How to become an expert
September 4th 2006 08:55
"Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well"
I have to mention this Scientific American article. It touches on such things as the definition of expertise, the nature of memory, nature vs nurture in creating an expert…
Basic idea: that genius myths are overrated, and that expertise is gained through learning -- ten years of hard work, and anyone can be an expert.
Should also note: "Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but 'effortful study,' which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time."
-- In my own case, I have played thousands of chess games without much improving, and been overtaken by a guy who studied for a week. And I've played years worth of Counter Strike, and done years worth of the same number of sit-ups or push-ups in a set. If there's any lesson I ought to have learned by now , it's that repetition alone is unmeaningful.
I have to mention this Scientific American article. It touches on such things as the definition of expertise, the nature of memory, nature vs nurture in creating an expert…
Basic idea: that genius myths are overrated, and that expertise is gained through learning -- ten years of hard work, and anyone can be an expert.
Should also note: "Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but 'effortful study,' which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time."
-- In my own case, I have played thousands of chess games without much improving, and been overtaken by a guy who studied for a week. And I've played years worth of Counter Strike, and done years worth of the same number of sit-ups or push-ups in a set. If there's any lesson I ought to have learned by now , it's that repetition alone is unmeaningful.
| 126 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Emma
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
It personally gives me hope to think that one can become an expert in only ten years. It's like, maybe my life might not be entirely pointless after all.
Comment by Emma
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
You're quite right. People set boundaries on themselves. And I do think that, in terms of expertise anyway, natural talent counts for very little next to sweat.
In terms of success though, well that's another story. You don't need talent or hard work necessarily...
Comment by Justin
Also, in motivational theories it's proven that just by watching things be done without experiencing them you can learn methodology. This could work in some areas though not all, i.e. may be applicable in playing chess though driving a car where the focus is on motor skills and coordination the findings may not be so relevant.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I seem to remember the article suggests that, though they might have some degree of talent, prodigies are more obsessive than other kids, so they're not an exception after all.
I wonder about the extent to which this is true.
Comment by Grant
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
For me, the "ethical" usefulness of the article boils down to two ideas: that experts are made, not born, and that it's not work but effortful work (so just playing chess is not enough; you have to study it).
The second idea cuts close to home for me. I've felt like I've learned this through years of wasted time.