What do you think?
Rate this book
刻意練習: 原創者全面解析，比天賦更關鍵的學習法
國際媒體、全球暢銷書、頂尖教練爭相引用的「刻意練習法」！
這可能是人類第一次擁有關於如何練成天才的統一理論！
找到天賦，不如找對方法！
天才與庸才之間的差別不在基因、不在天分，在「刻意練習」！
原創者親授，首度完整揭露「刻意練習」的科學實證與應用。
帶你揮別道聽塗說的不完整資訊，
正確學會這足以讓你精通所有技能的全新學習法，
顛覆你長久以來對潛能、對天賦、對智商的觀念！
《異數》《恆毅力》《我比別人更認真》《記憶人人hold得住》《孩子如何成功》等，都引用了本書作者開創的「刻意練習法」。
《異數》作者由此提出廣為流傳、關於成功的「一萬小時法則」（可惜引用得有些漏洞），
《恆毅力》作者花了一整章說明「刻意練習」在優秀表現中扮演的重要角色，
現在，他要親自完整闡述他從研究各領域傑出人物歸納而得的最有效學習法！
一堆人學鋼琴、小提琴、舞蹈、圍棋、各項運動，為什麼有些人可以有高手級表現，大部分人卻只有「可接受」的水準？多數人相信原因出在天賦，但本書作者安德斯‧艾瑞克森根據
320 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 5, 2016
5139 people are currently reading
45091 people want to read
About the author
K. Anders Ericsson
25 books434 followersK. Anders Ericsson (born 1947) is a Swedish psychologist and Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University who is internationally recognized as a researcher in the psychological nature of expertise and human performance.
Currently, Ericsson studies expert performance in domains such as medicine, music, chess, and sports, focusing exclusively on extended deliberate practice (e.g., high concentration practice beyond one's comfort zone) as a means of how expert performers acquire their superior performance. Critically, Ericsson's program of research serves as a direct complement to other research that addresses cognitive ability, personality, interests, and other factors that help researchers understand and predict deliberate practice and expert performance
Currently, Ericsson studies expert performance in domains such as medicine, music, chess, and sports, focusing exclusively on extended deliberate practice (e.g., high concentration practice beyond one's comfort zone) as a means of how expert performers acquire their superior performance. Critically, Ericsson's program of research serves as a direct complement to other research that addresses cognitive ability, personality, interests, and other factors that help researchers understand and predict deliberate practice and expert performance
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,682 reviews
May 30, 2016
If you want to get better at anything, this book is your starting point.
As a sophomore in high school, I remember asking my favorite English teacher if he would sign off on my application to an advanced writing class. The look on his face was shock: mouth open, eyebrows raised. I felt stupid for even asking.
Needless to say, I took a general English class my junior year.
But I decided I didn't want the other kids to get ahead of me academically. I didn't have that elusive, all-important trait that everyone calls "talent." I had a brain that was geared more towards science and math, so when I read in Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated that there was a science behind improvement, I was blown away. I emailed K. Anders Ericsson, asking for research on how to use deliberate practice to improve my writing skills, and, to my surprise, he actually emailed me back. In this book, he made all of that research even simpler. Soon I began writing and reading every night for about an hour, focusing on improving my weaknesses, imitating my favorite writers, and stepping out of my comfort zone.
The following should speak for itself:
I took an AP writing course my senior year.
I scored a 5 on that test (the highest score possible).
I aced a creative writing course in college.
I began submitting my fiction to literary magazines (at this point I was churning out at least one story a week).
I became a professionally published short story writer at 20 years old ("Elite Slugger" in Cracked Eye).
I still have a long way to go, but one day I want to be a New York Times best-selling novelist. Without Mr. Ericsson's research, I would still be a sub-par writer. Instead, I developed a passion for something that no one thought I could do.
More importantly, though, I developed a passion for improvement, and that doesn't really depend on some outside factor, like whether or not a publisher wants to buy my work. Improvement is an intrinsic, driving force. Whether or not I ever become a New York Times best-selling novelist isn't the point. The point is constant improvement. The extrinsic goal is a side effect.
If there is some skill or "talent" that you always wish you had, then buy this book and follow its principles. I guarantee you can have it.
As a sophomore in high school, I remember asking my favorite English teacher if he would sign off on my application to an advanced writing class. The look on his face was shock: mouth open, eyebrows raised. I felt stupid for even asking.
Needless to say, I took a general English class my junior year.
But I decided I didn't want the other kids to get ahead of me academically. I didn't have that elusive, all-important trait that everyone calls "talent." I had a brain that was geared more towards science and math, so when I read in Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated that there was a science behind improvement, I was blown away. I emailed K. Anders Ericsson, asking for research on how to use deliberate practice to improve my writing skills, and, to my surprise, he actually emailed me back. In this book, he made all of that research even simpler. Soon I began writing and reading every night for about an hour, focusing on improving my weaknesses, imitating my favorite writers, and stepping out of my comfort zone.
The following should speak for itself:
I took an AP writing course my senior year.
I scored a 5 on that test (the highest score possible).
I aced a creative writing course in college.
I began submitting my fiction to literary magazines (at this point I was churning out at least one story a week).
I became a professionally published short story writer at 20 years old ("Elite Slugger" in Cracked Eye).
I still have a long way to go, but one day I want to be a New York Times best-selling novelist. Without Mr. Ericsson's research, I would still be a sub-par writer. Instead, I developed a passion for something that no one thought I could do.
More importantly, though, I developed a passion for improvement, and that doesn't really depend on some outside factor, like whether or not a publisher wants to buy my work. Improvement is an intrinsic, driving force. Whether or not I ever become a New York Times best-selling novelist isn't the point. The point is constant improvement. The extrinsic goal is a side effect.
If there is some skill or "talent" that you always wish you had, then buy this book and follow its principles. I guarantee you can have it.
March 20, 2025
K. Anders Ericsson writes a good book with lots of practical applications that falls victim to the classic type 2 statistical error (false negative). Let's start with the good stuff. Ericsson tells a lot of cool anecdotes about the utility of deliberate practice. He never really defines deliberate practice. But basically it means getting a coach and performing focused exercises to get better while analyzing results. Easy enough. There is also some cool material about improving mental representations. The stories are encouraging, and they widen one's perspective of what is possible.
Now for the negative. Well, first, the "what should I do?" portion of the book could have been written in about 5 pages. But that's not the big deal. This is the big deal: "And this, more than anything else, is the lesson that people should take away from all these stories and all this research: There is no reason not to follow your dream. Deliberate practice can open the door to a world of possibilities that you may have been convinced were out of reach. Open that door. "
That, my friend, is really destructive nonsense. Because Ericsson falls prey to the type 2 error. His life's research is based on taking really successful people, moderately successful people, and sort of successful people and trying to find what the difference is. There, in music, in chess, in hockey, and in baseball, he finds that a strong correlation between deliberate practice and expertise. But I would bet a lot of money that Dr. Ericsson never played sports at a young age. Because he misses the type 2, the false negative. He doesn't take into consideration the kids who practiced harder, longer, with better coaching than anyone else, and still sucked. That is a common story.
Do you remember the kid that had incredible explosive speed but had no coordination? Coaches spend all kinds of time with those kids because of their potential. But after years of deliberate practice with great coaches, some of them just can't catch. They are uncoordinated. In explosive sports, basketball, football, sprints, jumping, boxing, talent is king. Check out this article, for example, Lombardo, Michael P., and Robert O. Deaner. “You Can’t Teach Speed: Sprinters Falsify the Deliberate Practice Model of Expertise.” PeerJ 2 (June 26, 2014). doi:10.7717/peerj.445.
In skill-centric sports, hockey, baseball, tennis, skill practice makes a big difference. In any sport, practice is what differentiates the great from the good. It is important, and that's why it is so evident in Ericsson's research. But Ericsson didn't spend his time trying to find all the people that put in years of hard, smart work with great coaches and just never became good. They didn't learn how to sing, or how to catch, or how to run fast or jump high. Genes do not guarantee success, but they are still important. The same is true of public speaking, art, science, math. There's a reason why theoretical physicists are really smart and it's not because the less smart people just didn't work hard enough or use the right kind of practice.
UPDATE 2025-02: There's a reason why the top sprint times at Lancaster and DeSoto High Schools in Texas would win if they competed against Ivy League universities, even with a disadvantage in age and maturity. HINT: It's not because the high school coaches are better, and it's not because Ivy League athletes are less dedicated and motivated!
Don't lie to people and tell them to chase whatever dream they have regardless of their situation. That's a recipe for heartbreak. Be honest and tell people to work hard and train smart. Tell people that they can always improve if they are willing to pay the price. That's enough. But it doesn't sell many books.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
Without feedback—either from yourself or from outside observers—you cannot figure out what you need to improve on or how close you are to achieving your goals. (p.34)
In the brain, the greater the challenge, the greater the changes—up to a point. Recent studies have shown that learning a new skill is much more effective at triggering structural changes in the brain than simply continuing to practice a skill that one has already learned. On the other hand, pushing too hard for too long can lead to burnout and ineffective learning. The brain, like the body, changes most quickly in that sweet spot where it is pushed outside—but not too far outside—its comfort zone. (p.58)
That was okay, however, because the real action occurred once the pilots landed, in what the navy called “after-action reports.” During these sessions the trainers would grill the students relentlessly: What did you notice when you were up there? What actions did you take? Why did you choose to do that? What were your mistakes? What could you have done differently? When necessary, the trainers could pull out the films of the encounters and the data recorded from the radar units and point out exactly what had happened in a dogfight. And both during and after the grilling the instructors would offer suggestions to the students on what they could do differently, what to look for, and what to be thinking about in different situations. Then the next day the trainers and students would take to the skies and do it all over again. (p.131)
One of the implicit themes of the Top Gun approach to training, whether it is for shooting down enemy planes or interpreting mammograms, is the emphasis on doing. The bottom line is what you are able to do, not what you know, although it is understood that you need to know certain things in order to be able to do your job. This distinction between knowledge and skills lies at the heart of the difference between traditional paths toward expertise and the deliberate-practice approach. Traditionally, the focus is nearly always on knowledge. Even when the ultimate outcome is being able to do something—solve a particular type of math problem, say, or write a good essay—the traditional approach has been to provide information about the right way to proceed and then mostly rely on the student to apply that knowledge. Deliberate practice, by contrast, focuses solely on performance and how to improve it. (p.145)
All of these elite players were committed to chess, and in the beginning the ones with higher IQs had a somewhat easier time developing their ability. The others, in an effort to keep up, practiced more, and having developed the habit of practicing more, they actually went on to become better players than the ones with higher IQs, who initially didn’t feel the same pressure to keep up. And here we find our major takeaway message: In the long run it is the ones who practice more who prevail, not the ones who had some initial advantage in intelligence or some other talent. (p.248) -- I don't agree with this quote, but I think that there is a lot of truth in it.
Now for the negative. Well, first, the "what should I do?" portion of the book could have been written in about 5 pages. But that's not the big deal. This is the big deal: "And this, more than anything else, is the lesson that people should take away from all these stories and all this research: There is no reason not to follow your dream. Deliberate practice can open the door to a world of possibilities that you may have been convinced were out of reach. Open that door. "
That, my friend, is really destructive nonsense. Because Ericsson falls prey to the type 2 error. His life's research is based on taking really successful people, moderately successful people, and sort of successful people and trying to find what the difference is. There, in music, in chess, in hockey, and in baseball, he finds that a strong correlation between deliberate practice and expertise. But I would bet a lot of money that Dr. Ericsson never played sports at a young age. Because he misses the type 2, the false negative. He doesn't take into consideration the kids who practiced harder, longer, with better coaching than anyone else, and still sucked. That is a common story.
Do you remember the kid that had incredible explosive speed but had no coordination? Coaches spend all kinds of time with those kids because of their potential. But after years of deliberate practice with great coaches, some of them just can't catch. They are uncoordinated. In explosive sports, basketball, football, sprints, jumping, boxing, talent is king. Check out this article, for example, Lombardo, Michael P., and Robert O. Deaner. “You Can’t Teach Speed: Sprinters Falsify the Deliberate Practice Model of Expertise.” PeerJ 2 (June 26, 2014). doi:10.7717/peerj.445.
In skill-centric sports, hockey, baseball, tennis, skill practice makes a big difference. In any sport, practice is what differentiates the great from the good. It is important, and that's why it is so evident in Ericsson's research. But Ericsson didn't spend his time trying to find all the people that put in years of hard, smart work with great coaches and just never became good. They didn't learn how to sing, or how to catch, or how to run fast or jump high. Genes do not guarantee success, but they are still important. The same is true of public speaking, art, science, math. There's a reason why theoretical physicists are really smart and it's not because the less smart people just didn't work hard enough or use the right kind of practice.
UPDATE 2025-02: There's a reason why the top sprint times at Lancaster and DeSoto High Schools in Texas would win if they competed against Ivy League universities, even with a disadvantage in age and maturity. HINT: It's not because the high school coaches are better, and it's not because Ivy League athletes are less dedicated and motivated!
Don't lie to people and tell them to chase whatever dream they have regardless of their situation. That's a recipe for heartbreak. Be honest and tell people to work hard and train smart. Tell people that they can always improve if they are willing to pay the price. That's enough. But it doesn't sell many books.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
Without feedback—either from yourself or from outside observers—you cannot figure out what you need to improve on or how close you are to achieving your goals. (p.34)
In the brain, the greater the challenge, the greater the changes—up to a point. Recent studies have shown that learning a new skill is much more effective at triggering structural changes in the brain than simply continuing to practice a skill that one has already learned. On the other hand, pushing too hard for too long can lead to burnout and ineffective learning. The brain, like the body, changes most quickly in that sweet spot where it is pushed outside—but not too far outside—its comfort zone. (p.58)
That was okay, however, because the real action occurred once the pilots landed, in what the navy called “after-action reports.” During these sessions the trainers would grill the students relentlessly: What did you notice when you were up there? What actions did you take? Why did you choose to do that? What were your mistakes? What could you have done differently? When necessary, the trainers could pull out the films of the encounters and the data recorded from the radar units and point out exactly what had happened in a dogfight. And both during and after the grilling the instructors would offer suggestions to the students on what they could do differently, what to look for, and what to be thinking about in different situations. Then the next day the trainers and students would take to the skies and do it all over again. (p.131)
One of the implicit themes of the Top Gun approach to training, whether it is for shooting down enemy planes or interpreting mammograms, is the emphasis on doing. The bottom line is what you are able to do, not what you know, although it is understood that you need to know certain things in order to be able to do your job. This distinction between knowledge and skills lies at the heart of the difference between traditional paths toward expertise and the deliberate-practice approach. Traditionally, the focus is nearly always on knowledge. Even when the ultimate outcome is being able to do something—solve a particular type of math problem, say, or write a good essay—the traditional approach has been to provide information about the right way to proceed and then mostly rely on the student to apply that knowledge. Deliberate practice, by contrast, focuses solely on performance and how to improve it. (p.145)
All of these elite players were committed to chess, and in the beginning the ones with higher IQs had a somewhat easier time developing their ability. The others, in an effort to keep up, practiced more, and having developed the habit of practicing more, they actually went on to become better players than the ones with higher IQs, who initially didn’t feel the same pressure to keep up. And here we find our major takeaway message: In the long run it is the ones who practice more who prevail, not the ones who had some initial advantage in intelligence or some other talent. (p.248) -- I don't agree with this quote, but I think that there is a lot of truth in it.
April 24, 2017
I don't think this had to be a whole book but that said I do think the idea behind the book is a meaningful one. I know I personally spend a lot of time practicing things without getting better because I don't actively engage in what I'm doing and try to improve on whatever part of the skill I struggle with most. I also thought the writing was really good and appreciate that it was based on so much research evidence. Definitely was something new that I hadn't really thought of before.
June 9, 2019
This is a wonderful book about the method of deliberate practice. While Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers: The Story of Success popularized the concept that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in any field, this book shows that 10,000 hours of repetition does not make one an expert. Gladwell gave as an example The Beatles, but he was wrong. While in Hamburg, they played about 1,100 hours, not 10,000. And they did get useful feedback but it wasn't deliberate practice. What made them famous was not their performance capabilities, but their song-writing abilities. But, Gladwell was correct in that a tremendous amount of effort over many years is required to become an effort in any field.
Deliberate practice requires going outside one's comfort zone. Practicing exactly the same thing over and over does not improve performance. In addition, immediate feedback is necessary. You must identify what the best performers do that sets them apart.
People who are usually considered to be experts often are not. As an example, older doctors and nurses do not usually improve with experience. They don't gain expertise from experience alone. Doctors try hard to keep their skills sharp. Continuing education for doctors is popular, but it doesn't really help much! The reason is that most continuing education is in the format of lectures, in which the audience passively accepts the message delivered by the lecturer. But the best continuing education has an interactive component--role play, discussion groups, case-solving, and hands-on training. These approaches have been shown to improve doctors' performance.
The principles of deliberate practice are:
1) Find a good teacher
2) Engagement and focus
3) Practice outside of your comfort zone
4) Set things up so you constantly see signs of improvement
5) Share your activities with like-minded people
There is no such thing as "natural talent". Most of the stories about experts having a natural talent are incorrect. There is no evidence that any genetically-determined abilities play a role in deciding who will be among the best. Nothing came easily to these experts; they worked hard at their craft, very hard. A high IQ can help someone initially improve a skill. But experts show no correlation between IQ and skill level. What matters most is their ability to make mental representations.
The book has a very interesting description of how a deliberate practicing method was experimentally applied to a university physics course. The emphasis was placed on skills vs. knowledge.
I thought it was fascinating that, despite the fact that perfect pitch is quite rare in the West, children who were taught musical chords between the ages of two and six all developed perfect pitch. Deliberate practice increases the sizes of certain areas of the brain for violinists, pianists, mathematicians, cab drivers, swimmers, gymnasts, and glider pilots. In the case for pianists, the brain growth is only in accordance with practicing during childhood, not as an adult. Deliberate practice changes the neural circuity to produce specialized mental representations, to make possible incredible memory, pattern recognition, and problem solving.
If you want to become an expert in a field (or your have a child you want to push), then start young, very young for an athlete or a musician. For other fields, age doesn't seem to matter much. It's just a matter of following the methodology of deliberate practice. This book is filled with fascinating anecdotes about people who became experts. Blindfolded chess players, memorization experts, athletes; they achieved expertise by following the methodologies explained here.
Deliberate practice requires going outside one's comfort zone. Practicing exactly the same thing over and over does not improve performance. In addition, immediate feedback is necessary. You must identify what the best performers do that sets them apart.
People who are usually considered to be experts often are not. As an example, older doctors and nurses do not usually improve with experience. They don't gain expertise from experience alone. Doctors try hard to keep their skills sharp. Continuing education for doctors is popular, but it doesn't really help much! The reason is that most continuing education is in the format of lectures, in which the audience passively accepts the message delivered by the lecturer. But the best continuing education has an interactive component--role play, discussion groups, case-solving, and hands-on training. These approaches have been shown to improve doctors' performance.
The principles of deliberate practice are:
1) Find a good teacher
2) Engagement and focus
3) Practice outside of your comfort zone
4) Set things up so you constantly see signs of improvement
5) Share your activities with like-minded people
There is no such thing as "natural talent". Most of the stories about experts having a natural talent are incorrect. There is no evidence that any genetically-determined abilities play a role in deciding who will be among the best. Nothing came easily to these experts; they worked hard at their craft, very hard. A high IQ can help someone initially improve a skill. But experts show no correlation between IQ and skill level. What matters most is their ability to make mental representations.
The book has a very interesting description of how a deliberate practicing method was experimentally applied to a university physics course. The emphasis was placed on skills vs. knowledge.
I thought it was fascinating that, despite the fact that perfect pitch is quite rare in the West, children who were taught musical chords between the ages of two and six all developed perfect pitch. Deliberate practice increases the sizes of certain areas of the brain for violinists, pianists, mathematicians, cab drivers, swimmers, gymnasts, and glider pilots. In the case for pianists, the brain growth is only in accordance with practicing during childhood, not as an adult. Deliberate practice changes the neural circuity to produce specialized mental representations, to make possible incredible memory, pattern recognition, and problem solving.
If you want to become an expert in a field (or your have a child you want to push), then start young, very young for an athlete or a musician. For other fields, age doesn't seem to matter much. It's just a matter of following the methodology of deliberate practice. This book is filled with fascinating anecdotes about people who became experts. Blindfolded chess players, memorization experts, athletes; they achieved expertise by following the methodologies explained here.
August 15, 2016
Anders Ericsson reasons that expertise is best developed by deliberate practice and the existence of innate talent is an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Deliberate practice means doing - knowledge by itself is not indicative of expertise.
This is a positive book as its message is that the power to become great in any area is in everyone's hands.
Here are the insights.
Gaining expertise is largely a matter of improving one’s mental processes.
If you never push yourself beyond your comfort zone, you will never improve.
Purposeful practice has well-defined, specific goals. “Play the piece all the way through at the proper speed without a mistake three times in a row.” Without such a goal, there was no way to judge whether the practice session had been a success.
Break it down and make a plan: What exactly do you need to do. Putting a bunch of baby steps together to reach a longer-term goal.
You seldom improve much without giving the task your full attention.
Purposeful practice involves feedback. You have to know whether you are doing something right and, if not, how you’re going wrong.
The main thing that sets experts apart from the rest of us is that their years of practice have changed the neural circuitry in their brains to produce highly specialized mental representations, which in turn make possible the incredible memory, pattern recognition, problem solving, and other sorts of advanced abilities needed to excel in their particular specialties.
The relationship between skill and mental representations is a virtuous circle: the more skilled you become, the better your mental representations are, and the better your mental representations are, the more effectively you can practice to hone your skill.
Deliberate practice requires a student to constantly try things that are just beyond his or her current abilities. Thus it demands near-maximal effort, which is generally not enjoyable.
Once you have identified an expert, identify what this person does differently from others that could explain the superior performance.
The traditional approach has been to provide information about the right way to proceed and then mostly rely on the student to apply that knowledge. Deliberate practice, by contrast, focuses solely on performance and how to improve it.
How do we improve the relevant skills?
Get some personal sessions with a coach who could give advice tailored to your performance. An experienced teacher watching you and providing feedback. Someone who knows the best order in which to learn things.
Focus. Feedback. Fix it. Break the skill down into components that you can do repeatedly and analyze effectively, determine your weaknesses, and figure out ways to address them.
Shorter training sessions with clearer goals are the best way to develop new skills faster. It is better to train at 100 percent effort for less time than at 70 percent effort for a longer period.
Cross-training - switch off between different types of exercise so that you are constantly challenging yourself in different ways.
Push yourself well outside of your comfort zone and see what breaks down first. Then design a practice technique aimed at improving that particular weakness.
Strengthen the reasons to keep going or weaken the reasons to quit.
Belief is important.
March 20, 2020
If you’ve read Malcom Gladwell’s book “Outliers” you would know that much of the research in that book comes from the authors of this book. Since the publication of Gladwell’s book, Ericsson and Pool have conducted extra research on persistent practice and in this book show off their excellent new research. In the research they spotlight they show that persistent training is the best way to master a skill no matter how difficult it is. The first chapter and last chapter are especially spectacular.
February 9, 2017
Talent is made, not born. Specifically, according to Ericsson & Pool, it's made through years and years of deliberate practice: the process of learning to recognize and emulate existing models of elite performance, through active trial-and-error, regular expert feedback, and self-motivated resilience. Deliberate practice is necessarily painful, but rewarding for those who keep at it.
Key implications: There's no "genius" gene, and in any case it doesn't take genius to become an expert or elite performer. Most of us are born with the potential to excel in many fields. What derails most of us from excellence isn't any lack of innate ability; it's the fact that we give up in response to early failures and/or external discouragement. By applying this understanding to the ways we raise kids and train professionals, we might unleash into society a great deal of otherwise-untapped human potential.
I've seen these arguments before, but I like how they're articulated here: in clear and engaging prose, with sparing anecdotes, and with concisely explained scientific evidence. In deciding how to present and illustrate their ideas, the authors have applied their understanding of human learning, and to good effect. I recommend this book as a clarifying follow-up to the many fluffy "pop science" books on this topic (including Malcolm Gladwell's). If short on time, read this instead of those.
Key implications: There's no "genius" gene, and in any case it doesn't take genius to become an expert or elite performer. Most of us are born with the potential to excel in many fields. What derails most of us from excellence isn't any lack of innate ability; it's the fact that we give up in response to early failures and/or external discouragement. By applying this understanding to the ways we raise kids and train professionals, we might unleash into society a great deal of otherwise-untapped human potential.
I've seen these arguments before, but I like how they're articulated here: in clear and engaging prose, with sparing anecdotes, and with concisely explained scientific evidence. In deciding how to present and illustrate their ideas, the authors have applied their understanding of human learning, and to good effect. I recommend this book as a clarifying follow-up to the many fluffy "pop science" books on this topic (including Malcolm Gladwell's). If short on time, read this instead of those.
June 23, 2016
Everest! There is no vantage point higher on the subject of expert performance than Anders Ericsson’s lifetime achievement in sharing this book. Through years of deliberate practice in observing what truly sets apart the best from the rest, Ericsson has guided many to new heights of accomplishment through his insights that sparked a paradigm shift of our understanding of “experts”. The ideas shared in these pages will no doubt help propel countless others for decades to come as they make even greater summits of human achievement.
If you are looking to get better at any skill, from athletics, to medicine, to teaching, to science or business, then read this book. The answers are not easy, but they are clear. The world owes Anders Ericsson a deep debt of gratitude for helping shift our collective understanding of expert performance, talent, and extraordinary human results.
Malcolm Gladwell most effectively popularized parts of Ericsson’s insights in his book Outliers: The Story of Success. Carol Dweck’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success is a very complementary and convergent idea. Angela Duckworth’s, Grit: Passion, Perseverance, and the Science of Success magnificently illuminates the insights of persistent deliberate practice.
Joshua Foer, met with Anders Ericsson in preparation for his own summit in winning the US Memory Championship and writing his book, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. Geoff Colvin cemented and extended many of Ericsson’s thoughts in his book, Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else.
Matthew Syed, became a notable athlete and author of Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success, with insights owing to Ericsson.
In searching for any subject, finding a great teacher is often best performed by looking the world over to see who is most often cited as an authority figure. Powering Google’s search engine is an algorithm that at its core leverages “citation analysis” to find authority figures, also called hilltops; or in this case a towering Peak on the search for expertise. In your quest for a great teacher to help guide your personal journey there is no living author with greater authority than Ericsson.
If you want to do better, read this book.
If you are looking to get better at any skill, from athletics, to medicine, to teaching, to science or business, then read this book. The answers are not easy, but they are clear. The world owes Anders Ericsson a deep debt of gratitude for helping shift our collective understanding of expert performance, talent, and extraordinary human results.
Malcolm Gladwell most effectively popularized parts of Ericsson’s insights in his book Outliers: The Story of Success. Carol Dweck’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success is a very complementary and convergent idea. Angela Duckworth’s, Grit: Passion, Perseverance, and the Science of Success magnificently illuminates the insights of persistent deliberate practice.
Joshua Foer, met with Anders Ericsson in preparation for his own summit in winning the US Memory Championship and writing his book, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. Geoff Colvin cemented and extended many of Ericsson’s thoughts in his book, Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else.
Matthew Syed, became a notable athlete and author of Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success, with insights owing to Ericsson.
In searching for any subject, finding a great teacher is often best performed by looking the world over to see who is most often cited as an authority figure. Powering Google’s search engine is an algorithm that at its core leverages “citation analysis” to find authority figures, also called hilltops; or in this case a towering Peak on the search for expertise. In your quest for a great teacher to help guide your personal journey there is no living author with greater authority than Ericsson.
If you want to do better, read this book.
November 18, 2019
Một quyển sách rát hay nói về các yếu tố cần thiết để phát triển kỹ năng tới mức vượt trội và trở thành chuyên gia trong bất kỳ lĩnh vực nào. Nó cũng giúp lý giải tại sao mình đang bị chững lại trong kỹ năng viết lách của mình. Sẽ tham khảo lại và tìm cách cải thiện.
Sách này bổ sung rất tốt cho Growth Mindset và Grit, trở thành bộ ba nền tảng cho sự học đối với mình.
Sách này bổ sung rất tốt cho Growth Mindset và Grit, trở thành bộ ba nền tảng cho sự học đối với mình.
December 15, 2017
The research behind Tiger mom and outliers and all of those other pop theories on excellence. It's a very liberating and democratic thesis--you are not genetically restrained from being a master of anything. You just need to do deliberate practice.
Read
April 20, 2017Great book.
Note to self. Create mental model to remember to figure out how to create mental models.
Note to self. Create mental model to remember to figure out how to create mental models.
August 31, 2016
Before I say anything else, this is the single most rewarding book I've read this year. I recommend anyone and everyone to read it. It's one of those books that busts the myths that have been floating around about "natural talent" being something that only a select few possess.
Back in 2008 Malcolm Gladwell introduced K. Anders Ericssons research on expertise to the masses. Those who read up on the research understood that there was more to it than the version presented in Gladwell's book. Unfortunately the press just ran with the "10.000 hour rule" as a headline and failed to delve deeper into what expert performance and deliberate practice really entails.
I found the research intriguing and now, after almost 8 years of waiting, it's finally available in a more digestible form.
The examples and explanations for how to go about achieving greatness in any pursuit is something everyone can benefit from. Whether you're just starting out with something new or if you've been at it for decades already.
What I'm most excited for is the fact that perhaps we can finally get rid of the excuses and false beliefs that have held so many people back from pursuing the things they want.
Maybe we can finally start to teach the next generation of kids the greatest lesson not all of us got to learn: How to learn.
Back in 2008 Malcolm Gladwell introduced K. Anders Ericssons research on expertise to the masses. Those who read up on the research understood that there was more to it than the version presented in Gladwell's book. Unfortunately the press just ran with the "10.000 hour rule" as a headline and failed to delve deeper into what expert performance and deliberate practice really entails.
I found the research intriguing and now, after almost 8 years of waiting, it's finally available in a more digestible form.
The examples and explanations for how to go about achieving greatness in any pursuit is something everyone can benefit from. Whether you're just starting out with something new or if you've been at it for decades already.
What I'm most excited for is the fact that perhaps we can finally get rid of the excuses and false beliefs that have held so many people back from pursuing the things they want.
Maybe we can finally start to teach the next generation of kids the greatest lesson not all of us got to learn: How to learn.
August 18, 2020
Really repetitive and boring book with not that much insight. Just google "deliberate practice" and you'll know what you need to know - always be intentional about improving performance, have a clear goal of what your ideal performance is, get a good coach who can give you immediate feedback, and always try to push yourself beyond what you think is possible.
November 29, 2022
I read this book two years ago based on a recommendation by Grant Sanderson, the creator of 3Blue1Brown. I re-read this book again recently because it represented a major turning point in my life. I've always held competence and accuracy in high-esteem, but this book helped me be more principled and effective in my pursuit of these virtues.
The core idea of this book is that not all practice is equally effective. This book challenges the ten-thousand-hour rule popularised by the (pseudo)science communicator Malcolm Gladwell, and demonstrates that it is false. A simple counterexample is the existence of surgeons with over twenty years of experience who perform worse surgeries than recent graduates.
Naive practice is the least effective form of practice. Naive practice is the kind of practice we do when we mindlessly watch YouTube videos about how to play the violin or watching math videos without doing any practice ourselves. It is the kind of practice we do that doesn't involve pushing ourselves outside of our comfort zone and challenging ourselves. It is the kind of practice we do on autopilot.
Purposeful practice is the kind of practice we do when we push ourselves to the point of being challenged and act on feedback, but without being informed about our form. This kind of practice works well, but has diminishing returns if done with poor form. For example, if you practice tennis for 10 hours a day and challenge yourself by facing off against formidable opponents, but can never hit a backhand then you cannot reasonably expect to go very far as a tournament or professional player.
Deliberate practice is the gold standard. It is purposeful practice with good form, informed by in-depth knowledge of the field being practiced. Deliberate practice entails coaching, so it is only truly applicable in fields that are well-established and with top performers in the field being easy to identify. Examples include chess, music, sports, surgery, memory competitions, mathematics, competitive programming and so on. That being said, the principles of deliberate practice can still be applied to less well-defined fields, such as professional design, engineering, management, consulting, writing, and so on.
What distinguishes the well-defined fields is the existence of in-depth knowledge about what mental representations and techniques work well to reach world class performance and what techniques work well in teaching someone to become a world class performer.
The idea of mental representations is very powerful. I have found mental representation very useful throughout my career as a software engineer. I have found that going on a walk and thinking a system through in my head or drawing a diagram of the data flow helps me implement the system much more quickly and accurately. Ericsson cites experiments showing that chess grandmasters are very good at remembering the locations of chess pieces on a snapshot of a mid-game chessboard they are shown for a few seconds, while novices are significantly worse at doing so. Meanwhile, novices and grandmasters perform equally badly at remembering the positions of pieces randomly distributed across a chessboard. This implies that grandmasters have built highly efficient mental models and retrieval structures for chessboards corresponding to proper chess games (not random configurations of pieces).
With deliberate practice you do not only have to give your full attention to a task and challenge yourself, you also have to practice with good form. Deliberate practice is not easy, and thus unpleasant. Deliberate practice implies actually solving problems yourself without looking up the answers, it implies actually writing math proofs from scratch and banging your head against a textbook until it clicks, it implies receiving frank feedback from a coach and acting upon that feedback in order to correct your form. It implies running fast uphill.
Really good book. This book doesn't prescribe that we all should work on becoming more competent, but rather describes that if we wanted to become more competent, then the option is there if we are willing to practice properly.
The core idea of this book is that not all practice is equally effective. This book challenges the ten-thousand-hour rule popularised by the (pseudo)science communicator Malcolm Gladwell, and demonstrates that it is false. A simple counterexample is the existence of surgeons with over twenty years of experience who perform worse surgeries than recent graduates.
Naive practice is the least effective form of practice. Naive practice is the kind of practice we do when we mindlessly watch YouTube videos about how to play the violin or watching math videos without doing any practice ourselves. It is the kind of practice we do that doesn't involve pushing ourselves outside of our comfort zone and challenging ourselves. It is the kind of practice we do on autopilot.
Purposeful practice is the kind of practice we do when we push ourselves to the point of being challenged and act on feedback, but without being informed about our form. This kind of practice works well, but has diminishing returns if done with poor form. For example, if you practice tennis for 10 hours a day and challenge yourself by facing off against formidable opponents, but can never hit a backhand then you cannot reasonably expect to go very far as a tournament or professional player.
Deliberate practice is the gold standard. It is purposeful practice with good form, informed by in-depth knowledge of the field being practiced. Deliberate practice entails coaching, so it is only truly applicable in fields that are well-established and with top performers in the field being easy to identify. Examples include chess, music, sports, surgery, memory competitions, mathematics, competitive programming and so on. That being said, the principles of deliberate practice can still be applied to less well-defined fields, such as professional design, engineering, management, consulting, writing, and so on.
What distinguishes the well-defined fields is the existence of in-depth knowledge about what mental representations and techniques work well to reach world class performance and what techniques work well in teaching someone to become a world class performer.
The idea of mental representations is very powerful. I have found mental representation very useful throughout my career as a software engineer. I have found that going on a walk and thinking a system through in my head or drawing a diagram of the data flow helps me implement the system much more quickly and accurately. Ericsson cites experiments showing that chess grandmasters are very good at remembering the locations of chess pieces on a snapshot of a mid-game chessboard they are shown for a few seconds, while novices are significantly worse at doing so. Meanwhile, novices and grandmasters perform equally badly at remembering the positions of pieces randomly distributed across a chessboard. This implies that grandmasters have built highly efficient mental models and retrieval structures for chessboards corresponding to proper chess games (not random configurations of pieces).
With deliberate practice you do not only have to give your full attention to a task and challenge yourself, you also have to practice with good form. Deliberate practice is not easy, and thus unpleasant. Deliberate practice implies actually solving problems yourself without looking up the answers, it implies actually writing math proofs from scratch and banging your head against a textbook until it clicks, it implies receiving frank feedback from a coach and acting upon that feedback in order to correct your form. It implies running fast uphill.
Really good book. This book doesn't prescribe that we all should work on becoming more competent, but rather describes that if we wanted to become more competent, then the option is there if we are willing to practice properly.
June 16, 2017
The book answer the question: How do we develop expertise?
The premise is: We develop excellence through deliberate practice.
Context: This is Anders Ericsson and Robert Pools' mainstream distillation of The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, which was made famous through Gladwell's reference of the "10,000 Hour Rule" in Outliers.
I am sold on the idea of deliberate practice and did not need to be convinced, however there is plenty here to persuade the reader to adopt the author's point of view.
The primary instructions I took away:
1. Identify an expert in the field you wish to develop expertise
2. Identify what this person does differently than explains superior performance (specifically, adopting the mental models the expert uses when preacticing)
3. Practice with this influence
4. Adjust based on results
5. When possible, work with a coach or teacher that can objectify your practice for you
What helps you succeed with deliberate practice?
A belief you can succeed.
The results you experience after getting through a plateau.
Minimizing interference, distractions and obstacles.
A desire to improve (generally a passion or purpose for developing the skill).
Pushing your comfort zone.
Surround yourself with people that will encourage and support you.
Create general social reinforcement
Create or define stages of improvement so growth can be measured in time.
Three Myths That Hinder Improvement:
1. The belief that one's abilities are limited by character traits. I am not this way or that way
2. If you do something long enough you will get better. Without deliberate practice, this leads to getting good at being mediocre.
3. All it takes to get better is hard work or effort. If you want to be a better (fill in the blank), just try harder.
Finally, build better mental models:
1. Learn more about the topic through study and from teachers and coaches
2. Apply the mental model to hone the skill
3. Honing the skill improves the mental model
4. This creates a virtuous cycle
This final idea, mental models, is tricky in leadership development versus say, playing classical violin or hitting a baseball. This is one of the challenges we face at Stagen Leadership Academy; how do we objectify what is subjective in the experience of world-class leaders?
In summary, Peak asserts that we have greater mental adaptability that we generally acknowledge; we have enamored ourselves with the idea of "talent" and this cripples our ability to pursue excellence. Deliberate practice, not natural proclivity, creates masters of form and technique.
The premise is: We develop excellence through deliberate practice.
Context: This is Anders Ericsson and Robert Pools' mainstream distillation of The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, which was made famous through Gladwell's reference of the "10,000 Hour Rule" in Outliers.
I am sold on the idea of deliberate practice and did not need to be convinced, however there is plenty here to persuade the reader to adopt the author's point of view.
The primary instructions I took away:
1. Identify an expert in the field you wish to develop expertise
2. Identify what this person does differently than explains superior performance (specifically, adopting the mental models the expert uses when preacticing)
3. Practice with this influence
4. Adjust based on results
5. When possible, work with a coach or teacher that can objectify your practice for you
What helps you succeed with deliberate practice?
A belief you can succeed.
The results you experience after getting through a plateau.
Minimizing interference, distractions and obstacles.
A desire to improve (generally a passion or purpose for developing the skill).
Pushing your comfort zone.
Surround yourself with people that will encourage and support you.
Create general social reinforcement
Create or define stages of improvement so growth can be measured in time.
Three Myths That Hinder Improvement:
1. The belief that one's abilities are limited by character traits. I am not this way or that way
2. If you do something long enough you will get better. Without deliberate practice, this leads to getting good at being mediocre.
3. All it takes to get better is hard work or effort. If you want to be a better (fill in the blank), just try harder.
Finally, build better mental models:
1. Learn more about the topic through study and from teachers and coaches
2. Apply the mental model to hone the skill
3. Honing the skill improves the mental model
4. This creates a virtuous cycle
This final idea, mental models, is tricky in leadership development versus say, playing classical violin or hitting a baseball. This is one of the challenges we face at Stagen Leadership Academy; how do we objectify what is subjective in the experience of world-class leaders?
In summary, Peak asserts that we have greater mental adaptability that we generally acknowledge; we have enamored ourselves with the idea of "talent" and this cripples our ability to pursue excellence. Deliberate practice, not natural proclivity, creates masters of form and technique.
December 15, 2016
This book relates the research that Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers was based on and referenced inaccurately. Ericsson is a passionate advocate of deliberate practice, which is NOT the ten thousand hours that Gladwell popularized, but rather a lot -- a lot more than you think -- of practice, but practice focused on specific goals, measurements, and development of mental schemas that help you become a more expert chess player, or high jumper, or physicist. Ericsson's great insight is that there is no such thing as innate talent. We all learn things the hard way or we don't really learn things at all. And the world's top experts get there in any field by working harder than anyone else. Put the time in, and ye shall reap the rewards. If you still don't believe this idea, then for heaven's sake read the book.
June 3, 2020
Extremely valuable and packed with insights on reaching a high level of expertise and performance. The book will provide you with a mental model for success and what it really takes to be the best at something. Highly recommended!
June 12, 2020
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Книг на тему «чтобы стать экспертом нужно потратить 10.000 часов» или «как стать мастером в каком-то деле» или что-то связанное с обучением, довольно много. Многие впервые прочитали о важности долгой практики в какой-то области, т.е. те самые пресловутые 10.000 часов, в книге «Гении и аутсайдеры» Малкольма Гладуэлла. Дальше было ещё больше книг на эту тему. К примеру, «Код таланта» Дэниел Койл и многие другие книги по самопомощи, которые если не всю посвящают данному вопросу, то хотя бы отдают одну главу или одну страницу. В общем, это очень и очень популярная тема. Так что, уже любого любителя нехудожественной литературы можно смело спрашивать: сколько нужно тренироваться, чтобы стать мастером в той или иной области? И он с высотой долей вероятности назовёт цифру 10,000. Так что, если вы уже знакомы с этой темой и даже прочитали больше одной книги на эту тему, то возможно, книга вас не очень впечатлит. Я бы даже сравнил эту книгу с книгой «Код таланта», где автор пишет чуть ли не слово в слово. В общем, мне было довольно скучно читать уже 3 книгу на данную тему. И думаю, не одному мне. Однако, откуда тогда у книги такой высокий рейтинг? Действительно, книга получила практически одни только высшие оценки (4 и 5 баллов). Честно сказать, абсолютно не понимаю. Ведь автор, по сути, мало что предлагает нового. Да, исследования автор являются теми, на основании которых Гладуэлл написал свою книгу «Гении и аутсайдеры». Более того, Гладуэлл неправильно интерпретировал полученные результаты, о чём автор упоминает в своей книге. Мне особенно понравилось замечание автора, что Гладуэлл ошибся, когда приводил пример с Битлз, ибо там было меньше часов практики, и там, скорее всего, главную роль сыграл талант создавшего эти песни, а не их итоговое исполнение. Вот я тоже об этом подумал, когда впервые прочитал книгу Гладуэлла. Однако на одном подобном утверждении целую книгу не построишь. Допустим, Гладуэлл неправильно интерпретировал результаты, но что самое главное в книге? Самым главным является то, что практика должна быть, не лишь бы какая, а она должна быть осмысленной. Автор вводит понятие deliberate practice, что можно перевести как целенаправленная практика. И тут сразу стоит упомянуть второй важнейший фактор - наличие правильного учителя, коуча. Который, как я понял, должен подмечать ошибки и направлять по правильному пути. И вот только после этого, человек может добиться величайших достижений в спорте, в бизнесе и пр. Звучит захватывающе, не так ли? Тем не менее, я так и не понял, что же это за целенаправленная практика при более детальном анализе этого способа. Автор очень и очень много времени посвящает примеру, когда человек запоминает огромное количество чисел. Ну, честно сказать, я не думаю, что кто-то из читателей этой книги будет заниматься чем-то подобным. Так же не думаю, что много читателей этой книги являются профессиональными спортсменами или музыкантами. А ведь именно из этих сфер и будет брать примеры автор. Плюс, надоевший всем пример с лондонскими таксистами, которые обладают феноменальной памятью даже на самую маленькую деталь Лондона (улочки и даже то, что находится в домах). Т.е. я поймал себя на том, что данную книгу невозможно применить в своей собственной жизни, ибо всё, так или иначе, сводится к тренировке, пусть и целенаправленной с примечанием всех деталей. Автор даже не взял такой очевидный пример, как изучение иностранных языков или изучение экономики и становление в этой сфере настоящим мастером. Вот это было бы важно, а не как стать мастером игры на скрипке или великим пловцом и тем более не мастером по запоминанию бесполезной информации. Почему примеры такие специфические? Возможно потому, что такие примеры легко поддаются анализу, а с иностранными языками - там ещё и не знаешь толком, как подступить, какую методику взять, да и вообще, там всё не сводится к «принять пас и ударит по мячу». И вот это, главный недостаток книги. Она лишь частично полезна для обычного человека. Да и, в конце концов, всё сводится всё к тому же «тренируйтесь, тренируйтесь и тренируйтесь». Я абсолютно ничего нового не увидел в этой книге. Эта книга может легко быть заменена той же «Код таланта» Дэниел Койл или одной главой из учебника по психологии посвящённой тому, как человек (его мозг) обучается новым навыкам, т.е. чем чаще повторяется какой-то навык, тем более протоптанной становится в его мозгу нейронная тропинка.
Books on the topic "To become an expert you need to spend 10,000 hours" or "how to become a master in some area" or something related to training, quite a lot. Many people first read about the importance of long practice in some field, that is, the notorious 10,000 hours, in the book "Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell. And then there were more books on this subject. For example, "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle and many other self-help books, which if not all devote to this issue then at least dedicate one chapter or one page to the issue. In general, this is a very, very popular subject. So, any fan of non-fiction literature can easily be asked: how much do you need to train to become a master in one area or another? And he will most likely name the figure 10,000. So, if you are already familiar with this topic and have even read more than one book on this subject, then perhaps this book will not impress you very much. I would even compare this book to the book "The Talent Code", where the author writes almost word for word. In general, I was quite bored to read the third book on this topic already. And I think I'm not the only one. However, why did the book have such a high rating? Indeed, the book received almost only the highest grades (4 and 5 points). Frankly speaking, I do not understand. After all, the author does not offer anything new. Yes, the author's research is the basis on which Gladwell wrote his book "Geniuses and Outsiders". Moreover, Gladwell misinterpreted the results, which the author mentions in his book. I particularly liked the author's observation that Gladwell was wrong when he gave the Beatles example, because there were fewer hours of practice, and it was probably the talent that played the main role in creating these songs, not the final performance. That was also what I thought about when I first read Gladwell's book. But you can't build a whole book on one such statement. Let's say that Gladwell misinterpreted the results, but what is the most important thing about this book? The most important thing is that the practice should not only be what it is, but it should be deliberate. The author introduces the notion of deliberate practice. And here it is worth mentioning the second most important factor - the presence of the right teacher, a coach. Which, as I understand it, should note the mistakes and guide on the right path. And only after that, a person can achieve the greatest achievements in sports, business and so on. Sounds exciting, doesn't it? Nevertheless, I still do not understand what kind of deliberate practice it is in a more detailed description. The author devotes a lot of time to the example when a person remembers a huge number of numbers. Well, to be honest, I don't think any of the readers of this book will do anything like that. Nor do I think that many of the readers of this book are professional athletes or musicians. And it is from these areas that the author will take examples. Plus, annoying example with London taxi drivers, who have phenomenal memory even on the smallest detail of London (the streets and even what is in the houses). In other words, I have caught myself that this book cannot be applied in my own life, because everything, one way or another, comes down to training, albeit purposefully with a remark of all details. The author has not even taken such an obvious example as learning foreign languages or studying economics and becoming a real master in this field. That would be important, not how to become a master of playing the violin or a great swimmer, and especially not a master of remembering useless information. Why are examples so specific? Probably because such examples are easy to analyze, and with foreign languages - you don't know how to approach, what method to use, and in general, everything is not reduced to "take a pass and hit the ball". And this is the main drawback of the book. It's only partially useful for an ordinary person. And, in the end, it all comes down to "practice, practice, and practice". I haven't seen anything new in this book at all. This book can easily be replaced by "The Talent Code" or by one chapter in a psychology textbook on how a person (his brain) learns new skills, i.e., the more a skill is repeated-the more the neural pathway in his brain becomes trampled.
Книг на тему «чтобы стать экспертом нужно потратить 10.000 часов» или «как стать мастером в каком-то деле» или что-то связанное с обучением, довольно много. Многие впервые прочитали о важности долгой практики в какой-то области, т.е. те самые пресловутые 10.000 часов, в книге «Гении и аутсайдеры» Малкольма Гладуэлла. Дальше было ещё больше книг на эту тему. К примеру, «Код таланта» Дэниел Койл и многие другие книги по самопомощи, которые если не всю посвящают данному вопросу, то хотя бы отдают одну главу или одну страницу. В общем, это очень и очень популярная тема. Так что, уже любого любителя нехудожественной литературы можно смело спрашивать: сколько нужно тренироваться, чтобы стать мастером в той или иной области? И он с высотой долей вероятности назовёт цифру 10,000. Так что, если вы уже знакомы с этой темой и даже прочитали больше одной книги на эту тему, то возможно, книга вас не очень впечатлит. Я бы даже сравнил эту книгу с книгой «Код таланта», где автор пишет чуть ли не слово в слово. В общем, мне было довольно скучно читать уже 3 книгу на данную тему. И думаю, не одному мне. Однако, откуда тогда у книги такой высокий рейтинг? Действительно, книга получила практически одни только высшие оценки (4 и 5 баллов). Честно сказать, абсолютно не понимаю. Ведь автор, по сути, мало что предлагает нового. Да, исследования автор являются теми, на основании которых Гладуэлл написал свою книгу «Гении и аутсайдеры». Более того, Гладуэлл неправильно интерпретировал полученные результаты, о чём автор упоминает в своей книге. Мне особенно понравилось замечание автора, что Гладуэлл ошибся, когда приводил пример с Битлз, ибо там было меньше часов практики, и там, скорее всего, главную роль сыграл талант создавшего эти песни, а не их итоговое исполнение. Вот я тоже об этом подумал, когда впервые прочитал книгу Гладуэлла. Однако на одном подобном утверждении целую книгу не построишь. Допустим, Гладуэлл неправильно интерпретировал результаты, но что самое главное в книге? Самым главным является то, что практика должна быть, не лишь бы какая, а она должна быть осмысленной. Автор вводит понятие deliberate practice, что можно перевести как целенаправленная практика. И тут сразу стоит упомянуть второй важнейший фактор - наличие правильного учителя, коуча. Который, как я понял, должен подмечать ошибки и направлять по правильному пути. И вот только после этого, человек может добиться величайших достижений в спорте, в бизнесе и пр. Звучит захватывающе, не так ли? Тем не менее, я так и не понял, что же это за целенаправленная практика при более детальном анализе этого способа. Автор очень и очень много времени посвящает примеру, когда человек запоминает огромное количество чисел. Ну, честно сказать, я не думаю, что кто-то из читателей этой книги будет заниматься чем-то подобным. Так же не думаю, что много читателей этой книги являются профессиональными спортсменами или музыкантами. А ведь именно из этих сфер и будет брать примеры автор. Плюс, надоевший всем пример с лондонскими таксистами, которые обладают феноменальной памятью даже на самую маленькую деталь Лондона (улочки и даже то, что находится в домах). Т.е. я поймал себя на том, что данную книгу невозможно применить в своей собственной жизни, ибо всё, так или иначе, сводится к тренировке, пусть и целенаправленной с примечанием всех деталей. Автор даже не взял такой очевидный пример, как изучение иностранных языков или изучение экономики и становление в этой сфере настоящим мастером. Вот это было бы важно, а не как стать мастером игры на скрипке или великим пловцом и тем более не мастером по запоминанию бесполезной информации. Почему примеры такие специфические? Возможно потому, что такие примеры легко поддаются анализу, а с иностранными языками - там ещё и не знаешь толком, как подступить, какую методику взять, да и вообще, там всё не сводится к «принять пас и ударит по мячу». И вот это, главный недостаток книги. Она лишь частично полезна для обычного человека. Да и, в конце концов, всё сводится всё к тому же «тренируйтесь, тренируйтесь и тренируйтесь». Я абсолютно ничего нового не увидел в этой книге. Эта книга может легко быть заменена той же «Код таланта» Дэниел Койл или одной главой из учебника по психологии посвящённой тому, как человек (его мозг) обучается новым навыкам, т.е. чем чаще повторяется какой-то навык, тем более протоптанной становится в его мозгу нейронная тропинка.
Books on the topic "To become an expert you need to spend 10,000 hours" or "how to become a master in some area" or something related to training, quite a lot. Many people first read about the importance of long practice in some field, that is, the notorious 10,000 hours, in the book "Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell. And then there were more books on this subject. For example, "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle and many other self-help books, which if not all devote to this issue then at least dedicate one chapter or one page to the issue. In general, this is a very, very popular subject. So, any fan of non-fiction literature can easily be asked: how much do you need to train to become a master in one area or another? And he will most likely name the figure 10,000. So, if you are already familiar with this topic and have even read more than one book on this subject, then perhaps this book will not impress you very much. I would even compare this book to the book "The Talent Code", where the author writes almost word for word. In general, I was quite bored to read the third book on this topic already. And I think I'm not the only one. However, why did the book have such a high rating? Indeed, the book received almost only the highest grades (4 and 5 points). Frankly speaking, I do not understand. After all, the author does not offer anything new. Yes, the author's research is the basis on which Gladwell wrote his book "Geniuses and Outsiders". Moreover, Gladwell misinterpreted the results, which the author mentions in his book. I particularly liked the author's observation that Gladwell was wrong when he gave the Beatles example, because there were fewer hours of practice, and it was probably the talent that played the main role in creating these songs, not the final performance. That was also what I thought about when I first read Gladwell's book. But you can't build a whole book on one such statement. Let's say that Gladwell misinterpreted the results, but what is the most important thing about this book? The most important thing is that the practice should not only be what it is, but it should be deliberate. The author introduces the notion of deliberate practice. And here it is worth mentioning the second most important factor - the presence of the right teacher, a coach. Which, as I understand it, should note the mistakes and guide on the right path. And only after that, a person can achieve the greatest achievements in sports, business and so on. Sounds exciting, doesn't it? Nevertheless, I still do not understand what kind of deliberate practice it is in a more detailed description. The author devotes a lot of time to the example when a person remembers a huge number of numbers. Well, to be honest, I don't think any of the readers of this book will do anything like that. Nor do I think that many of the readers of this book are professional athletes or musicians. And it is from these areas that the author will take examples. Plus, annoying example with London taxi drivers, who have phenomenal memory even on the smallest detail of London (the streets and even what is in the houses). In other words, I have caught myself that this book cannot be applied in my own life, because everything, one way or another, comes down to training, albeit purposefully with a remark of all details. The author has not even taken such an obvious example as learning foreign languages or studying economics and becoming a real master in this field. That would be important, not how to become a master of playing the violin or a great swimmer, and especially not a master of remembering useless information. Why are examples so specific? Probably because such examples are easy to analyze, and with foreign languages - you don't know how to approach, what method to use, and in general, everything is not reduced to "take a pass and hit the ball". And this is the main drawback of the book. It's only partially useful for an ordinary person. And, in the end, it all comes down to "practice, practice, and practice". I haven't seen anything new in this book at all. This book can easily be replaced by "The Talent Code" or by one chapter in a psychology textbook on how a person (his brain) learns new skills, i.e., the more a skill is repeated-the more the neural pathway in his brain becomes trampled.
November 26, 2023
Overrated. There are some good ideas in there such as deliberate practice as well as the importance of having a mentor in order to get good feedback. The author however perpetually underrates natural abilities and overrates practice. He also generalizes too much.
Deliberate practice can help you become a master of a small and well-defined area but it is entirely different from mastery of say business or art. One needs to take this into account (for further reading I would recommend David Epsteins book "Range"). If you obssessively practice with one goal in mind then you risk missing out on all the other alternative ways of solving a potential problem within that area of expertise. I should mention that I consider myself a generalist and therefore perhaps have a bias toward Epsteins modus operandi.
I also don't see why one should underrate natural talent. I would instead opt to try to find out what you are good at and lean into that strength. The reward one gets from an activity should come from within and thats how one truly becomes great at doing something (there are of course exceptions such as for example André Agassi).
Deliberate practice can help you become a master of a small and well-defined area but it is entirely different from mastery of say business or art. One needs to take this into account (for further reading I would recommend David Epsteins book "Range"). If you obssessively practice with one goal in mind then you risk missing out on all the other alternative ways of solving a potential problem within that area of expertise. I should mention that I consider myself a generalist and therefore perhaps have a bias toward Epsteins modus operandi.
I also don't see why one should underrate natural talent. I would instead opt to try to find out what you are good at and lean into that strength. The reward one gets from an activity should come from within and thats how one truly becomes great at doing something (there are of course exceptions such as for example André Agassi).
May 2, 2016
My full review: https://simpledream.net/2016/04/28/pe...
Thesis: there is no such thing as natural ability — anyone can become an expert by putting in the time (10K hour rule). Traits favorable to a task help at the beginning, but don't make a difference at high levels — it all comes down to effort.
Mastery is possible through deliberate practice, focused training with an expert who can push you to a higher understanding of the craft. A key ingredient is using mental representations, these help you perform automatically because the actions have become second nature.
To excel one only needs to look within.
Meta notes:
First mention seen in The Economist, April 02, 2016 and I read a hard copy from Pima County Public Library.
The Economist compares this book favorably over its contemporary by Charles Duhigg, which I have not read yet, saying Faster, Better oversimplifies the topic by defining 8 "main traits," and jumps around a bit too much.
Thesis: there is no such thing as natural ability — anyone can become an expert by putting in the time (10K hour rule). Traits favorable to a task help at the beginning, but don't make a difference at high levels — it all comes down to effort.
Mastery is possible through deliberate practice, focused training with an expert who can push you to a higher understanding of the craft. A key ingredient is using mental representations, these help you perform automatically because the actions have become second nature.
To excel one only needs to look within.
Meta notes:
First mention seen in The Economist, April 02, 2016 and I read a hard copy from Pima County Public Library.
The Economist compares this book favorably over its contemporary by Charles Duhigg, which I have not read yet, saying Faster, Better oversimplifies the topic by defining 8 "main traits," and jumps around a bit too much.
August 25, 2017
This book challenges Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-Hour Rule - that you need to have practised and to have apprenticed for 10,000 hours before you get good. Anders Ericsson argued that while practice is important, it's not the whole story. Besides the quantity of hours spent practising, there's also the quality of that practice, which allows us to learn more efficiently. The trick is what he coins as "Deliberate Practice":
1. Create a feedback loop - surround yourself with experts and get their feedback
2. Focus very delierately on the sub-skills that make up an overall skill
3. Be a teacher - "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Einstein
Overall, I think it's an interesting book that challenges me to think about how I can pick up skills more efficiently, rather than just jump into practice, practice, practice.
1. Create a feedback loop - surround yourself with experts and get their feedback
2. Focus very delierately on the sub-skills that make up an overall skill
3. Be a teacher - "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Einstein
Overall, I think it's an interesting book that challenges me to think about how I can pick up skills more efficiently, rather than just jump into practice, practice, practice.
April 27, 2016
Important Book
I try to keep a running list of "important" books that I want my kids to read when they're older. I'm adding Peak and its story of deliberate practice to the list. The book makes the point that there is no such thing as innate talent (or if there is, it only helps one at the very beginning of learning a new skill). Deliberate practice and building mental models (referred to as mental representations) are the keys. This book reinforced to me that having my kids take music lessons is worthwhile. Not because I want them to be prodigies, but rather I want them to experience skill building through deliberate practice.
I try to keep a running list of "important" books that I want my kids to read when they're older. I'm adding Peak and its story of deliberate practice to the list. The book makes the point that there is no such thing as innate talent (or if there is, it only helps one at the very beginning of learning a new skill). Deliberate practice and building mental models (referred to as mental representations) are the keys. This book reinforced to me that having my kids take music lessons is worthwhile. Not because I want them to be prodigies, but rather I want them to experience skill building through deliberate practice.
March 16, 2021
Summary: Deliberate Practice is how you get better.
Just saved you a day or two of time.
I can’t stand when authors regurgitate the same shit over and over just to fill out the book.
Just saved you a day or two of time.
I can’t stand when authors regurgitate the same shit over and over just to fill out the book.
May 14, 2024
nii populaarsetest populaarteaduslikest raamatutest ma alati uusi asju teada ei saagi, aga siit mõned sain, eelkõige fakti, et absoluutne kuulmine ei ole mingi kaasasündinud talent, vaid selle saab tekitada, kui piisavalt väikse lapsena hakata muusikat õppima. ühelgi täiskasvanud muusikataustata inimesel ei ole seda iialgi tuvastatud ja on tehtud vähemalt üks eksperiment, kus 24 väikelast 24st omandasid treeningu käigus absoluutse kuulmise. vot nii.
muus osas võiks kogu raamatu kokku võtta lihtsa eesti vanasõnaga "harjutamine teeb meistriks". või noh, pigem selle rõhuga, et meistriks teeb harjutamine (mitte anne). üheski uuringus, kus meistreid - oma ala tippe - on küsitletud ja testitud, ei ole leitud kedagi, kes oleks teistest parem või sama hea vähema harjutamisega.
on muidugi olemas ka teine kena ütlemine, "harjutamine teeb harjutajaks", ja seda teemat käsitletakse siin ka päris põhjalikult, et igasugune suvaline nühkimine (sh legendaarne 10 000 tundi) ei loe, tegu peab olema ikkagi mõtestatud harjutamisega, mis toimub mugavustsooni piiril ja kus saadakse ja võetakse arvesse tagasisidet ja on selgelt teada, mida tegelikult saavutada üritatakse, jne. see kõnetas mind üsna tugevalt, sest õpin ise parasjagu uisutama ja kõik see tuleb äärmiselt tuttav ette. tõesti on näha, et keegi ei saabu jääle lihtsalt mingit jumalikku talenti realiseerima, kõik teevad keskendunult tööd selleks, et lõpuks graatsiliselt liuelda.
(iluuisutamine muide on koos muusika, male, balleti jm aladega väga hea näide selle raamatu teemade kohta - ideaalses maailmas on keegi juba välja mõelnud ja paika pannud struktuuri, mida ja mis järjekorras tuleb oskama hakata ja kuidas seda kõike mõõta, ja on olemas treenerid/õpetajad ja muud tugisüsteemid ja. vb see osa jäi veidi nõrgemaks, kus üritati sellest ülistruktureeritud maailmast saadud õppetunde üle kanda tavalise inimese tavalisse ellu ja mingitele... sisulistele ja praktilistele oskustele.)
noh ja siis on siin üheks põhiteesiks, et ei olegi üldse olemas mingeid kaasasündinud andeid, kui võibolla välja arvata teoreetiline võimalus, et mõned inimesed lihtsalt on sündinud paremateks (kannatlikemateks, keskendunumateks, motiveeritumateks) harjutajateks. kui on püütud tuvastada, et kas parimad maletajad või teadlased on paremuselt järgmistest kuidagi intelligentsemad või kasvõi parema ruumitajuga vms, siis - ei ole. ainus koht, kus mingit eelduste vahet näha on, on hoopis absoluutsete algajate hulgas - seal tõesti avaldub see, et mõni, ütleme siis, andekam õppija, omandab algpõhimõtted kiiremini. aga edasise harjutamise käigus vahe kaob.
selle viimase kohta mul küll tekib küsimus, et kas siin mingi... survivor bias ei ole mängus? et kui sa võrdled omavahel, nagu seal nt ühes uuringus oli, Saksamaa tippmuusikaakadeemia "parimaid", "paremaid" ja "häid" viiulimängijaid, siis jätad sa ju valimist täiesti välja need, kes ei olnudki ehk piisavalt andekad, et üldse sinna muusikaakadeemiasse kohale jõuda? äkki nad harjutasid ka palju ja targalt, aga ikkagi ei saavutanud samu tulemusi? vot see jääb mind närima.
aga selle lõppjäreldusega, et ühtegi inimest, eriti ühtegi last, ei tohiks mingi väidetava ande või selle puudumise tõttu mingilt alalt juba algtasemel välja arvata, olen küll südamest nõus. jah, maailma tippe kõigist ei saa, aga päriselt ka suudab iga inimene, kes tahab, õppida pillimängu või matemaatikat või uisutamist. (siinkohal tahaks palgaraha tagasi nõuda nii oma lapsepõlve kunstiõpetajalt kui korvpallitreenerilt - teie TÖÖ, prouad, oli mind õpetada, selmet ande puudumise ettekäändel... õpetamata jätta!)
muus osas võiks kogu raamatu kokku võtta lihtsa eesti vanasõnaga "harjutamine teeb meistriks". või noh, pigem selle rõhuga, et meistriks teeb harjutamine (mitte anne). üheski uuringus, kus meistreid - oma ala tippe - on küsitletud ja testitud, ei ole leitud kedagi, kes oleks teistest parem või sama hea vähema harjutamisega.
on muidugi olemas ka teine kena ütlemine, "harjutamine teeb harjutajaks", ja seda teemat käsitletakse siin ka päris põhjalikult, et igasugune suvaline nühkimine (sh legendaarne 10 000 tundi) ei loe, tegu peab olema ikkagi mõtestatud harjutamisega, mis toimub mugavustsooni piiril ja kus saadakse ja võetakse arvesse tagasisidet ja on selgelt teada, mida tegelikult saavutada üritatakse, jne. see kõnetas mind üsna tugevalt, sest õpin ise parasjagu uisutama ja kõik see tuleb äärmiselt tuttav ette. tõesti on näha, et keegi ei saabu jääle lihtsalt mingit jumalikku talenti realiseerima, kõik teevad keskendunult tööd selleks, et lõpuks graatsiliselt liuelda.
(iluuisutamine muide on koos muusika, male, balleti jm aladega väga hea näide selle raamatu teemade kohta - ideaalses maailmas on keegi juba välja mõelnud ja paika pannud struktuuri, mida ja mis järjekorras tuleb oskama hakata ja kuidas seda kõike mõõta, ja on olemas treenerid/õpetajad ja muud tugisüsteemid ja. vb see osa jäi veidi nõrgemaks, kus üritati sellest ülistruktureeritud maailmast saadud õppetunde üle kanda tavalise inimese tavalisse ellu ja mingitele... sisulistele ja praktilistele oskustele.)
noh ja siis on siin üheks põhiteesiks, et ei olegi üldse olemas mingeid kaasasündinud andeid, kui võibolla välja arvata teoreetiline võimalus, et mõned inimesed lihtsalt on sündinud paremateks (kannatlikemateks, keskendunumateks, motiveeritumateks) harjutajateks. kui on püütud tuvastada, et kas parimad maletajad või teadlased on paremuselt järgmistest kuidagi intelligentsemad või kasvõi parema ruumitajuga vms, siis - ei ole. ainus koht, kus mingit eelduste vahet näha on, on hoopis absoluutsete algajate hulgas - seal tõesti avaldub see, et mõni, ütleme siis, andekam õppija, omandab algpõhimõtted kiiremini. aga edasise harjutamise käigus vahe kaob.
selle viimase kohta mul küll tekib küsimus, et kas siin mingi... survivor bias ei ole mängus? et kui sa võrdled omavahel, nagu seal nt ühes uuringus oli, Saksamaa tippmuusikaakadeemia "parimaid", "paremaid" ja "häid" viiulimängijaid, siis jätad sa ju valimist täiesti välja need, kes ei olnudki ehk piisavalt andekad, et üldse sinna muusikaakadeemiasse kohale jõuda? äkki nad harjutasid ka palju ja targalt, aga ikkagi ei saavutanud samu tulemusi? vot see jääb mind närima.
aga selle lõppjäreldusega, et ühtegi inimest, eriti ühtegi last, ei tohiks mingi väidetava ande või selle puudumise tõttu mingilt alalt juba algtasemel välja arvata, olen küll südamest nõus. jah, maailma tippe kõigist ei saa, aga päriselt ka suudab iga inimene, kes tahab, õppida pillimängu või matemaatikat või uisutamist. (siinkohal tahaks palgaraha tagasi nõuda nii oma lapsepõlve kunstiõpetajalt kui korvpallitreenerilt - teie TÖÖ, prouad, oli mind õpetada, selmet ande puudumise ettekäändel... õpetamata jätta!)
April 26, 2020
Kui praegu on üsna levinud teooria et kõik on andekad, siis Ericsson ja Pool väidavad vastupidist - mingit andekust ei ole olemas, kõik tuleb teadlikult treenides, kui on olemas piisav motivatsioon. Raamatus tuuakse palju näiteid, kuidas on erinevad inimesed tippu jõudnud. Samas lükatakse ümber sünnipärase andekuse teooria: oma lapsi võib iga vanem suunata mingi alaga tegelema, äratades nende huvi ning seejärel valides neile sobiva treeningu ja treeneri. Kui soovite mingeid võimeid oma hilisemas elus arendada, siis pole hilja, vaid alustada tuleb taas teadliku treenimisega.
Raamat on kirjutatud lihtsas keeles ja sobib lugemiseks kõigile, aga eriti soovitaksin seda lapsevanematele ja õpetajatele. :)
Raamat on kirjutatud lihtsas keeles ja sobib lugemiseks kõigile, aga eriti soovitaksin seda lapsevanematele ja õpetajatele. :)
April 3, 2020
'Peak' by Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool is focused around the concept of 'deliberate practice'. The authors use many examples to show that it is practice and not 'innate talent' that creates experts in a particular field. They also dispel the myth of the 'ten thousand hour rule' as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell.
Many wide ranging stories hold Peak together and it is easy to relate to a few of the case studies. But I was left feeling dissatisfied. The stories felt a little laboured, the case studies seem to pick and choose data to prove their hypothesis. The examples are influenced by survivorship bias. The authors seem so keen to convince us of their points that they keep repeating it.
Another thing which I disliked is that a 'how-to' non-fiction book needs to be written in points and not in prose.
- experts practice more than those who are just good
- get an expert teacher or mentor and get lots of feedback on what you are trying to learn
- practice skills, don't just acquire knowledge
- make sure to analyze what those skills are
- indulge in deliberate practice, not merely practice
Many wide ranging stories hold Peak together and it is easy to relate to a few of the case studies. But I was left feeling dissatisfied. The stories felt a little laboured, the case studies seem to pick and choose data to prove their hypothesis. The examples are influenced by survivorship bias. The authors seem so keen to convince us of their points that they keep repeating it.
Another thing which I disliked is that a 'how-to' non-fiction book needs to be written in points and not in prose.
- experts practice more than those who are just good
- get an expert teacher or mentor and get lots of feedback on what you are trying to learn
- practice skills, don't just acquire knowledge
- make sure to analyze what those skills are
- indulge in deliberate practice, not merely practice
October 12, 2016
Probably my favorite book on this subject. Ericsson was the researcher that Gladwell referenced in his book "Outliers" with his famous 10,000 hour rule (the number of hours to become great at something). This book gives more detailed information and better explains his theory and research. The ideas and premise of this book kept popping up in discussions with my family, and especially children, and I was grateful for the hope and motivation it provides. Basically, besides body type and size, talent is not born, but developed. If you want to learn or become great at something, you can with consistent "deliberate practice." We have already changed the way we talk about hard things in our home...no more of "I am not good at math," but "I'm going to have to put forth more time and effort into math to be good at it." It has also motivated me to try things I have wanted to do, but have previously shyed away from because I didn't feel like it came naturally for me. Great book!
October 24, 2019
The work of Dr Anders Ericsson inspired many authors of whom we got plenty of great books and theories, most prominently the "10,000 Hour Rule" that was first brought to the public attention by author Malcolm Gladwell in his book 'Outliers' which Dr Ericsson in this book explains that It's not really the case and that Gladwell used it intentionally for marketing purposes, and explains in good detail his research that Gladwell based his theory upon!
Another author that was inspired by the work of Dr Ericsson is one of my favorite authors of all time. Cal Newport, He based a whole book called 'Deep work' on the 'Deliberate practice' theory that Dr Ericsson states that it's needed to reach expertise level in any fields.
So all in all this was a great read, This is a psychology book, although I've seen it listed as a self-help book It's not really written in the popular Self-help style of writing.
Another author that was inspired by the work of Dr Ericsson is one of my favorite authors of all time. Cal Newport, He based a whole book called 'Deep work' on the 'Deliberate practice' theory that Dr Ericsson states that it's needed to reach expertise level in any fields.
So all in all this was a great read, This is a psychology book, although I've seen it listed as a self-help book It's not really written in the popular Self-help style of writing.
July 25, 2020
Never think again that you cannot do something because the talent for it "was not born to you". The myth of the naturally talented genius is simply outdated. With targeted practice and conscious learning, you can bring all skills to world-class level from languages to musical instruments to chess or math (Blinkist, 2020).
June 17, 2016
I HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone looking to improve on something in their lives. Really interesting information about human potential! Definitely a book I could see myself returning back to when I'm working on something! Well written and easy to follow even with the science-y stuff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,682 reviews