•  peanuts4life   ( @peanuts4life@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Not really, it’s just that the sheer quantity of hours has been find to be less important than the original study presented. Essentially, with good aptitude and quality practice, you don’t actually need 10,000 hours to reach the top percentile.

    The author of this article seems to have taken this in some weird directions. They have had personal experiences of being pressured to practice long hours at something they struggled in. They find relief in the new study, which they allegedly believe validates the idea that it was a hopeless endeavor. I’d argue that the fault didn’t lie with the 10,000 hour number, but rather with thier family who pushed the author too hard to succeed in a sport they probably weren’t improving at, Rather than reevaluating motivating factors or approach.

    Of course 10,000 hours is arbitrary. I’m just saying, the study doesn’t assert that inherit talent even exist, let alone is the primary factor. It only contradicts the number of hours.