My 10 year old asked how to be good at things. I told him that how good people were at something depended on: (a) natural ability, (b) practice, and (c) how into it they were.
Show this thread
Everyone knows about (a) and (b), so the biggest mistake people make in understanding performance, in so many different contexts, is ignoring the role of (c).
-
-
What advice will you give him on (c)?
-
Figure out what you're into by trying lots of different things.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
C and be are closely related though. Very few talented people will practice extensively without being into it. Only if theyre into it will they PERHAPS practice it. Some are just talented and lazy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Get him to watch dragon ball z. He will see how Goku evolved to super saiyan and that is all you need to know.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not quite I think. Natural ability implies a Y-intercept, which is almost always near zero. What matters is probably natural rate of learning: the slope of ability/practice. Which I’m guessing is also a large part of how into something someone is.
-
What ACTUALLY matters is rate of learning and time spent learning. You can subdivide this into underlying factors, like natural rate of learning, education, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Consistency of (b) is perhaps even more important. Practice is often understood as "quantity of practice" whereas, in reality, quantity, quality and consistency of practice are all important (and the latter two are often undervalued).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Surely c should really be b-part-2? They're inextricably linked. i.e. c isn't important by itself: being interested but not talented and not practicing will not lead to success.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"grit" is the ability to persevere with (b) over the natural rise/fall patterns of (c). See https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1126692 and Duckworth papers referenced within.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd put (c) at number 1. I knew someone who was very good at something and practised it a lot, but it wasn't the thing he was really into. He ended up in medicine because he was pushed into it by his parents (both doctors), while really he'd always wanted to be an engineer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.