Originally Posted by
Brandon Mccaghren
Great post, Scott.
In reality, there is no "Nature VERSUS Nurture." There is only "Nature AND Nurture."
With Jiu Jitsu being such a physical art, we will have have a natural proclivity towards certain techniques. Beyond that, we will all have a natural proclivity towards certain styles. A man with one leg isn't going to specialize in The Twister. Eddie was always naturally flexible (though he works diligently at staying flexible and becoming even more so), so the Rubber Guard was nurtured from his nature.
While it is true that plenty of bands have put in the 10,000 hours and not succeeded commercially, I think it's important to note that all of those bands were certainly very excellent performers and musicians. There is more at play in that particular example. In music, you are counting on people enjoying what you put out. It's a very subjective thing. Also, consider how much time these different individuals invested in crafting the art of actually writing a song. That's a skill completely separate from the playing of an instrument itself. It was the songwriting that made the Beatles great. It's why Paul and John were wildly successful on their own and Ringo and George had (at best) moderate success (most of which was riding on the coat tails of simply being a Beatle).
Also, it should be noted that Gladwell described 10,000 hours of dedicated practice; not 10,000 repetitions. 10,000 hours is a LOT. You can't put in 10,000 dedicated hours in anything and not become an "expert." You may not be the greatest ever, but you will certainly rise into the upper echelon of your chosen endeavor.
Equally great post Brandon.
You have a very valid point about the reality of "nature AND nurture" and that is in sync with how mainstream science views that problem today, for the most part. Also, you are right to note that Gladwell is talking about 10,000 hours and not reps (I still think Gladwell is the origin of the 10,000 benchmark). I certainly agree that 10,000 hours can help you improve in any field but people who lack talent will only go so far - people with talent who also put in the reps, those are the people who redefine their field and possibly even the world we live in.
I think you are being kind by assuming that all the bands who put 10,000 hours in were excellent. Some people are just stubborn and no one who likes them enough to be honest about the fact they suck. Also, there is a difference from understanding the mechanics, knowing the chords, and the ability to emotively play an instrument that cannot be taught - this is perhaps what separates virtuosos from mere mortals.
To me, an athlete is, in part, someone who can learn the physical mechanics of sports faster than others. George St. Pierre supposedly only needs to be shown a technique once and it sticks. It takes me a long time to learn unusual moves and I have to spend a lot time working on my own to be able to really hit things like the spiral guard well. I have it down now, but someone people take straight to that stuff and their 10,000 hours is probably spent better than mine working on that. My point is that you can find widely different results at the end of 10,000 hours. One guy may know enough to be an expert, the other guy may be a genius, and yet another guy may simply be deluding himself (like the guy who thinks he can knock people down with his chi).
In summary, yeah - 10,000 reps is a good goal on the way to spending 10,000 hours on the mat. The truth is, even if you nail the move at 5,000 reps, you are still learning about the move. There more you learn, there more there is to learn. That's why a black belt is considered just the beginning.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks