New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

10,000 Hours? - Page 4

post #91 of 106
the argument makes sense for some things like sports and music, but then he uses bill gates as an example and cites the thousands of hours of computer programming he did as a kid. however, gates is not a successful computer programmer, he's a successful salesman, and he got that right pretty much on the first try, so that kind of blows the argument out of the water.
post #92 of 106
If you are interested in this topic, and would like to read about a qualitative study done by a team led by one of this country's most reputable educational researchers, you might like Developing Talent in Young People.
post #93 of 106

Practice Quality + Heart Can Speed Up The Process of Attaining World Class Expertise

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell sounds like an interesting book which is achieving the author's goal of inspiring & provoking people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by olylady
It takes a blend of natural talent, athleticism, coaching and instruction, self-discovery, self-discipline, focus, tactics, and of course lots of practice to become an expert skier. There is no 'one' greater influence.

Assuming that one has the minimum talent/ability level, practice quality + heart can speed up the process of attaining world class expertise in less than 10,000 hours.

Practice quality is great coaching of the appropriate fundamentals & tactics assisted by high level movement analysis video tools like DartFish, etc. plus advanced training environment including high level competition at NDS (National Development System) camps, JOs (Junior Olympics), Topolino, Whistler Cup, Junior Worlds, NorAms, Europa Cup, etc.

Heart is the deep love of the sport that keeps one motivated during this journey to world class level expertise.



I have quoted some interesting parts of two WSJ articles about Outliers - book review & author interview. The complete WSJ articles can be found by entering Malcolm Gladwell in the Search box at http://online.wsj.com/public/us


"The Elements of Success" by David A Shaywitz WSJ 11/15/08

...Talent and hard work, yes, but plenty of other ingredients seem essential to achievement

The point of "Outliers," more generally, is that success is terrifyingly contingent. Intrinsic qualities are required, but a lot of things also need to break just right, and a prodigious amount of luck is necessary.

Ultimately, he isn't trying to provide a prescription for individual success; this is not a self-help book. Rather, he seeks to focus our attention on a much more profound question: How much potential out there is being ignored? How much raw talent remains uncultivated and ultimately lost because we cling to outmoded ideas of what success looks like and what is required to achieve it?

The question Mr. Gladwell encourages us to ask: How many John Irvings are still out there, discouraged before they were ever discovered?

Mr. Gladwell passionately emphasizes the need to cultivate great minds that might be limited by their circumstances or environment.

Outliers" offers an implicit message for companies as well: There is great competitive advantage for the organization recognizing that the work environment can nurture talent -- and also suppress it. The best companies will not only seek to provide their employees with enrichment but will also have the insight -- and courage -- to identify and recruit exceptional though neglected talent that could flourish under the right conditions.



"Malcolm Gladwell's Method" by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg WSJ 11/15/08

...The writer on talent, curiosity and the importance of practice

"People don't rise from nothing," he writes. "They are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot."


At one point you suggest that the difference between a professional and a talented amateur is 10,000 hours of practice. How did this become the magic number?

A group of psychologists who study expertise looked at a variety of fields. There is a threshold of preparation for greatness. Nobody has been a chess grandmaster without having played for 10 years, or composed great classical music without having composed for 10 years. When classical musicians were asked when they felt they achieved a level of expertise, the answer was 10,000 hours. It's an empirically-based finding that seems consistent across a number of different fields. It also helps you understand why opportunities are so important. An opportunity is basically a chance to practice.


Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little?

No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think.

I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them.
post #94 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkierScott View Post
Heart is the deep love of the sport that keeps one motivated during this journey to world class level expertise.
After the dust settles, I think this is really the key.

There was a great profile of Larry Bird a few years ago in Sports Illustrated that illuminated both his work ethic and his love of basketball. Like some of the other elite athletes mentioned in this thread, he would spend a lot of time each day just practicing the fundamentals -- jump shots or free throws -- long after he reached the top.

But the part I remember most clearly was that, according to his teammates, he never lost his love for the game. On road trips, he would wonder out loud at how amazing it was that they all got to fly first class and stay in good hotels, and then, as if that weren't enough, they got to go out and play basketball in front of people! What an attitude.
post #95 of 106
There is another element to this 10,000 hour element/question. At what age did the practice take place?
A number of years ago a neurologist wrote a book titled "Why Michael couldn't hit". The Michael of the title was Michael Jordan, certainly one of the best ever at basketball right? A gifted athelete? You bet! When he decided he wanted to play pro baseball he didn't make it because he couldn't hit a major league fastball. The neurologist explained that the brains plasticity decreases with age and that the optimal time to develop the hand/eye coordination to hit a ball happens around age 10-12. M. Jordan tried to learn after age 30. Way to late to begin the quest to achieve pro skill level, regardless of how many hours of practice or coaching.

Different skills may develop best at different points in human development. Pro bike riders tend to be older. Olympic gymnasts and female figure skaters tend to be younger. I'm sure we could come up with quite a list of activities where age works for or against you.

How many Olympic skiers didn't start skiing as a kid? For most skilled activities I'll bet accumulating the 10,000 hours started before age 12 for those that are truly outliers. Didn't Tiger Woods start hitting golf balls before he started school?

Personally I started skiing at 35. I accept that even though I've now skied thousands of hours in the past 24 years and passed a level III exam I'll never be better then a pretty good MI skier.
post #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAZOOSKI View Post
Different skills may develop best at different points in human development.
Sport science refers to this element as "Windows of Opportunity" for development.

The Michael Jordan baseball example comes up sometimes in coaching courses. He was considered a pretty decent player at the AAA level, but batting limitations held him back from the Majors.

The 10,000 hours are still needed, but they have to come at the right time, and must have the right content.
post #97 of 106
My understanding of brain plasticity research is that the trend lately has been that plasticity seems to be capable of more sweeping changes, potentially later in life, than most people thought. (That was a few years ago, though, and I wasn't actually a neuroscience major.) In other words, you can teach an old dog new tricks. (I'm not sure if anyone else saw the Mythbusters episode where they did that saying, but they also found that you can, in fact, train old dogs to do new tricks. :-))

A bigger issue for physically demanding sports/activities is that if you don't start early, by the time you hit your peak skill-wise you'll be held back by physical limitations. Female Olympic-level gymnasts tend to be young partly because strength/weight ratios become unfavorable as they get older (for some events, at least.) Otherwise the 16-year-old girls winning the all-around in one Olympiad would be 20-year-olds winning in the next one and then 24-year-olds winning again, but it usually doesn't work that way. Baseball hitters tend to peak in their mid-to-late 20s; they've had enough training and experience to be extremely skilled, but their reflexes and speed are still oustanding. Starting to train at it seriously at 30+ would be an uphill battle all the way.
post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
My understanding of brain plasticity research is that the trend lately has been that plasticity seems to be capable of more sweeping changes, potentially later in life, than most people thought. (That was a few years ago, though, and I wasn't actually a neuroscience major.) In other words, you can teach an old dog new tricks.
There is another development concept that says all systems are always trainable -- which is another way of saying that yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks. Another point in support of life-long learning.

However, the "Windows of Opportunity" studies show that the old dog might not learn some kinds of new tricks as well as the young dogs.

If your goal is to reach an elite level, you will have to start early.
post #99 of 106
If nothing else this thread made me figure out how many hours of my life I have spent on skis. From age 10-25 I spent an average of awbout 90 days per year on skis, figure 6 hours per day = 540 hours per year X 15 years = 8100 hours. The past 10 years I only get about 100 hours on snow per year, so another 1000 hours.
post #100 of 106
I'm 24.
I have NO air sense. I've done a little park stuff last year, but nothing big or anything like that. I can't do a jumping 360. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that I'm past the prime time to learn that sort of thing. I know a lot of old folks will read this and laugh at me, but I'm serious. I look at all of the teenagers and pre-teens that are ripping that sort of stuff up and I think I got into this a bit too late. I guess my question is did I miss the "window"?

I'm really not trying to jack the thread, I guess I'm just curious about what ages you all think one would need to be to hit the "window".
post #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolaib211v View Post
I'm 24.
I have NO air sense. I've done a little park stuff last year, but nothing big or anything like that. I can't do a jumping 360. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that I'm past the prime time to learn that sort of thing. I know a lot of old folks will read this and laugh at me, but I'm serious. I look at all of the teenagers and pre-teens that are ripping that sort of stuff up and I think I got into this a bit too late. I guess my question is did I miss the "window"?

I'm really not trying to jack the thread, I guess I'm just curious about what ages you all think one would need to be to hit the "window".
Air is one of the four basic environments that ideally you want to have trained for physical literacy by about age 12. (The other three are ground, water & snow/ice.)

Having said that, remember "all systems are always trainable."

Try signing up for an introductory trampoline class to develop some comfort in the air. Whether you actually spend time in the air on skis or not, the balance skills you'll develop on the tramp will benefit your skiing.
post #102 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
There is another development concept that says all systems are always trainable -- which is another way of saying that yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks. Another point in support of life-long learning.

However, the "Windows of Opportunity" studies show that the old dog might not learn some kinds of new tricks as well as the young dogs.

If your goal is to reach an elite level, you will have to start early.
Was that a study on athletic/physical skills in particular, or looking at more general neurological capabilities? (If you have a reference to a research paper that doesn't require a subscription, I'd love to take a look at it.)

I would agree in general that younger people (kids especially) will pick things up faster, especially physical and linguistic skills. But what I remember hearing about were results that showed surprising neurological plasticity in older subjects, supporting the "all systems are always trainable" idea. It's not like there is some magic age past which you can't learn new complex skills; it may take longer, but you can still rewire your brain to a surprising degree.
post #103 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolaib211v View Post
I'm 24.
I have NO air sense. I've done a little park stuff last year, but nothing big or anything like that. I can't do a jumping 360. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that I'm past the prime time to learn that sort of thing. I know a lot of old folks will read this and laugh at me, but I'm serious. I look at all of the teenagers and pre-teens that are ripping that sort of stuff up and I think I got into this a bit too late. I guess my question is did I miss the "window"?

I'm really not trying to jack the thread, I guess I'm just curious about what ages you all think one would need to be to hit the "window".
your not really past prime. the issue your scared and you cant be scared.

I am not great at park stuff because I dont care about it much but at 25 I was still able to do some rails last week and even got a 270 on 270 off. I didnt learn any of this till I was 21.

Now my bud who is 20 was doing like 270 on 360 at the kink to 450 off on the same rail.

first is try to do straight air off anything and just build from there. IMO you cant be a anytime anyplace skier without above average air sense. catching air is some times the easiest way down a slope.
post #104 of 106

Long Term Athlete Development

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
Was that a study on athletic/physical skills in particular, or looking at more general neurological capabilities? (If you have a reference to a research paper that doesn't require a subscription, I'd love to take a look at it.)

I would agree in general that younger people (kids especially) will pick things up faster, especially physical and linguistic skills. But what I remember hearing about were results that showed surprising neurological plasticity in older subjects, supporting the "all systems are always trainable" idea. It's not like there is some magic age past which you can't learn new complex skills; it may take longer, but you can still rewire your brain to a surprising degree.
Have a look at this paper:
http://www.ltad.ca/Images/DPL/DPL_ENG_Apr18.pdf

The basic theme is not that there's some cutoff point where new learning has to stop, but that there are preferred windows of trainability and basic skills to be learned to achieve the best long-term development.

What follows from this as well is that if you've covered the basics well at an early stage, you'll be better equipped to pick up new skills later on.
post #105 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
Have a look at this paper:
http://www.ltad.ca/Images/DPL/DPL_ENG_Apr18.pdf

The basic theme is not that there's some cutoff point where new learning has to stop, but that there are preferred windows of trainability and basic skills to be learned to achieve the best long-term development.

What follows from this as well is that if you've covered the basics well at an early stage, you'll be better equipped to pick up new skills later on.
Definitely.

What would be interesting (to me) would be to see some of the data behind that chart on page 11 about optimal times to each skills. They reference a commissioned 2007 study there; I'll have to see if I can find that.

I've found personally that going back and doing "remedial" work on things like basic balance skills (off the snow) has directly helped me improve my skiing. There are definitely building blocks of simpler physical skills that more complex activities are built on top of; trying to run before you can walk (so to speak) rarely works well. It's never too late to learn the fundamentals!
post #106 of 106
I have a customer/friend who took up park/pipe at age 49, and he is actually really good, so it can be done. But I would not say it is the norm.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion