It's so strange that there's this whole realm of technical terms and scientism for what amounts to something so simple: In order to get good at some thing, you need to do that thing.
>Ah, yes, but Deliberate Practice aims to scientifically deconstruct each skill into some identifiable set of particular components
Yeah, whatever. Most knowledge is tacit, but go ahead and try to impose reductionism onto everything. If all you have is a hammer...
>Do you have a citation for most knowledge being tacit?
Nope, I'm just a skilled fool. Probably learned my skill in the most inefficient way possible - by just diving in and doing it. Go ahead and keep appealing to Dr. Doctorson. Amongst all his academizing, I'm sure he's formulated the most scientifically sound way to acquire a skill. Trust the science.
> In order to get good at some thing, you need to do that thing.
Professional musician here. Practice for one person is not the same as practice for another; and the resulting outcomes are different. There’s reductionism that serves and there’s fussy, pedantic reductionism. I’m not saying the latter doesn’t creep into this field (as in any) but by and large the distinction between just doing the thing and deliberate practice is significant. I’ve seen countless students just repeat repeat repeat their repertoire; and I’ve seen students employ principles of deliberate practice - highly focused, super-specific, acutely aware. The results are strikingly different. So I don’t think it’s excessively reductionist to account for those differences.
When I was a kid, I had a coach that would always say "Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent." I feel like that captures the difference here pretty well. If you practice something 10,000 times poorly, you're just going to engrain that poor performance to "expert" level. You can't magically get better at something just because you do it over and over, there has to be some evaluative component that shifts your actions over time.
Likewise. Had I taken it seriously at 16 when I started I'd be a significantly better guitarist. Instead of noodling actually practicing important concepts in a fundamental way that matters to improving. Music theory like keys and chord progressions, triads, scales (to some extent), timing and rhythm, etc.
You can certainly "practice" this stuff, but if you sit down, even for 10 minutes with a real deliberate intention it'll matter way more than noodling. Present me is kicking myself for being stupid when I was younger.
Really empathize with you! It does seem like you really want it, in that case, allow me to encourage you to start now. Literally 10-20 minutes of actual practice every day. You'll quickly improve.
Trying! I've been taking lessons for about 8 months. Unfortunately, due to work, my practice routine has been very hit and miss. I'm starting to try to find ways to work it in during breaks for work, using flash cards and such to just take a minute or two to review the knowledge specific bits. Then I have a plan for ways to utilize some of that knowledge and applying it on the guitar when I sit down.
Slowly but surely, I just need to really get a routine going. Thanks for the encouragement!
I've found Rocksmith to be great help for practice. Lots of drills to run, and instant feedback on performance. Fantastic for working on chord transitions and timing. Not a replacement for professional instruction, but a useful tool. Very easy way to take a 15 minute practice break, all you need is a laptop, guitar, interface cable, and headphones.
> Nope, I'm just a skilled fool. Probably learned my skill in the most inefficient way possible
You're saying it yourself right here. Just going out and "doing the thing" is not a time-effective way to learn. Nor, on average, is it going to get you to
the top of whatever discipline you are pursing (with the known caveat that certain disciplines do not lend themselves to deliberate practice).
>Ah, yes, but Deliberate Practice aims to scientifically deconstruct each skill into some identifiable set of particular components
Yeah, whatever. Most knowledge is tacit, but go ahead and try to impose reductionism onto everything. If all you have is a hammer...
>Do you have a citation for most knowledge being tacit?
Nope, I'm just a skilled fool. Probably learned my skill in the most inefficient way possible - by just diving in and doing it. Go ahead and keep appealing to Dr. Doctorson. Amongst all his academizing, I'm sure he's formulated the most scientifically sound way to acquire a skill. Trust the science.