I'm familiar with the distinction that Ericsson made.
The chess study is based on people who deliberately practiced.
It still didn't matter. Some people are simply better at chess.
Seriously proposing that all humans everywhere have perfectly identical potential in all possible tasks is nonsensical. That is the strongest form of Ericsson's hypothesis. If you weaken the hypothesis -- eg. "some people take less time" -- then why only publish the exact 10,000 average and fail to show variances in the original study?
And if there is variance in time-to-expertise ... what exactly does the "training is required, but the time needed varies based on talent" finding tell us over ... training is required, but the time varies based on talent?
The chess study is based on people who deliberately practiced.
It still didn't matter. Some people are simply better at chess.
Seriously proposing that all humans everywhere have perfectly identical potential in all possible tasks is nonsensical. That is the strongest form of Ericsson's hypothesis. If you weaken the hypothesis -- eg. "some people take less time" -- then why only publish the exact 10,000 average and fail to show variances in the original study?
And if there is variance in time-to-expertise ... what exactly does the "training is required, but the time needed varies based on talent" finding tell us over ... training is required, but the time varies based on talent?
Because that's already kinda known.