Professor Anders Ericsson, who summarized a wide range of evidence, said: "Attempts to anticipate the great abilities of outstanding people, or at least find genetic traits that can withstand explanations, have been surprisingly unsuccessful so far."
At that time, when I preached this theory, talent was still the norm to explain feats. The reason was that there were not enough other hypotheses to explain why the masters could make great achievements. So everyone believed in the idea of emphasizing talent. So there was nothing that could explain this well.
This led Professor Ericsson to try his own ideas. It is that "ultimate discipline" is the trigger that makes the difference between amateurs and masters.
The difference between an amateur and a master was the difference in how much thoughtful effort was made to improve in a particular specialty for the rest of his life.
This view was important 😆
Because he did not think of him as a natural talent, but explained the reason for his high performance. Professor Ericsson argues that there are qualitative differences in abilities between masters and amateurs in any field. But he argues that it is not a generally accepted view to make such a difference. It was about 10 years of thorough training or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment