and put their attention on the practice.

That has been my experience with music growing up and martial arts later. And software programming.

"A common operationalization of music ability is sensory discrimination of auditory musical stimuli of vari- ous types". Music ability is defined as "rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination". So it´s not about being able to play music, but hearing and classification ability.

So it translatates in non-fancy-wording. Being able to differenciate rhythms and melodies depends on your genetics and can not be practiced for improvement. But it says nothing about the effect of practicing on being a better music performer.

This article defines 'musical ability' very very narrowly. In discriminatory tasks related to rhythm, melody, and pitch there was a strong heritable component. Keep practicing.

Who ever made such a claim?

The claim I'm familiar with is that a performer who practices decreases the probability of a catastrophic mistake in the performance and increases the probability that their musical ideas will be conveyed clearly during the performance. So given two performers or roughly equal ability, hire the one who practices.

Ah it took me a minute to parse out that they were distinguishing general music ability from proficiency with an instrument -- yes, this is believable, the weak effects of learning transfer are pretty well-documented in general education and athletics, which Bryan Caplan has been writing about lately http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/02/learning_transf.....

On the one hand, I think playing in an ensemble is crucial for learning rhythm discrimination and that there probably would be transfer there. On the other, perfect pitch is all but unlearnable and that presents a huge, entirely genetic advantage for some folks on pitch discrimination tasks.

"Here, we examined... 10,500 Swedish twins"


TIL about the Swedish Twin Registry: https://ki.se/en/research/the-swedish-twin-registry

> Music ability was measured using the Swedish Musical Discrimination Test (SMDT)

> The SMDT consists of three subtests — pitch, melody, and rhythm discrimination

The test is of fundamental primitives - not about the ability to play a tune. The study doesn't show that practice does not make better music. For example a deaf person who scores 0 on all the tests, can still visually memorize and practice timings and strokes to produce nice songs.

The paper seems to be talking about deliberate practice of an instrument, but then measuring what jazz musicians call 'ear training'. When I was preparing for conservatory auditions, I did quite a bit of ear training, things like recognizing intervals between notes, cadences/chord progressions, etc after having them played to you.

Before I started any sort of training/practice regimen, I'm quite sure I could never identify a tritone or minor third being payed on a piano. After a lot of deliberate ear training, I certainly could. And I suspect most people could as well, but not by just sitting there listening to things you don't understand, but rather by 'deliberate practice' and learning. A major 5th is easily recognized as the interval between the first notes in a popular star wars theme, a minor 3rd is the interval between the first two notes in greensleeves. These sorts of associations were how I taught myself.

This study is baffling...

> Participants were first asked whether they play an instrument (or actively sing). Those who responded positively were questioned about the number of years they practiced during four age intervals (ages 0–5 years, 6–11 years, 12–17 years, and 18 years until the time of measurement) and how many hours a week during each of those intervals they practiced. From these estimates, a sum-score estimate of the total hours played during their lifetime was calculated, with nonplayers receiving a score of zero.

I'm a lapsed clarinetist. It's been a few years. I wonder if I would have answered "no" to the first question, and been scored as someone with zero hours of practice. Yet I have a couple of thousand lifetime hours of practice.

(But no, most of that practice time did not really drill the skills measured by the SMDT.)

And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose licks. I wonder why these two viewpoints come to such opposite conclusions.

> And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose licks.

It absolutely is. Practice is necessary but not sufficient for high-level musical performance. The study talks about musical ability in terms of rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination -- mental skills around music -- and finds that these are not changed with practice. These two statements are not in conflict.

But if practice is necessary for high-level musical performance, then that implies it has a causal effect on it. This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that where the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well.

> This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well.

Exactly. I think the paper is trying to establish that there is some kind of inborn talent that is not affected by practice, even if other things (like performing ability) are.

And, perhaps, cause and effect are reversed: people who are gifted see increase of satisfaction (but necessarily skill) when practicing. Then they report that practice is crucial.

This is easy to falsify by having someone else evaluate whether a musician's performance improves with practice. This is very easy to double-blind: just record "before" and "after" performances and don't tell the evaluator which is which. I would be willing to bet that the effects of practice on a musical performance are very easily measurable.

The article talks about music ability defined by them to be rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination. Not the memorization of a musical piece.

They're not at all conflicting unless you choose to interpret them in that way. I think the premise here is very well understood, and it's whether or not any amount of practice can make up for what some would argue is an innate lack of musical talent. The benefits of practice thereafter are incontrovertible.

They aren't opposite. You need the practice to learn the music, but it doesn't help (apparently) you determine pitch , or pick out rhythmical differences (which is what it actually tested). It doesn't necessarily mean you play, but it will probably affect your ability to self regulate and learn by ear.

? "music ability" eq "rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination" (I'll be honest this bothered me that much i didn't read very much further)

Did they design a test specifically to make them feel special? rhythm is subjective within music (think jazz). A 'good' melody is only subjectively different from a bad one. Maybe pitch discrimination could be genetic; partial deafness.

They may not be technically wrong, but their definition of practice and perfect seem twisted to click bait.

I also think this is flawed. Wind and orchestral string players (violin, cello etc) must develop a fine ear for pitch/intonation, pianists usually aren't given any choice as to tuning/voicing/regulation of the instruments they have to perform on and I think over time, many lose sensitivity to non Pythagorean intervals and ET deviations from just intonation.

So everybody's lumped together, those that play one instrument vs those than are proficient on 3 or more

Take something really complex, dumb it down to 3 variables, draw conclusions... profit?

Is the difference between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix measurable by "rhythm, melody, pitch discrimination" and whatever methodology they used to quantify these variables?

It's like measuring computer scientists ability by how quickly they can implement binary search.

EDIT: it is interesting that musical practice doesn't change those abilities. But I think the title of the article is misleading and grasping.

Silly title.

One the one hand, you have skill, on the other ability. Ability is the potential you have to become good at something, skill is actualized ability. So while I may not be able to e.g. play the piano now (no skill), given enough practice, I can actualize my potential into skill. Potential may place a bound on skill, but the only way to convert potential into skill is through practice.

Psych Science, while published by a somewhat reputable source (the APA has had some questionable positions on torture), is not considered a highly rigorous journal. It prioritizes “sexy” findings that are more likely to not replicate. Within the psych community, these kind of findings are taken with a grain of salt.

This subject always seems to get everyone in a twist. That's because there are at least two different things being discussed: necessary vs. sufficient.

The Gladwell version of 10,000 hours was quite clearly a 'necessary' interpretation of deliberate practice. You look at success vs. amount practiced and see that those who practice more tend to be more successful, at least to a point. Fairly simple idea, wrapped up in a neat pop-sci quip.

The 'sufficient' argument is a radically different one that suggests that ultimate ability isn't that different between individuals. Immediately, this seems strongly at odds with other observed intellectual metrics such as IQ which is very highly heritable (h = 0.7 to 0.8) and does not suffer from many of the data quality issues that other metrics do.

A much better title for this paper would end with 'ultimate ability' or 'potential' or something, because practice is obviously necessary. There's just a lot of people talking past each other here, and several that clearly didn't read even the introduction to the paper which discusses this difference.

What if simply believing that one can't learn these things prevents them being learned (by that person)?

This is a really badly designed study. I started playing violin when I was 4 and started performing professionally when I was 7, and continued to do so for 20 years.

Learning to play an instrument or sing is not the same as studying pitch differentiation or rhythm. There are a surprising number of successful musicians who are bad at these things. But the method laid out here is utterly meaningless. You might assume that practicing the violin would have some affect on these things, but it doesn't necessarily. Many people simply learn these things by wrote for specific pieces of music from their guidance in private lessons and teachers.

You might also assume that someone who practices a lot and got a degree is also good at Music Theory or Music History, but that's also false. There are tons of professional classical musicians with graduate and Doctorate degrees who are bad at all the things measured in this study as well as history and theory.

I'm really shocked that the authors couldn't figure out that they were measuring two completely different things and calling them the same thing. It almost seems intentional for the sake of publishing a controversial result.

People absolutely get better at these specific tasks when they practice _these specific tasks_. Every music curriculum in world specifically requires classes in these exact tasks, although the bar for minimal competence is extremely low.

I run a small side business tutoring people who are already professional classical musicians who want to get into a DMA program. They have to demonstrate competency at these tasks, as well as some basic knowledge of Theory and History. They can't; even though they are top-level performers on their instrument and practice hours every day.

I offer a 12-week crash course that covers these types of tasks and as well as the knowledge component, and people usually find me because they've already applied to a DMA program and been rejected for failing these prerequisites. I know for a fact that they get better with deliberate practice because after working with a couple of dozen clients, every single one of them gets in on the second try.

Not to mention the fact that every single day, there are students in Music degrees who start off really sucking at these specific measures who get enough better at them to pass the class at the end of the semester, through very specifically designed exercises that target these abilities.

This whole study is an infuriating waste of time and money, and it's an example of some really bad science that's floating around there in the world I really have a hard time believing this was accepted anywhere for publication.

Practice makes permanent, right?

I've never practised guitar a day in my life, yet I'm most likely better than you at it. ;)

my core takeaway from HN these days is that life is but a meaningless expression of conscious carbon, quick to life and quick to death, with the only constant being endless futility.

This seems absurd.

what's with these obviously false journal titles? "Food is a luxury: caloric intake not necessary for survival." yeah, sure.

Perhaps you should read the paper to find how the title is not false?

But the title still obviously is false. Obviously practice increases your musical ability.

maybe if you read my paper you would see how you don't need any caloric intake to survive. (If I redefine all the words I just used, in the body of my paper.) Hence my "why the obviously false titles."

>But the title still obviously is false. Obviously practice increases your musical ability.

There's nothing "obvious", unless you can counter both the results and the explanations given in the study. And they haven't redefined anything.


This comment violates the guidelines in like, a handful of ways. Could you please read them and not post like this again?


Why did you shadow ban me?

Probably a combination of the personal attack in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16304324 and evidence that you've been abusing HN with other accounts. We tend to shadowban new accounts in that case because it's too tiring to engage with serial trolls. When the account has been around longer we tend to post openly that they're being banned and why.

Since you've posted mostly good comments since then, we'll unban you. But would you please use the site as intended—for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation—and follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html from now on?

I’ve always used it for sincere intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation. My posts across all my accounts are more representative of that more than bad faith trolling. You can trace through it yourself.

Saying Bryan Cantrell has a massive ego isn’t such a massive or unfounded personal attack if I back it up with well-known evidence. He has a known and decorated reputation in the hacker community for having a massive ego. I mean, really?

Having a contradictory or aggressive opinion doesn’t make you a troll if you’re willing to continuously engage in the discussion in good faith. Trolls minimally engage and don’t add. I put effort in my engagement and I try to add to the discussion.

My treatment on hacker news has been unfair and I think your handling has been heavy-handed to the point of censorship. That being said, thank you for de-shadowbanning me. It shows you care.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice make perfect (there is no such thing).

Not perfect practice, but deliberate practice. For example, I practice sleight of hand (for card magic and cardistry). If I just practice, then whatever bad habits and mistakes I make, well I make them permanent. If, however, I, for example, video my practice sessions, watch them back and correct the mistakes I make, then I get better and my technique gets better. The point is to find out where you go wrong and correct for it.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact