Do you still have a chance to achieve success
How much time do you need to exceed 140 points for IQ test? Six months of hard work from morning till night is enough? For sure. Which means you will become better than 99% of those tested. This is about 2.5 thousand hours - after deducting breaks for sleeping, eating and other trifles. But Malcolm Gladwell in his famous book “Geniuses and Outsiders” brought another figure to the achievement of the skill level - 10,000 hours. He did not invent it, but derived from the statistics of the Swedish psychologist Anders Eriksson, who published in 1993 a study that violin and piano masters are not born, but become. An important nuance - he compared groups of musicians, and not the most talented units.
Violin masters needed on average exactly as many hours of practice to differ from professionals (an average of 5000 hours) and good amateurs (2000 hours). Gladwell popularized this figure, broadened speculatively to other areas of activity and presented it to readers as a guarantee of success. Work only 5 years hard and everything will be. Among the evidence, he cited examples of business programmers from Billy Joy to Bill Gate. Since then, he has been regularly criticized both for the magnitude of the figure and for the approach - they say, everyone has their own brains and their own teaching methods.
')
In the study of Ericsson, the calculation of 10 thousand hours is made on the example of super-professionals, but we ourselves can easily estimate that 5 years in the normal mode in the workplace give tangible professional results. And if we discard the minor quibbles, the main idea of ​​Gladwell is understandable, although it is trivial - “you can’t easily pull the fish out of the pond as well.” Where so many disputes?
Debaters are motivated by different goals. Some are driven by curiosity and the search for scientific truth, others sell educational methods and magic medical manipulations. But everyone wants to find a magic recipe for success or sell it to those who suffer fame and fortune.
Criticism of the idea is conducted from 3 sides. The first is that genes decide everything, the second is the environment and behavior in childhood (family), others speak about the teaching methods and features of the profession or industry being studied. In a recent article, the authors voiced the results of metadata processing in 88 of the most appropriate publications on these topics.
The first conclusion deserves a “thank you cap” reaction — that the practice helps the results. But the authors' aim was a correlation, in the meanings of which they saw a lot of strange things for themselves. For example, it took one chess player 26 years to reach the grandmaster level, and another just 2 years. What kind of chess player in the study in question, is not given; omitted also what is considered the start of a career. But for reference, Sergey Karjakin became the youngest grandmaster at the age of 12. The current leader of the chess world, Magnus Carlsen, achieved his title at the age of 13. Bobby Fischer was promoted to grandmaster at 15.5 years. By the time they received the titles, they played: Karjakin - 7 years, Carlsen - 8, Fisher - 9. It’s not possible to evaluate the clock - it's to their parents or biographers. It should only be noted that the above 2 years - evidence of the conventionality of many studies.
Chess players, sportsmen and musicians begin to practice, as a rule, at an early age. The brain of a child is very flexible, neural connections are actively formed up to 12 years, and any conditioned reflexes at that age become unconditional for life. In more mature age to study much harder. That is, the child's practice in the effectiveness of learning is “a year in two, or even three.” In the early start there is one more merit - the most attention falls on you and this process takes on the character of an increasing progression. The more success you have, the more they write about you, the more mentors you have, access to inventory and equipment, orders, and other resources that allow you to hone your skills. Success itself motivates, of course, too.
If the hourly comparisons of professional achievements are far-fetched, what are the objective factors? For example with genes. No one questions the role of genes. The abilities of identical twins, for example in drawing, are demonstrated by them equally stable after 10 years. Among fraternal twins, some retain their abilities more, others less. There is an influence of genes. The only question is how much weight determines heredity in a person’s success. The consensus opinion of scientists today is such that genes set broad boundaries of possibilities, but are quite flexible. Relatively speaking, if the length of the entire IQ scale is 90 units - from 55 to 145 points, then the range of abilities of a particular person (and his identical twin, if any) is 70 points - slightly higher or slightly lower than average, that is, from 55 to 125 or from 75 to 145 respectively. Specific results are determined by practice.
Separate exceptions only confirm the rule and are most often caused by the assessment methodology. As for example, the study of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. The team Miriam Mosing discovered in 2014 that absolutely identical genetically identical twins have the same ear for music with a different amount of practical training. Practice does not give any additional success in this area. In other areas, practice is still necessary. In my opinion, the innateness of the musical ear is obvious, and Swedish scientists are approaching British studies with such research.
In bulging the exclusive role of heredity or child experience, “outrageous” is not the thought that, besides labor, there are other success factors. It's clear. The idea that work can be replaced by something unattainable to us, and even more the assumption that this factor ensures success more than work, is unbearable. Gladwell and Eriksson equal the chances of people achieving success, and Mosing destroys them. In vain, as has already been said above, the young grandmasters worked, although less adults on the road to fame, but they also worked very decently.
Eriksson unequivocally wrote that the factors affected are different, but a) no one succeeds without success, and b) hard work will surely give success to everyone. No matter how lucky you are with genes or family support, you have every chance to catch up with the lucky ones. And the lucky ones will have to work too, there will be no freebies. The first myth is regularly refuted by examples of geniuses, while the second is stable.
The authors of the article in Business Iinsider state that the tolerant idea of ​​equality of opportunity has already reached its peak - racial and sexual inequality in the social sphere has almost been reached, and eugenics is slowly winning positions. Individual equality is replaced by equality of opportunities for competition within groups. Relatively speaking, a white American programmer can always become better than the average Russian programmer, although as a group the American programmers are inferior to ours quite significantly. He may be initially genetically talented, and subsequently develop more quickly thanks to more practice. There are talents in each group, they just meet less often. Do not just summarize. Given this fact, the study of Eriksson can be both true and false - 10,000 are not for everyone, but on average this amount of practice will be required.
Since children or future musicians of Habr rarely read - what morals can be for all of us, adults in these studies without a clear answer to the question - what is the role of genes, how and how much should we work for success?
A number of psychologists have reflected the effect of relative inertia of the brain in the theory of two parts of the intellect - mobile intelligence and crystallized. The first is the ability to think logically, analyze and solve problems independently of previous experience; the second is the accumulated experience and ability to use acquired knowledge and skills. The first part of abilities develops up to 30-40 years, the second - up to 60-70.
To check the balance of your intellect, try a simple exercise: take a deck of 52 cards and, shifting one by one, try to note from memory when different cards of the same rank / rank (without taking into account color / color) repeat in step three. For example, in the sequence: 6-8-9-K-8-7-K, they will be the eight and the king. Then check yourself. The more you remember, the more crystallized your intellect, of which memory is a part. If your memory is not so hot, it means that you have a lot of room for creativity. Unless of course you have started sclerosis ...
The less you were disciplined, focused or purposeful earlier - the more likely you are to keep the plasticity of the brain until now. So you can master any skill now. Many competitors in front and elbows will have more, but your skills will be fresh.
The authors of the study are agitating for eugenics, finding in it 2 undeniable merits:
However, here you can argue with the authors. First, knowing their inability, many will simply give up work — even where they have chances, albeit smaller ones. Secondly, nature creates a new mixture of different abilities, and specialization - an evolutionary dead end. Like cats for example.
Thirdly, the structure of the economy and society in general can be very different from the genetic distribution of abilities. It may happen that there will be millions of pilots and only hundreds of aviation mechanics. Well, let the aircraft mechanics replace the robots, but where to get so many passengers?
I use the observations of biologist Sergey Savelyev, who studies the brain, its size and variability. He argues, among other things, that specialization in sports, music, or any type of activity inevitably inhibits brain development in other areas. The biological structure of the brain determines the odds at birth 3 times (the size of the brain is so different), but the variability of the adult brain capacity (the size of individual specialized neocortex umbrellas) differs 40 times and fully compensates for this starting difference. Despite the huge difference in the number of neurons. A person can, like Mayakovsky, without having a special biological predisposition, concentrate all the powers of the brain on one sphere and achieve tremendous success in it.
200 years ago, Francis Galton, the founder of a scientific study of intelligence and a cousin of Charles Darwin, analyzed the genealogical records of hundreds of scientists, artists, and musicians, and found that craftsmanship was determined by origin. At a time when only the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie knew how to write (with a simple account and reading the case was better - depending on the country), and knowledge was a caste secret, such a conclusion is not surprising. Where there was knowledge, there were achievements. Career elevators, too, was not so much as it is now, that the relatives and a bunch of industries. Break through those centuries was probably more difficult than the current one. So much so that for many aristocrats and merchants the career and social elevator has been devastating wars for hundreds of years. But back to the genes, education and practice.
Today, if we consider the probability of success as a certain function of the availability of knowledge, the number of possible fields of activity and the speed of information distribution (orders and advertising), we can assume that 10,000 hours of Eriksson-Gladwell is not a constant, but a variable. At the time of Darwin, it took more than 10 years to search for books, practical classes, accumulation of start-up capital or search for career opportunities. At the time of John Lennon and Bill Gates, it is already about 5 years. Now there are more markets and knowledge is more accessible.
Violin masters needed on average exactly as many hours of practice to differ from professionals (an average of 5000 hours) and good amateurs (2000 hours). Gladwell popularized this figure, broadened speculatively to other areas of activity and presented it to readers as a guarantee of success. Work only 5 years hard and everything will be. Among the evidence, he cited examples of business programmers from Billy Joy to Bill Gate. Since then, he has been regularly criticized both for the magnitude of the figure and for the approach - they say, everyone has their own brains and their own teaching methods.
')
In the study of Ericsson, the calculation of 10 thousand hours is made on the example of super-professionals, but we ourselves can easily estimate that 5 years in the normal mode in the workplace give tangible professional results. And if we discard the minor quibbles, the main idea of ​​Gladwell is understandable, although it is trivial - “you can’t easily pull the fish out of the pond as well.” Where so many disputes?
Debaters are motivated by different goals. Some are driven by curiosity and the search for scientific truth, others sell educational methods and magic medical manipulations. But everyone wants to find a magic recipe for success or sell it to those who suffer fame and fortune.
Criticism of the idea is conducted from 3 sides. The first is that genes decide everything, the second is the environment and behavior in childhood (family), others speak about the teaching methods and features of the profession or industry being studied. In a recent article, the authors voiced the results of metadata processing in 88 of the most appropriate publications on these topics.
The first conclusion deserves a “thank you cap” reaction — that the practice helps the results. But the authors' aim was a correlation, in the meanings of which they saw a lot of strange things for themselves. For example, it took one chess player 26 years to reach the grandmaster level, and another just 2 years. What kind of chess player in the study in question, is not given; omitted also what is considered the start of a career. But for reference, Sergey Karjakin became the youngest grandmaster at the age of 12. The current leader of the chess world, Magnus Carlsen, achieved his title at the age of 13. Bobby Fischer was promoted to grandmaster at 15.5 years. By the time they received the titles, they played: Karjakin - 7 years, Carlsen - 8, Fisher - 9. It’s not possible to evaluate the clock - it's to their parents or biographers. It should only be noted that the above 2 years - evidence of the conventionality of many studies.
Chess players, sportsmen and musicians begin to practice, as a rule, at an early age. The brain of a child is very flexible, neural connections are actively formed up to 12 years, and any conditioned reflexes at that age become unconditional for life. In more mature age to study much harder. That is, the child's practice in the effectiveness of learning is “a year in two, or even three.” In the early start there is one more merit - the most attention falls on you and this process takes on the character of an increasing progression. The more success you have, the more they write about you, the more mentors you have, access to inventory and equipment, orders, and other resources that allow you to hone your skills. Success itself motivates, of course, too.
If the hourly comparisons of professional achievements are far-fetched, what are the objective factors? For example with genes. No one questions the role of genes. The abilities of identical twins, for example in drawing, are demonstrated by them equally stable after 10 years. Among fraternal twins, some retain their abilities more, others less. There is an influence of genes. The only question is how much weight determines heredity in a person’s success. The consensus opinion of scientists today is such that genes set broad boundaries of possibilities, but are quite flexible. Relatively speaking, if the length of the entire IQ scale is 90 units - from 55 to 145 points, then the range of abilities of a particular person (and his identical twin, if any) is 70 points - slightly higher or slightly lower than average, that is, from 55 to 125 or from 75 to 145 respectively. Specific results are determined by practice.
Separate exceptions only confirm the rule and are most often caused by the assessment methodology. As for example, the study of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. The team Miriam Mosing discovered in 2014 that absolutely identical genetically identical twins have the same ear for music with a different amount of practical training. Practice does not give any additional success in this area. In other areas, practice is still necessary. In my opinion, the innateness of the musical ear is obvious, and Swedish scientists are approaching British studies with such research.
In bulging the exclusive role of heredity or child experience, “outrageous” is not the thought that, besides labor, there are other success factors. It's clear. The idea that work can be replaced by something unattainable to us, and even more the assumption that this factor ensures success more than work, is unbearable. Gladwell and Eriksson equal the chances of people achieving success, and Mosing destroys them. In vain, as has already been said above, the young grandmasters worked, although less adults on the road to fame, but they also worked very decently.
Eriksson unequivocally wrote that the factors affected are different, but a) no one succeeds without success, and b) hard work will surely give success to everyone. No matter how lucky you are with genes or family support, you have every chance to catch up with the lucky ones. And the lucky ones will have to work too, there will be no freebies. The first myth is regularly refuted by examples of geniuses, while the second is stable.
The authors of the article in Business Iinsider state that the tolerant idea of ​​equality of opportunity has already reached its peak - racial and sexual inequality in the social sphere has almost been reached, and eugenics is slowly winning positions. Individual equality is replaced by equality of opportunities for competition within groups. Relatively speaking, a white American programmer can always become better than the average Russian programmer, although as a group the American programmers are inferior to ours quite significantly. He may be initially genetically talented, and subsequently develop more quickly thanks to more practice. There are talents in each group, they just meet less often. Do not just summarize. Given this fact, the study of Eriksson can be both true and false - 10,000 are not for everyone, but on average this amount of practice will be required.
Since children or future musicians of Habr rarely read - what morals can be for all of us, adults in these studies without a clear answer to the question - what is the role of genes, how and how much should we work for success?
A number of psychologists have reflected the effect of relative inertia of the brain in the theory of two parts of the intellect - mobile intelligence and crystallized. The first is the ability to think logically, analyze and solve problems independently of previous experience; the second is the accumulated experience and ability to use acquired knowledge and skills. The first part of abilities develops up to 30-40 years, the second - up to 60-70.
To check the balance of your intellect, try a simple exercise: take a deck of 52 cards and, shifting one by one, try to note from memory when different cards of the same rank / rank (without taking into account color / color) repeat in step three. For example, in the sequence: 6-8-9-K-8-7-K, they will be the eight and the king. Then check yourself. The more you remember, the more crystallized your intellect, of which memory is a part. If your memory is not so hot, it means that you have a lot of room for creativity. Unless of course you have started sclerosis ...
The less you were disciplined, focused or purposeful earlier - the more likely you are to keep the plasticity of the brain until now. So you can master any skill now. Many competitors in front and elbows will have more, but your skills will be fresh.
The authors of the study are agitating for eugenics, finding in it 2 undeniable merits:
- Knowing their genetic predispositions, people will avoid careers in which they have no chance of becoming an outstanding actor. This is beneficial to a specific person, and society as a whole.
- Awareness of their limits will remove some of the guilt from the un-gallant for allegedly insufficient diligence - they can always say: I am not a bummer, I’m just slowly learning for genetic reasons. Joy for the psychotherapist.
However, here you can argue with the authors. First, knowing their inability, many will simply give up work — even where they have chances, albeit smaller ones. Secondly, nature creates a new mixture of different abilities, and specialization - an evolutionary dead end. Like cats for example.
Thirdly, the structure of the economy and society in general can be very different from the genetic distribution of abilities. It may happen that there will be millions of pilots and only hundreds of aviation mechanics. Well, let the aircraft mechanics replace the robots, but where to get so many passengers?
I use the observations of biologist Sergey Savelyev, who studies the brain, its size and variability. He argues, among other things, that specialization in sports, music, or any type of activity inevitably inhibits brain development in other areas. The biological structure of the brain determines the odds at birth 3 times (the size of the brain is so different), but the variability of the adult brain capacity (the size of individual specialized neocortex umbrellas) differs 40 times and fully compensates for this starting difference. Despite the huge difference in the number of neurons. A person can, like Mayakovsky, without having a special biological predisposition, concentrate all the powers of the brain on one sphere and achieve tremendous success in it.
200 years ago, Francis Galton, the founder of a scientific study of intelligence and a cousin of Charles Darwin, analyzed the genealogical records of hundreds of scientists, artists, and musicians, and found that craftsmanship was determined by origin. At a time when only the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie knew how to write (with a simple account and reading the case was better - depending on the country), and knowledge was a caste secret, such a conclusion is not surprising. Where there was knowledge, there were achievements. Career elevators, too, was not so much as it is now, that the relatives and a bunch of industries. Break through those centuries was probably more difficult than the current one. So much so that for many aristocrats and merchants the career and social elevator has been devastating wars for hundreds of years. But back to the genes, education and practice.
Today, if we consider the probability of success as a certain function of the availability of knowledge, the number of possible fields of activity and the speed of information distribution (orders and advertising), we can assume that 10,000 hours of Eriksson-Gladwell is not a constant, but a variable. At the time of Darwin, it took more than 10 years to search for books, practical classes, accumulation of start-up capital or search for career opportunities. At the time of John Lennon and Bill Gates, it is already about 5 years. Now there are more markets and knowledge is more accessible.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/323772/
All Articles