Barely anything will be true the way you want it to be unless it belongs to a math closed world with axioms.
> I always wished I was better at drawing. I've put in some concerted effort at it multiple times (like not a ton, but enough to realize that I am frustratingly non-talented at it).
Concerted effort how? Because that matters.
> If my parents had truly made me believe the 10k hour rule, I might still be trying to make that happen instead of following my true talents, which I've achieved a pretty high level of achievement at.
Make WHAT happen? Are you comparing yourself to someone else? what kind of mastery are you seeking? How do you know that with enough practice you wouldn't have reached a sufficiently good level (where this is, is the key) at it?
> I'm not saying you should steer kids away from things they are interested in, or tell them they can't succeed. I'm just saying: help them to know themselves, and don't plant in them the idea that 10k hours will magically make them awesome at anything.
As a rule of thumb, enough practice will probably make you awesome at something, yes.
But you have to make those hours count. There needs to be PROGRESS.
Also, you might never catch up with the "greats" who had a head start for one reason or another but that doesn't mean that "practice makes perfect" as a vague general rule is true.
> As a rule of thumb, enough practice will probably make you awesome at something, yes. But you have to make those hours count. There needs to be PROGRESS.
This whole argument is like a weird combination of confirmation bias and "no true Scotsman."
Confirmation bias because yes, everyone who is good put in the time.
But "no true Scotsman" because if someone doesn't get good, you can just say they weren't practicing right.
> It's actually known, in many cases, which kinds of practice are most effective.
I certainly agree with that.
But that is not enough to say that anyone who engages in the right kind of practice will get better. My point is just that it's an easy out to say "oh the 10k rule didn't apply here because they weren't practicing right." For that to be an appropriate response, you would need to actually show that the person was capable of that kind of practice in that area but wasn't doing it.
> I always wished I was better at drawing. I've put in some concerted effort at it multiple times (like not a ton, but enough to realize that I am frustratingly non-talented at it).
Concerted effort how? Because that matters.
> If my parents had truly made me believe the 10k hour rule, I might still be trying to make that happen instead of following my true talents, which I've achieved a pretty high level of achievement at.
Make WHAT happen? Are you comparing yourself to someone else? what kind of mastery are you seeking? How do you know that with enough practice you wouldn't have reached a sufficiently good level (where this is, is the key) at it?
> I'm not saying you should steer kids away from things they are interested in, or tell them they can't succeed. I'm just saying: help them to know themselves, and don't plant in them the idea that 10k hours will magically make them awesome at anything.
As a rule of thumb, enough practice will probably make you awesome at something, yes.
But you have to make those hours count. There needs to be PROGRESS.
Also, you might never catch up with the "greats" who had a head start for one reason or another but that doesn't mean that "practice makes perfect" as a vague general rule is true.