> In order to assess the difference between deliberate practice habits between elite-level performers and moderate-level performers, it was also necessary to recruit moderate-level performers.

Hehe :)

Edit: Very interesting read, with nice examples of both successful and unsuccessful artists in various fields. One key trait in becoming successful seems to be willing to put in the effort. This in turn seems to only work if you actually enjoy putting in some effort. It makes one wonder if this can be a learned trait, or whether enjoying something is the actual (proxy) talent someone is born with.

Having someone around you who either intentionally or unintentionally creates an environment that makes you want to, and therefor enjoy putting in the effort, is crucial.

I am just finishing up The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle [0] and it has been an interesting short read. In a nutshell, it boils talent down deep practice, ignition, and master coaching.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/5771014-the-talent-co...

It's helpful to know the dissertation hails from UTexas' department of advertising. In that context, 'creativity' is not about artists using imagination, cognition, and innovation to surprise or enlighten or edify. It's about creating better spam.

"[My parents and I] were enthralled by the same music, but it showed us different things. I listened to Slash’s flamboyant, searching guitar solo on “November Rain” and heard liberation, a suggestion that crazed, committed vision could carry you away, somewhere else. To my parents, Slash’s greatness was evidence of virtuoso skill, the product of thousands of hours of study and practice."

- Hua Hsu, "Stay True: A Memoir"

It's unfortunately very hard to isolate creativity from many competing and interfering aspects. Is an artist creative or are they successful in a field where by tradition every piece must be different (say, music videos). Is an engineer creative because they live in a discipline of severe constraints (say, spacecraft at the edge of the possible). A known issue for artists is having a recognized body of work: many new clients now want some of THAT - and not the precursors of the next body of work, so the artist feels the pressure to produce more of THAT. Is creativity only recognized (and so, favored) when it's followed by success? What about mechanical aspects of creativity - like good executive skills / habits? How about helps from the environment: constraints are one, but also early viewers, managers, critiques, partners that are encouraging - in the right way. "Practice"?! In what? "Taste" is a known aspect with the recognition that it can be hard on newcomers who may already have "good taste" but not yet the technical, gestural skill to produce and meet that bar. Teachers (in all meanings) that make sense and are capable of explaining how they or others operate. And on and on.

So I have been trying to focus on specific antagonists. Recognizing what forms of creativity matter to me; Solving for "block"; Solving for "time".

While deliberate practice is undoubtedly crucial for developing creativity and expertise, I think there's an important nuance we often overlook - the role of diverse experiences and cross-pollination of ideas.

Deliberate practice helps refine skills and deepen domain knowledge, but breakthrough creativity often comes from making unexpected connections between disparate fields. Some of history's most creative figures - like Leonardo da Vinci or Benjamin Franklin - were polymaths who excelled in multiple domains.

One of the great variables is the manner of practice. Every so-called virtuoso guitar player has spent thousands of hours with their hands on the instrument. But where one such celebrity may have used a 10-hour-per-day practice routine in their teens, another may instead have taken drugs then listened to music and jammed with his like-minded friends at every opportunity. Very different forms of expertise results.

Quality of practice is another factor. It's possible to become very good at doing things the wrong way, then belatedly realise that progress has been unintentionally stunted. And even that is not clear-cut. Sometimes 'the wrong way' is lauded as creative discovery, and other times simply as reduced competence.

It will take some time to read the 129 pages before I come to any conclusion, but I can say one thing for sure, and those who know what deliberate practice is, will agree with me.

Deliberate practice is a lonely process, which can only be accomplished with courage, dedication and grit whether you have a mentor/coach/master or not.

I think anyone that has undertaken an art form of any sort knows that it is all down to practice. There's just different levels of dedication. Charlie Parker famously was thrown out of a jam session in Kansas City as a teenager by Jo Jones (who threw a cymbal at him), and decided to spend the next 3-4 years practicing 12-15 hours per day. There's a retreat called chilla [1] that some South Asian musicians do which is 40 days of isolation and intensive practice. I saw a video of Mike Tyson helping train a young boxer recently and at the beginning he says: "You know, it has nothing to do with styles or size. It's all about the moral of the fighter. How important is it to you? Is it more important than breathing? Is it more important than eating? It's up to the individual."

A great mentor is crucial too. I know for myself having my music teacher listen and force me to not move on from what I'm working on is necessary. Having my Muay Thai trainer throw down his pads and silently demonstrate what I need to embody is invaluable. My meditation teacher pointing out my misunderstandings. Etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilla_katna

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmJJK7Ac4Fk&t=20s

> Elite level performers use deliberate practice and credit hard work to their success instead of talent.

> Mediocre performers don't use deliberate practice and credit talent to their success.

The author then implies that deliberate practice and hard work are the key to success. But it could also be the case that elite level performers _are_ talented and they achieve success by exploiting that talent through hard work, while mediocre performers wouldn't achieve the same level of success even if they worked as hard.

I always believed that while creativity can be developed through focus and practice, the pace of learning varies from person to person. In general, creative people are highly intelligent, work with tremendous focus and are dedicated individuals.

speaking from experience creativity is a condition and or compulsion often associated with basic functional deficits can it be channeled,directed,optimised,and comodified? sometimes for a while

A) love the overall thesis/focus. The key points seem solid.

B) I’m not sure how scientific this is. “We looked for instances of deliberate practice and found some” seems more like self-help advice than rigorous sociology? Or… anthropology? It certainly isn’t psychology, but funnily enough it doesn’t actually say what degree this was for.

C) The theory section needed a much more serious engagement with the philosophy discussed, rather than just taking 1-2 sources on each 800y period as gospel. Let’s just say that not all Ancients thought nature was the peak of creativity, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church wasn’t the only thing going on 400-1600, even if we restrict the view to Europe. Also desperately needs more engagement with postmodern conceptions of creativity, given that they basically dominate many parts of the “fine art” world to this day!

Creativity comes from focusing on small piece of deliberate practice...

An example, ask any well known guitar player....their greatest rift came from practicing some chord progression and noticing something different about it...the rift from Sweet Child was discovered that way....

Speaking as a creative monster, I never practiced. I learned to draw by drawing, program by programming etc. Always because I was into it. Never because I was into a dream of future mastery.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

These kind of studies are dubious. The PhD report could have been generated by an LLM in about a day, and no one would know any better.

It works like this:

Take any hypothesis. And have a lot of verbiage around it with dubious experiments to "statistically" validate it. and write a giant report which would eventually turn into a book.

Steve Pinker and his likes excel in this kind of stuff. Psychology/Sociology and sometimes economics are filled with these sorts of studies.

It is more persuation than science.

And one could could argue that science itself is a certain kind of persuation.