Why can\’t Tihai help children become academic leaders?

There is a famous 10,000-hour theory in psychology: Anyone who practices in any field for more than 10,000 hours can become an expert in this field. Many people were inspired by this theory and began to train continuously. This theory has even become a strong support for the question sea tactics. So, scientifically speaking, does this theory hold up in practice? Why do some children’s grades and learning abilities not improve significantly after practicing a lot, such as constantly answering questions? The so-called 10,000 Hour Theory psychologists Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness propose that practice can make up for lack of talent. They say: “Talent in the traditional sense—the skills and innate abilities unique to successful people—is inconsistent with the research evidence. The difference between experts and amateurs is a matter of acquired knowledge and trained abilities. With one exception: Height.\” In their eyes, as long as you are willing to work hard, anything is possible. It was their ideas that gave rise to 10,000 hours of expert theory. Twenty years later, Ericsson made a slight modification to his theory – body shape and height are the only properties affected by genes. If their theories are correct, then everyone\’s potential is unlimited. With 10,000 hours of hard work, you can become a professional athlete, a scholar, a poet, or anyone else you want to be. In fact, if you look closely at Ericsson\’s data, you can see that some people easily reach levels that others take a lot of effort to achieve. This in itself shows that there are differences between individuals. In addition to training, there must be other factors that affect a person\’s achievements. From general experience, even professional athletes have a hard time breaking through after reaching the top. Talent in every field seems to have natural limits. After reaching a certain limit, no matter how hard you practice, it will be difficult to break through again. Psychologist Zach Hambrick disagrees with Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness and did some experiments. He measured the working memory capacity (the ability to retain information over short periods of time) of some pianists. Many studies have shown that working memory ability is heritable. Zach Hambrick found that working memory is related to the performance of pianists – pianists with strong working memory ability can pop up music scores at a glance, and no matter how much they practice, this ability cannot be trained. Later Zach Hambrick went to study professional chess players. He found that in addition to working memory, there are three key cognitive abilities related to chess players\’ achievements. They are fluid reasoning (also known as \”fluid intelligence\”), which refers to the ability to perform tasks without any prior knowledge. ability to reason), knowledge comprehension, and processing speed. These three abilities are all heritable to some extent and can affect a player\’s performance. Among young players, these three factors are even more important. in other words,If your three cognitive abilities are strong, you can reach the same chess level as others without much practice. These studies show that some basic cognitive abilities, such as working memory and fluid reasoning ability, are affected by genetics and cannot be trained to reach expert levels. How useful can practice be? So, how useful is practice? A 2014 meta-analysis by Hambrick\’s team showed that practice explains about 25% of the variance in performance in music, competitive games (such as chess), sports, and education. In music and sports, practice explained 20% of the variance. But in education and other professional fields such as computer science, military aircraft piloting, and sales, the effect of practice is minimal. Therefore, the effects of practice in different fields are different, but they are all relatively limited. In the field of sports, practice plays the biggest role. But even in this area, talent itself can replace some of the effects of practice. To reach the same level, elite athletes need much less practice than the average athlete. Research by Euan Ashley, a professor of pharmacy and genetics at Stanford University, found that part of the difference between Olympic national team athletes who received the same training comes from genes-some genes can affect blood transportation, fat metabolism and other sports-related abilities. They are also gifted children, why do they fail to succeed? Vanderbilt University psychologist David Lubinski followed a group of children with extraordinary mathematical abilities more than 40 years ago (the SMPY research project). At age 13, these children were in the top 1% of their peers in mathematical reasoning ability and were selected to participate in an educational program for children with exceptional mathematical abilities. This research project has been going on for more than 40 years, and researchers have some answers, which have been published in the journal Nature. Judging from indicators such as academic achievements, number of patents and papers published, whether they have become tenured professors, whether they are leaders, etc., these children with extraordinary mathematical abilities at the age of 13 have achieved far more achievements than the general population. But the story doesn\’t end here. \”There\’s a lot of variation within the 1%,\” Lubinski said. \”Some people think that the top 1% should all be the same, but that\’s not the case.\” Some people in the 1% have gained a lot. Achievements, but some people are just like ordinary people. Obviously, genes cannot explain this difference, so we should leave the say to practice. Lubinski believes: \”Why are the final achievements of children with the same intellectual talent different? This has to do with whether they are willing to put in the effort. Some gifted children are not even willing to practice for 4 hours a week, but others are willing to practice for 6 hours a week. Hours. This will make a big difference. Opportunities are always given to those who are prepared.\” Practice and the willpower of being willing to work hard will not show any impact at the age of 13, but it will have it by the age of 40 or 50. decisive meaning. Finally, environment or nurture also has a great influence. Lubinski and Benbow\’sStudies have shown that children who participate in extraordinary education such as SMPY will publish more patents and papers as adults than children who have similar talents but do not receive special training. Overall, genes do have an impact on achievement, but \”genius\” is not something that comes from the mother\’s womb. Only a suitable environment, proper training, favorable encouragement and support, as well as perseverance and work passion can make a person\’s talents fully come into play. How to practice correctly? If talent cannot be changed, practice can make people improve. So, how should you practice? Even Anders Ericsson himself admitted: \”Mechanical repetitive exercises are of no use. You have to constantly adjust to get you closer to your goal.\” More and more scholars are beginning to realize that the secret to continuous improvement is not spending time. It’s not how much time you spend practicing, but the quality of your practice. Expert Feedback The number one factor that affects the effectiveness of practice is feedback. In the book \”Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence\”, psychologist Daniel Goleman, who proposed the concept of \”emotional intelligence\” and wrote the famous book \”Emotional Intelligence\” (Emotional Intelligence, 1995), said that the ideal In this case, there should be an expert giving feedback to the practitioner. The most effective factor in improving performance is feedback. Constructive criticism can make progress. Effective feedback can let the practitioner know where they went wrong and where they can make things better. It\’s easy to understand. The top athletes in the world have a great coach. Practicing without feedback will not make you a top player. Concentration The second major factor that affects the effectiveness of practice is the degree of concentration during practice. Ericsson and others believe that the most ideal practice is deliberate practice under the guidance of experts, that is to say, focused practice under the guidance of experts (or experienced coaches or mentors) rather than absent-minded perfunctory practice. Many amateur players will hit a plateau after a while. For example, after about 50 hours of training (such as skiing or driving), amateur athletes will feel that they are \”good enough.\” They no longer focus when practicing, but are content to fiddle around with their existing abilities. But expert players don\’t let their focus wander. In fact, top players are always learning and never let up. Ericsson found that world champion experts, such as weightlifting champions, world-class pianists or competitive bobsled runners, were limited to about four hours of dedicated practice per day. They don\’t spend too long doing redundant exercises because that\’s actually a waste of time. They spend the rest of the day conditioning their bodies and minds so that their strength and mental toughness can be restored as quickly as possible. They do practice at a high intensity, but they don\’t push themselves into a state of distraction. The best exercises require the most focused attention. In short, no matter what kind ofInnate conditions, practice can indeed have a certain effect. However, answering questions passively and blindly and using question tactics without feedback cannot improve your ability. Active, focused practice under expert guidance is the key to achieving a leap in ability.