giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Jun 25, 2017 18:17:42 GMT -5
I also want to say that I don't identify as being a professional, fully at my day job. (Not including that for privacy reasons.)
I can tell you, that I have NO background in my day job, and that everything I learned as been at my job, for my job.
Even though I get paid, real w-2 money to do my day job, there are parts of the profession that I'm really incompetent at. It's all the background, basic knowledge...learning theories and what not. I get around it by faking it until I make it.
So that's one of the reasons I'm going back to school. Because not truly understanding my profession is now becoming a liability.
Once I have my degree to fill in the educational gaps...that's when I will consider myself a professional.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 25, 2017 18:28:24 GMT -5
Practicing 100000 will not make you a master if you lack certain innate abilities or talent. Yes we can all get better at things. You can become your best and that's it. However you may love basketball but will never be Nba but there are other ways to be part of that. Maybe as a coach, ref, volunteer, youth camp etc. Just because you love something doesnt mean you can necessarily make a living doing it. That's what hobbies are for. Who said anything about being a master? I'm simply talking about being proficient enough to be paid. 10000 hours isn't necessarily going to make you proficient enough to get paid. Sorry. There are many things that require talent and aptitude. And, investing an inordinate amount of time in something you are simply not very good at, don't have the skills or talent for is 10000 hours you could have applied elsewhere in your life doing something else you would be great at.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 25, 2017 18:35:47 GMT -5
Practice for talented people is where it really matters. People with ability and talent who practice are going to far exceed people with ability talent who don't practice or people without ability and talent who do practice.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 25, 2017 18:42:22 GMT -5
I see this microcosm in my basketball players. And, it is usually pretty clear even in elementary school who is athletic and who is not. No amount of practice turns a non athlete into an athlete. Can they learn some skills and have some level of play? Yes. But, girls with athletic ability are going to supersede those without ability and talent. However, there is one caveat. I have seen girls who have innate ability and talent but just don't have the desire. And, if they will not apply themselves, then they simply waste their talent. DD has a girl on her team who has all the gifts to be a fantastic player, but she acts like everything is a big joke and therefore every year she falls further and further behind in her level of play. So, 100000 hours is not some equalizer because the innately talented is going to progress much much further in 10000 hours.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Jun 25, 2017 19:02:50 GMT -5
Music is inherently about emotionally connecting to someone or several people...other performers and the audience. Doesn't matter the genre, actually. I mean, think about it. If the stones just came on stage..stood in one spot, and sang without feeling, and left...how many people would pay to see them?
Is a teacher who teachers materials well enough but never connects with any students a "good" teacher? Would you want an adult who NEVER connects with kids to be a teacher? Or do we say "Oh, they are proficient in their subject matter. That's enough."
I'm guessing no.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 5:22:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 19:12:05 GMT -5
Actually, beergut , I read Outliers as well. I think a lot of posters are using 10,000 hours loosely. I think most of those who don't achieve the higher level we are talking about (I don't know what to call it) don't REALLY practice 10,000 hours. I took piano from the time I was in 5th grade until I graduated from high school. I had no talent, etc. I did NOT practice 10,000 hours. I mostly showed up. Very few practice that much. The examples in the book were people like The Beatles and Bill Gates. They only achieved that level because they started young. 10,000 hours at age 30 or 40 isn't the same thing.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jun 25, 2017 19:33:56 GMT -5
Two things: I'm basing this statement on the study referenced in The Outliers and referenced online about the 10,000 hour rule. Second, when taking about a 'professional' trumpet player, I'm talking about someone who is simply paid enough for paying the trumpet that he has to report his earnings on his tax return. I know a guy who gets paid to play "Taps" at funerals. He reports his earnings. He is a professional trumpet player. Do you disagree that if someone practices for 10,000 hours, they can't be an adept enough technician to play in an event band for weddings or the like and receive payment, regardless of their musicality? I'm not arguing that there are not people who are innately gifted at music, simply that someone who doesn't possess an innate talent for music can through hard work become proficient enough playing an instrument to eventually be paid for playing. I'm making my statements based on being a classically trained musician. It's what I spent from my tweens to mid twenties training for. My master's in music performance with an emphasis in pedagogy (although, now, the pedagogy part is pretty laughable, as most of my teaching skills were not acquired in college, but afterwards.) I've been playing my instrument for close to 40 years now. My side gig is really focused on teaching. I've really seen it all. I've had kids that excel well enough, but I have to literally teach the phrasing to them measure by measure. One kiddo, in particular was wicked smart. Was doing college level research at 15...groomed to present at poster sessions. Ended up at an Ivy League school. I've been lucky enough to have kids that have the knack. Where I don't have to teach them every bit of phrasing. And even parents with no musical background were able to hear a difference at recitals. (And that kid, in particular, was not practicing a billion hours a day.) A musician that plays flat will not get gigs. Musically, it's the equivilant of Ben Stein doing monotone. How romantic is it to listen to that on a wedding? Or retirement party? Or Christmas party? (ETA, to give another crass example...the difference between a musician and a technician is like the difference between just f*cking someone or actually making love to them. Would you want the equivalent of an impersonal f*ck playing? Would you like to listen to that? I'm guessing for most things, no. Taps, I think is the outlier.) Generally, the only people that I consider professionals are those that are trained and sitting in orchestral positions. Folks that play weddings often have other things going on...whether it's being a teacher, a SAHM, or a lawyer they are semi-professional musicians. I took one quickbooks class and got proficient enough at it. I don't consider myself a book keeper or accountant. Even if I got a side job entering stuff into quickbooks for someone. I would never say "I got paid $50 to enter items into quickbooks. Therefore, I'm an accountant." Because I understand that more training than one quick books class at a tech college is needed to be a competent accountant. And frankly, to say such a thing would be really insulting. ETA: I got a job this last school year escorting a child from daycare to 4K. I declared the income on our taxes. Because I took care of this kid for 20 minutes a day and have three kids of my own, I'd never say I'm a child care professional. That's an insult to those who are. I think the problem here is the definition of what you consider a 'professional'. You've given your definition. To me, if you receive enough income from doing a task that you have to report income on it, you can say you're a professional. Whether you're good at your profession or not is another story. I know of some musicians and songwriters who play gigs every weekend and during the week at various bars. Maybe they receive $200 a gig, plus a percentage of the bar revenue. It's not sitting in an orchestra, but if they get five gigs a week ($1000), and do it 50 weeks a year, I'd certainly call someone who earns $50k a year playing music a professional musician. I would also say your definition is too narrow, because you're saying Garth Brooks and Kidd Rock aren't professional musicians because they don't play in an orchestra. To use your second example, if you found 500 side jobs paying you $50 each ($25000) for entering stuff into quickbooks, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you calling yourself a 'professional bookkeeper'.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 25, 2017 19:52:11 GMT -5
I'm making my statements based on being a classically trained musician. It's what I spent from my tweens to mid twenties training for. My master's in music performance with an emphasis in pedagogy (although, now, the pedagogy part is pretty laughable, as most of my teaching skills were not acquired in college, but afterwards.) I've been playing my instrument for close to 40 years now. My side gig is really focused on teaching. I've really seen it all. I've had kids that excel well enough, but I have to literally teach the phrasing to them measure by measure. One kiddo, in particular was wicked smart. Was doing college level research at 15...groomed to present at poster sessions. Ended up at an Ivy League school. I've been lucky enough to have kids that have the knack. Where I don't have to teach them every bit of phrasing. And even parents with no musical background were able to hear a difference at recitals. (And that kid, in particular, was not practicing a billion hours a day.) A musician that plays flat will not get gigs. Musically, it's the equivilant of Ben Stein doing monotone. How romantic is it to listen to that on a wedding? Or retirement party? Or Christmas party? (ETA, to give another crass example...the difference between a musician and a technician is like the difference between just f*cking someone or actually making love to them. Would you want the equivalent of an impersonal f*ck playing? Would you like to listen to that? I'm guessing for most things, no. Taps, I think is the outlier.) Generally, the only people that I consider professionals are those that are trained and sitting in orchestral positions. Folks that play weddings often have other things going on...whether it's being a teacher, a SAHM, or a lawyer they are semi-professional musicians. I took one quickbooks class and got proficient enough at it. I don't consider myself a book keeper or accountant. Even if I got a side job entering stuff into quickbooks for someone. I would never say "I got paid $50 to enter items into quickbooks. Therefore, I'm an accountant." Because I understand that more training than one quick books class at a tech college is needed to be a competent accountant. And frankly, to say such a thing would be really insulting. ETA: I got a job this last school year escorting a child from daycare to 4K. I declared the income on our taxes. Because I took care of this kid for 20 minutes a day and have three kids of my own, I'd never say I'm a child care professional. That's an insult to those who are. I think the problem here is the definition of what you consider a 'professional'. You've given your definition. To me, if you receive enough income from doing a task that you have to report income on it, you can say you're a professional. Whether you're good at your profession or not is another story. I know of some musicians and songwriters who play gigs every weekend and during the week at various bars. Maybe they receive $200 a gig, plus a percentage of the bar revenue. It's not sitting in an orchestra, but if they get five gigs a week ($1000), and do it 50 weeks a year, I'd certainly call someone who earns $50k a year playing music a professional musician. I would also say your definition is too narrow, because you're saying Garth Brooks and Kidd Rock aren't professional musicians because they don't play in an orchestra. To use your second example, if you found 500 side jobs paying you $50 each ($25000) for entering stuff into quickbooks, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you calling yourself a 'professional bookkeeper'. Now you're just moving the goal posts to make what you said not be as inane as it was. The equivalent of nba is sitting in a top orchestra. The basketball equivalent of what you are describing is a youth coach. Which could still not be achieved at 10k hours without some innate ability to go along with the practice.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jun 25, 2017 19:52:58 GMT -5
Actually, beergut , I read Outliers as well. I think a lot of posters are using 10,000 hours loosely. I think most of those who don't achieve the higher level we are talking about (I don't know what to call it) don't REALLY practice 10,000 hours. I took piano from the time I was in 5th grade until I graduated from high school. I had no talent, etc. I did NOT practice 10,000 hours. I mostly showed up. Very few practice that much. The examples in the book were people like The Beatles and Bill Gates. They only achieved that level because they started young. 10,000 hours at age 30 or 40 isn't the same thing. Did you read the article I linked? I thought the part about chess grand masters is especially interesting. I don't think you can argue that there is some innate talent to playing chess, that you're born with an ability to be a great chess player. In the book, I thought Gladwell's point is that these people aren't just ridiculously talented, that there some a little luck and a lot of hard work involved in their success. Gates' lucky break was that he had access to a computer and was able to get 10,000 hours of programming experience by the time he was a freshman at Harvard. The Beatles were able to spend a few years playing in clubs in Germany to master their music and their sound before coming to the US.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jun 25, 2017 19:57:45 GMT -5
I think the problem here is the definition of what you consider a 'professional'. You've given your definition. To me, if you receive enough income from doing a task that you have to report income on it, you can say you're a professional. Whether you're good at your profession or not is another story. I know of some musicians and songwriters who play gigs every weekend and during the week at various bars. Maybe they receive $200 a gig, plus a percentage of the bar revenue. It's not sitting in an orchestra, but if they get five gigs a week ($1000), and do it 50 weeks a year, I'd certainly call someone who earns $50k a year playing music a professional musician. I would also say your definition is too narrow, because you're saying Garth Brooks and Kidd Rock aren't professional musicians because they don't play in an orchestra. To use your second example, if you found 500 side jobs paying you $50 each ($25000) for entering stuff into quickbooks, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you calling yourself a 'professional bookkeeper'. Now you're just moving the goal posts to make what you said not be as inane as it was. The equivalent of nba is sitting in a top orchestra. The basketball equivalent of what you are describing is a youth coach. Which could still not be achieved at 10k hours without some innate ability to go along with the practice. I was trying to make a point that there are some things you can't accomplish no matter how hard you work at it (like being an NBA player, because other factors like height, athleticism, and speed play into it), while there are some things you can accomplish (like getting paid to play trumpet). Parents just need to be realistic with their kids on what their limitations are. BTW, according to the article I linked, 10,000 hours of practice can make you into an international level basketball player, which is easily equivalent to getting paid to play the trumpet.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Jun 26, 2017 7:51:24 GMT -5
Did you read the article I linked? I thought the part about chess grand masters is especially interesting. I don't think you can argue that there is some innate talent to playing chess, that you're born with an ability to be a great chess player. I don't know about chess. My DS wanted to learn. I bought a KIDS book on how to learn chess for the both of us to learn from. And I was pretty much stumped at in my late 30s. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. I wish it did, because I've heard that being able to play chess helps you in other areas. But, now we having a nice little joke in our family, and I've learned to continue to kick their butts at other games.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 26, 2017 12:05:44 GMT -5
Some of this discussion, combined with an old teacher posting old HS photos on FB over the weekend, has led me to reevaluate some things. Still don't know why I lost "it" in JH, though, but skipping 9th grade probably hurt me more than I ever imagined. It was more than just the big fish/little pond thing. Doesn't really matter for me anymore, but getting a better perspective on it may help me guide my kiddos in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 5:22:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 14:02:03 GMT -5
I bought a KIDS book on how to learn chess for the both of us to learn from. And I was pretty much stumped at in my late 30s. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. Yeah, I never got chess. Sure, I knew how the pieces moved but the rest made my eyes glaze over. DS, OTOH, got a magnetic travel chess/checkers set when he was 5. I taught him checkers but he wanted to know what the symbols on the pieces meant so I explained how they were used as chess pieces. He got it immediately and had no problem beating me. Then he started beating his Dad, who claimed to be a wizard at chess. I just decided it was good for DS' self-confidence to surpass us in that area.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jun 26, 2017 14:14:55 GMT -5
While it's true most people can't do anything they want if they put their mind to it. I do think most people can do most things that they put their mind to it.
I've done things in the last few years I never thought I would ever be capable of doing. So I'm hesitant to tell kids, especially, not to at least try and go for it. Because I think most people are capable of achieving things far beyond what they can even imagine, if they are willing to work hard enough and have a little luck.
I like the idea of kid's dreaming big. I don't think that means you don't also teach your kid's failure and learning to let go and accept when you aren't good at something. I don't think it means everyone gets a trophy for just participating. I do think it means that you allow your kid to go after any goal they want to, if you can afford it, and if they are willing to work hard enough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 5:22:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 16:47:50 GMT -5
Actually, beergut , I read Outliers as well. I think a lot of posters are using 10,000 hours loosely. I think most of those who don't achieve the higher level we are talking about (I don't know what to call it) don't REALLY practice 10,000 hours. I took piano from the time I was in 5th grade until I graduated from high school. I had no talent, etc. I did NOT practice 10,000 hours. I mostly showed up. Very few practice that much. The examples in the book were people like The Beatles and Bill Gates. They only achieved that level because they started young. 10,000 hours at age 30 or 40 isn't the same thing. Did you read the article I linked? I thought the part about chess grand masters is especially interesting. I don't think you can argue that there is some innate talent to playing chess, that you're born with an ability to be a great chess player. In the book, I thought Gladwell's point is that these people aren't just ridiculously talented, that there some a little luck and a lot of hard work involved in their success. Gates' lucky break was that he had access to a computer and was able to get 10,000 hours of programming experience by the time he was a freshman at Harvard. The Beatles were able to spend a few years playing in clubs in Germany to master their music and their sound before coming to the US. Sort of. The people he talked about were, however, talented. But it took more than talent. It took the 10,000 hours plus being at the right place at the right time. The computer guys were coming of age right when computers were about to take off. Ditto the Beatles. Remember the guy who was a genius but didn't make it through college? He didn't know how college works. So, yes, it is more than "talent" or intellect or whatever. But you have to have that talent or whatever or you won't last 10,000 hours. That's true of chess, too. No one puts in 10,000 hours at something they are not good at or don't enjoy.
|
|