Anders Ericsson on the science of expertise | Larry King Now | Ora.TV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 апр 2016
- Watch the Full Larry King Now Interview Here: www.ora.tv/larrykingnow
He's the expert on experts. Dr. Anders Ericsson joins Larry to explain the key to becoming an expert; if Serena Williams, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Steve Jobs qualify; and whether there's any science to back up the idea that some people are "born with it."
Sign up for the Larry King Now newsletter to receive guest updates: www.ora.tv/larrykingnow/articl...
Great piece. Dr. Ericsson is truly an expert on his research in this field and all of his data support this. So many people have degrees by their name but no outcomes that they are better than the next person in their field. He draws a good distinction in the two kinds of experts. Those that have produced greatness over and over again and then those who deem themselves to be experts based on experience and knowledge. The latter uses their peers to rate them and their research that gets published but not always quantifiable outcomes. That can be the grey area especially medical doctors, as most are not measured by outcomes. This is changing though.
Professor Hambrick kind of exposed the folly of Ericssons work.As it turns out Ericsson severely misrepresented his own data.None of his conclusions stand up to scrutiny
One of the most intelligent/wise man on Earth:Anders Ericsson
It took a long time to get there.
Ericsson is in fact a complete fool.His assertions are fundamentally flawed, and he has been proven to be incorrect in regards to deliberate practice.Deliberate practice is not the cause of great performance. This has now been proven that genetics are more important than practice.
@@rivenz6 Show me the scientific source where I can read that it has been found that genetics determines great performance.
@@peramoredellanalisi4341 he didn't reply because he has no evidence:)
@@unknown-10k Hambrick et al conclusively debunk his research. Numerous other researchers also find genetics to play a critical role in expert performance.
GREAT INTERVIEW & GUEST !!!!
Thanks for this!
Rest In Peace Ericsson...
RIP, Larry King. You are greatly remembered and missed. Also, RIP to Dr Ericsson.
Thank you very much
Thanks, very nice!!
Very good! It is probably for me to be a master~
Inspirational if you’re master of a jack of all trades.
very challenge interview
Wow
Von Keith is a phenomenon
Steve jobs is an expert in finding experts for his team, nevertheless he is artistic and creative.
To develop expertise we have to invest into how we can perceive. The biggest obstacle is usually our ego. Expertise is a result of developing objectivity. I don't agree that deliberate practice isn't necessary enjoyable or motivating. Employing the technique of bringing linguistic thinking (as in 'thinking outlaid') into problem solving is a deep part of Alexander technique.
Rediscover Ease movement education i
That's one of the smartest comments I've read for some time! Makes sense!
It isn't enjoyable. If you're having fun then it's probably not deliberate practice. Deliberate practice requires you to do things CONSTANTLY that you can't do. This is frustrating. And it isn't motivating because you wont see any progress. If you do deliberate practice you'll find that you are constantly bad at something which isn't enjoyable nor motivating.
Great interview...but Larry King peers into the lens like a sick cockroach.
lold
Sick Cockroache? Who know a sick roache that stare at a window!
That was his style! It keeps you engaged.
this is rediculous. How would Ericsson explain the countless individuals who have been training in close collaboration with expert coaches, for decades on end, yet who remain poor performers in their field. It is blatantly obvious that deliberate practice cannot under any circumstances account for the enormous variation in the abilities between individuals. Twin studies thoroughly refute the idea that innate factors are not at least equally important as the practice/training regime. Inherited traits such as IQ and cognitive performance are known with certainty to have a profound influence on performance. Yet how would practicing improve these when there is no evidence that IQ can be altered, certainly not after the onset of adult hood.Estimations put general intellect at between 50% and 80% inherited, and there are no known methods shown to reliably increase general intellect in adults. It is a forgone conclusion that general intellect must greatly influence ones ability to perform any task.If this were not the case, humans would never have build powerful computers.Why would they if a less powerful computer could do the same work as a super computer? The whole argument is utterly rediculous. Deliberate practice is not the answer, end of story...
It's spelled "ridiculous". Perhaps with some deliberate practice you can also learn how to spell it. Don't try to play with the big kids until you master the fundamentals.
@@ainsleymitchum7481 Deliberate practice is not effective, and so why would I employ it to learn spelling? Or perhaps I did employ enormous amounts of deliberate practice to spelling, yet failed to learn regardless? Could a cognitive shortcoming be the cause, rather than training? Very probably yes. As it happens, Ericssons own data clearly shows deliberate practice is not the cause of expert performance.
@@ainsleymitchum7481 How can a person such as yourself, be so dumb as to believe in the concept of deliberate practice? I actually spoke to Ericsson 6 days before his death.It became apparent to me that he was incompetent, as I was able to find within minutes examples of documented cases which refuted his stance on the role of deliberate practice.In his entire career, he remained oblivious to this evidence which is immediately accessible to all and sundry.Ultimately he admitted to me the falsehood of his claims re. deliberate practice. His research was riddled with misrepresentations of fact, and he made statements which were not supported by his own data/evidence, or more accurately made statements that directly contradicted the data he collected during his research. In any event his views are obsolete.Very few scientist buy into his ideas...
I seriously doubt you spoke with him. Schizophrenia much?
@@ainsleymitchum7481 I indeed spoke with him on several occassions re. the folly of his work, the most recent occassion being 6 days before his passing.
What do you mean "schitzophrenia much"? Now you seem to be the one with grammatical incompetence.Unfortunately for you, deliberate practice won't fix that.