Causes of expertise 10,000 hours, or not? Genius, or not?

Article 1

“Nonsense” – Extreme views: environmental Ericsson et al. are “extreme” Quotes: Hmm…

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental Ericsson: Expertise “requires” practice to be – 10k hours – Deliberate – “Motivated” “Falsified by one exception” – Hmm: only the strongest version of the theory would be. – “Exceptions”: Helen Glover (rower); Donald Thomas (high jump); Crissie Wellington (Ironman) » What would constitute “practice” for these events?

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental The “insidious” claim – Put in the practice – Don’t get the results – Who do you blame? Refer to previous slide…

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental “Patent nonsense” What – 50-60%? “Highly selected?” See: Questioning the Millennium: A Rationalists Guide to a Precisely Arbitrary Countdown, revised (Harmony Books, 1999). A book on calendars and the idea of the millenium. Ends with a section on autistic calendar savants. ISBN: (hardcover, 208 pages).ISBN: (hardcover, 208 pages)

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental Only study experts These don’t differ in “talent” Doesn’t mean that talent doesn’t exist – Fair enough – Go further…

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental Only study experts These don’t differ in “talent” Doesn’t mean that talent doesn’t exist – Fair enough – Go further… » If extremely talented individuals were to compete against each other, they’d have to indulge in tremendous amounts of practice to succeed, right? » Only studying experts is a problem

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : environmental Last point: – What? – Where does Ericsson say anything about genetic limits? – Who’s to say everyone uses these this environment equally? » This is truly patent nonsense

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : hereditarian Odd – supposed to be refuting extreme hereditarian views, but seems to spend all the time refuting Ericsson’s portrayal of such.

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : hereditarian Critical periods – Really “sensitive” periods – Fits with practice hypothesis – and the idea of positive feedback and the “building block” approach to learning Last point

Article 1 “Nonsense” – Extreme views : hereditarian Last point – One more swipe at Ericsson – But again, fair enough – (same pt as before)

Article 1 Common sense – Practice is important – Not everyone will be elite: Physical limits Injuries Early experience/sensitive periods Aging – Amount of practice doesn’t explain remaining variance in performance among the elite

Article 1 Science – Early experience Not born with much Everything is built from birth on – By the age of 6 movement within cohort over next 12 years becomes less likely – (note – this does not make it genetically endowed) – Individual differences Inter- and intra-…between and within – Categorizes as abilities – back to square one!

Article 1 Science – Traits and situations What the individual has, versus their situation – Again, what they have need not be genetically defined Talent ID – Yep, skipped forward – Talent ≠ genetic endowment Could be just the early experiences we’ve mentioned before Simonton (1999, Psychological Review): “Any package of personal characteristics that accelerates the acquisition of expertise” – These can be enhanced through some gene supporting certain features, but the manner by which the gene supports any element is indirect

Article 1 For more, see

Article 2

Variation in performance rating and deliberate practice See also Polgar sisters… – The father wrote a book – Bringing up genius… Theme was that genius was made, not born!

Article 2 Variation in hours practiced (alone) and performance rating in chess

Article 2 Variation in hours performance rating deliberate practice in music (see details)

Article 2 Generally, 30% of variation in performance rating was due to deliberate practice – Authors suggest this implies variation in number of hours taken to attain expertise – Factors suggested to be associated with this variation: Starting age Intelligence – ! Personality – ! – Genes » ! – Factors not suggested Early experience? Mentorship? Supporting environments? Readiness to learn?