Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

469 notes

Practice makes perfect? Not so much
Turns out, that old “practice makes perfect” adage may be overblown.
New research led by Michigan State University’s Zach Hambrick finds that a copious amount of practice is not enough to explain why people differ in level of skill in two widely studied activities, chess and music.
In other words, it takes more than hard work to become an expert. Hambrick, writing in the research journal Intelligence, said natural talent and other factors likely play a role in mastering a complicated activity.
“Practice is indeed important to reach an elite level of performance, but this paper makes an overwhelming case that it isn’t enough,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology.
The debate over why and how people become experts has existed for more than a century. Many theorists argue that thousands of hours of focused, deliberate practice is sufficient to achieve elite status.
Hambrick disagrees.
“The evidence is quite clear,” he writes, “that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice.”
Hambrick and colleagues analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess.
So what made up the rest of the difference?
Based on existing research, Hambrick said it could be explained by factors such as intelligence or innate ability, and the age at which people start the particular activity. A previous study of Hambrick’s suggested that working memory capacity – which is closely related to general intelligence – may sometimes be the deciding factor between being good and great.
While the conclusion that practice may not make perfect runs counter to the popular view that just about anyone can achieve greatness if they work hard enough, Hambrick said there is a “silver lining” to the research.
“If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities,” he said, “they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice.”

Practice makes perfect? Not so much

Turns out, that old “practice makes perfect” adage may be overblown.

New research led by Michigan State University’s Zach Hambrick finds that a copious amount of practice is not enough to explain why people differ in level of skill in two widely studied activities, chess and music.

In other words, it takes more than hard work to become an expert. Hambrick, writing in the research journal Intelligence, said natural talent and other factors likely play a role in mastering a complicated activity.

“Practice is indeed important to reach an elite level of performance, but this paper makes an overwhelming case that it isn’t enough,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology.

The debate over why and how people become experts has existed for more than a century. Many theorists argue that thousands of hours of focused, deliberate practice is sufficient to achieve elite status.

Hambrick disagrees.

“The evidence is quite clear,” he writes, “that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice.”

Hambrick and colleagues analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess.

So what made up the rest of the difference?

Based on existing research, Hambrick said it could be explained by factors such as intelligence or innate ability, and the age at which people start the particular activity. A previous study of Hambrick’s suggested that working memory capacity – which is closely related to general intelligence – may sometimes be the deciding factor between being good and great.

While the conclusion that practice may not make perfect runs counter to the popular view that just about anyone can achieve greatness if they work hard enough, Hambrick said there is a “silver lining” to the research.

“If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities,” he said, “they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice.”

Filed under deliberate practice expertise working memory performance psychology neuroscience science

  1. rizallee31 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  2. helpingpetsbehave reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  3. slivalz reblogged this from datcatwhatcameback and added:
    then if you are good at nothing it is because… You are good at nothing forever?
  4. wraithtitties reblogged this from skrillyourself and added:
    I don’t understand the person above you getting mad a scientific study like what -argues with somewhat proven fact...
  5. twinkling-twink reblogged this from cyrilthewolf
  6. skrillyourself reblogged this from flutterpenn and added:
    There ARE numerous people i know personally who have been found do well in a subject, whether academic or...
  7. international-spacestation reblogged this from cyrilthewolf
  8. flutterpenn reblogged this from cyrilthewolf and added:
    i cant explain how much this pisses me off…its literally saying “oh you can practice all you want, try your hardest, and...
  9. cyrilthewolf reblogged this from zedrin-maybe
  10. thunderdashlycanequus reblogged this from zedrin-maybe
  11. goldenmoonwhispers reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  12. newmoondarksky reblogged this from fuzzcannon
  13. awkwardbrownman reblogged this from forgottenverses
  14. forgottenverses reblogged this from schnibbledibble
  15. schnibbledibble reblogged this from pleasantlydissonant
  16. stablefree reblogged this from cyrilthewolf
  17. katielf reblogged this from icanbeatreeman
  18. ifveniceissinking reblogged this from rememo and added:
    Practice makes perfect? Not so much Turns out, that old “practice makes perfect” adage may be overblown.
  19. original-hsin reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  20. melodyquill reblogged this from cyrilthewolf
  21. sylvr3 reblogged this from pleasantlydissonant
  22. adhdmania reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  23. kirbuu reblogged this from datcatwhatcameback
  24. thewannabedoc reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
free counters