As I’ve grown older I’ve consistently proved to myself that if I keep at something I do get better at that thing, even if it’s a slow process. It’s tough, but long term goals, and persistence does pay off.
Source: playing piano, learning to code, learning a new language. I still suck at all the above, but each day brings me closer to not sucking.
As for ten thousand hours, my advice would be don’t count hours, and learn to enjoy the process of learning.
The articles links another one by Slate that mentions genes and age (of starting the activity). The main article also mentions personality and life history.
Genes seems to be a big one though, at least in the Slate article, and I suppose natural talent necessarily has a genetic dimension to it.
tl;dr: practice provides an 18-26% improvement, and the rest I guess is just natural talent?
As I’ve grown older I’ve consistently proved to myself that if I keep at something I do get better at that thing, even if it’s a slow process. It’s tough, but long term goals, and persistence does pay off.
Source: playing piano, learning to code, learning a new language. I still suck at all the above, but each day brings me closer to not sucking.
As for ten thousand hours, my advice would be don’t count hours, and learn to enjoy the process of learning.
The articles links another one by Slate that mentions genes and age (of starting the activity). The main article also mentions personality and life history.
Genes seems to be a big one though, at least in the Slate article, and I suppose natural talent necessarily has a genetic dimension to it.
Makes sense to me. You are either capable or incapable of doing something (badly and otherwise). Practice is just refinement over that.