> In order to assess the difference between deliberate practice habits between elite-level performers and moderate-level performers, it was also necessary to recruit moderate-level performers.
Hehe :)
Edit: Very interesting read, with nice examples of both successful and unsuccessful artists in various fields. One key trait in becoming successful seems to be willing to put in the effort. This in turn seems to only work if you actually enjoy putting in some effort. It makes one wonder if this can be a learned trait, or whether enjoying something is the actual (proxy) talent someone is born with.
Simone Weil body of work about attention can serve as a good starting point in this case. It is an answer that complements the usual disciplinary approach to effort, where a different kind of relation with the subject is developed where the interaction with it starts to be less effortful and more natural.
Take drawing for instance, which is something I practice actively. The act of putting effort in drawing is quite reductive as drawing is a broad area. Sure you can will yourself into drawing 100 faces and you will invariably be better at drawing faces, but it'll take you nowhere nearer being a more creative artist. But sometimes approaching drawing laterally, that is reaching to other techniques, subjects and skills (like shading, drawing lines, using pens and such...) might give you a broader set of tools that in turn will help increase the chances you will find something that catches your attention and absorbs you into it.
Sure you can get lost in the generics with lateral thinking and never reach a level of masterery that might be necessary for you to grow as an artist, so that is why attention isn't a replacement for discipline. You need both. But bottomline is that you also need to develop a relation with the subject that will reduce resistances, increase satisfaction and make it more likely that you will get absorbed by the task at hand.
When I began studying jazz drumming I was working from a DVD by John Riley. At one point he makes this statement about what it means to be 'gifted' at drumming (but it applies to anything).
He says the 'gift' is less about a physical attribute, and more about a disposition or temperament. I.e., you're so passionate about something that you're willing to spend countless hours, days, years learning to do something you can't do, simply because you find that process the most enjoyable.
I appreciated that perspective so much I snipped it.
Having someone around you who either intentionally or unintentionally creates an environment that makes you want to, and therefor enjoy putting in the effort, is crucial.
I am just finishing up The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle [0] and it has been an interesting short read. In a nutshell, it boils talent down deep practice, ignition, and master coaching.
I am a counter example that rule (though perhaps it is indirectly in agreement). I grew up alone, in the middle of the UK countryside without much regular contact with other kids. My inner monologue grew constant and loud - it acted like a companion, urging me to create things and ideas.
Similar situation. The book does delineate between certain activities and how they're reinforced/guided- so I'm not sure your example is a counter-example. It actually fits the narrative of the book quite well. For example, it uses Futsol as an example of a sport that is self-reinforcing: you do the right things, you keep the ball and get a goal- if not, it gets taken from you. In contrast, a student playing the piano is much more successful with an experienced teacher to guide the rights and wrongs.
There are six human needs, they say: certainty, variety (uncertainty), significance, love, growth and contribution
Cooking alone doesn't check the same boxes. It probably gives you only more "certainty" of being fed, but you're not craving more of that.
Cooking for you and your wife probably gives you some significance (you like being appreciated for making a nice meal), love and a sense of contribution. Way more satisfying!
Going deeper it can mean anything from having a person you want to impress, a parent that you just can't ever seem to make proud, or seeing someone succeed their way out of your impoverished upbringing.
It's helpful to know the dissertation hails from UTexas' department of advertising. In that context, 'creativity' is not about artists using imagination, cognition, and innovation to surprise or enlighten or edify. It's about creating better spam.
That's a bit harsh. Note that studying advertising might differ significantly from practicing it. For all you know, there could be a PhD out there researching the moral implications of Facebook's advertising practices during the 2010s.
I have actually read most of the dissertation today, and it sure is about the creativity you reject it to be about.
A) love the overall thesis/focus. The key points seem solid.
B) I’m not sure how scientific this is. “We looked for instances of deliberate practice and found some” seems more like self-help advice than rigorous sociology? Or… anthropology? It certainly isn’t psychology, but funnily enough it doesn’t actually say what degree this was for.
C) The theory section needed a much more serious engagement with the philosophy discussed, rather than just taking 1-2 sources on each 800y period as gospel. Let’s just say that not all Ancients thought nature was the peak of creativity, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church wasn’t the only thing going on 400-1600, even if we restrict the view to Europe. Also desperately needs more engagement with postmodern conceptions of creativity, given that they basically dominate many parts of the “fine art” world to this day!
Thanks, was just coming back to edit that in! Should’ve known HN would get it faster.
That does explain my negative reaction to the method — if I had to pick a single archenemy among the modern academies, Advertising would likely win top billing! I mean, I just now learned that it exists at all, which doesn’t help. I guess PhD’s in Manipulation wouldn’t look nearly as good on the mantle…
"[My parents and I] were enthralled by the same music, but it showed us different things. I listened to Slash’s flamboyant, searching guitar solo on “November Rain” and heard liberation, a suggestion that crazed, committed vision could carry you away, somewhere else. To my parents, Slash’s greatness was evidence of virtuoso skill, the product of thousands of hours of study and practice."
While deliberate practice is undoubtedly crucial for developing creativity and expertise, I think there's an important nuance we often overlook - the role of diverse experiences and cross-pollination of ideas.
Deliberate practice helps refine skills and deepen domain knowledge, but breakthrough creativity often comes from making unexpected connections between disparate fields. Some of history's most creative figures - like Leonardo da Vinci or Benjamin Franklin - were polymaths who excelled in multiple domains.
This! Most of my creativity in private projects stems from having build a broad space of knowledge/experiences. Having tinkered with a lot of different disconnected things really helps me find interesting bits to combine in a new and creative way that I never had imagined before :)
> the role of diverse experiences and cross-pollination of ideas
Add to this: giving room for ideas to grow: the more you wait, the more diverse and numerous the life experiences, all of them having the potential to shape those uncrystallized ideas.
Sure, but so can pure randomness, for the same reason. It is creative in the literal sense, but not in the ineffable sense that humans tend to describe in humans.
It's unfortunately very hard to isolate creativity from many competing and interfering aspects. Is an artist creative or are they successful in a field where by tradition every piece must be different (say, music videos). Is an engineer creative because they live in a discipline of severe constraints (say, spacecraft at the edge of the possible). A known issue for artists is having a recognized body of work: many new clients now want some of THAT - and not the precursors of the next body of work, so the artist feels the pressure to produce more of THAT. Is creativity only recognized (and so, favored) when it's followed by success? What about mechanical aspects of creativity - like good executive skills / habits? How about helps from the environment: constraints are one, but also early viewers, managers, critiques, partners that are encouraging - in the right way. "Practice"?! In what? "Taste" is a known aspect with the recognition that it can be hard on newcomers who may already have "good taste" but not yet the technical, gestural skill to produce and meet that bar. Teachers (in all meanings) that make sense and are capable of explaining how they or others operate. And on and on.
So I have been trying to focus on specific antagonists. Recognizing what forms of creativity matter to me; Solving for "block"; Solving for "time".
It will take some time to read the 129 pages before I come to any conclusion, but I can say one thing for sure, and those who know what deliberate practice is, will agree with me.
Deliberate practice is a lonely process, which can only be accomplished with courage, dedication and grit whether you have a mentor/coach/master or not.
Readit News
Hehe :)
Edit: Very interesting read, with nice examples of both successful and unsuccessful artists in various fields. One key trait in becoming successful seems to be willing to put in the effort. This in turn seems to only work if you actually enjoy putting in some effort. It makes one wonder if this can be a learned trait, or whether enjoying something is the actual (proxy) talent someone is born with.
Take drawing for instance, which is something I practice actively. The act of putting effort in drawing is quite reductive as drawing is a broad area. Sure you can will yourself into drawing 100 faces and you will invariably be better at drawing faces, but it'll take you nowhere nearer being a more creative artist. But sometimes approaching drawing laterally, that is reaching to other techniques, subjects and skills (like shading, drawing lines, using pens and such...) might give you a broader set of tools that in turn will help increase the chances you will find something that catches your attention and absorbs you into it.
Sure you can get lost in the generics with lateral thinking and never reach a level of masterery that might be necessary for you to grow as an artist, so that is why attention isn't a replacement for discipline. You need both. But bottomline is that you also need to develop a relation with the subject that will reduce resistances, increase satisfaction and make it more likely that you will get absorbed by the task at hand.
When I began studying jazz drumming I was working from a DVD by John Riley. At one point he makes this statement about what it means to be 'gifted' at drumming (but it applies to anything).
He says the 'gift' is less about a physical attribute, and more about a disposition or temperament. I.e., you're so passionate about something that you're willing to spend countless hours, days, years learning to do something you can't do, simply because you find that process the most enjoyable.
I appreciated that perspective so much I snipped it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ist7xECbDh0
I’m doing this because it will save me from having to do that in the future, and I hate doing that.
I am just finishing up The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle [0] and it has been an interesting short read. In a nutshell, it boils talent down deep practice, ignition, and master coaching.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/5771014-the-talent-co...
Cooking for my wife and me together? Love it..
Cooking alone doesn't check the same boxes. It probably gives you only more "certainty" of being fed, but you're not craving more of that.
Cooking for you and your wife probably gives you some significance (you like being appreciated for making a nice meal), love and a sense of contribution. Way more satisfying!
I have actually read most of the dissertation today, and it sure is about the creativity you reject it to be about.
See: wars, arms, drugs.
It's all on how you held those tools.
I hate advertising too tho lol
Probably need a similar study but with two different domains.
B) I’m not sure how scientific this is. “We looked for instances of deliberate practice and found some” seems more like self-help advice than rigorous sociology? Or… anthropology? It certainly isn’t psychology, but funnily enough it doesn’t actually say what degree this was for.
C) The theory section needed a much more serious engagement with the philosophy discussed, rather than just taking 1-2 sources on each 800y period as gospel. Let’s just say that not all Ancients thought nature was the peak of creativity, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church wasn’t the only thing going on 400-1600, even if we restrict the view to Europe. Also desperately needs more engagement with postmodern conceptions of creativity, given that they basically dominate many parts of the “fine art” world to this day!
That does explain my negative reaction to the method — if I had to pick a single archenemy among the modern academies, Advertising would likely win top billing! I mean, I just now learned that it exists at all, which doesn’t help. I guess PhD’s in Manipulation wouldn’t look nearly as good on the mantle…
Deleted Comment
- Hua Hsu, "Stay True: A Memoir"
Deliberate practice helps refine skills and deepen domain knowledge, but breakthrough creativity often comes from making unexpected connections between disparate fields. Some of history's most creative figures - like Leonardo da Vinci or Benjamin Franklin - were polymaths who excelled in multiple domains.
Add to this: giving room for ideas to grow: the more you wait, the more diverse and numerous the life experiences, all of them having the potential to shape those uncrystallized ideas.
Deleted Comment
So I have been trying to focus on specific antagonists. Recognizing what forms of creativity matter to me; Solving for "block"; Solving for "time".
Deliberate practice is a lonely process, which can only be accomplished with courage, dedication and grit whether you have a mentor/coach/master or not.