Reddit reviews Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise
We found 19 Reddit comments about Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
There's lots of research that argues against exactly what you're saying.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B011H56MKS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
The author of this book has done decades of research on top performers in all sorts of categories and has concluded that there is no such thing as natural talent. Check it out. He talks about a concept called deliberate practice.
Not at all, I could probably go on for hours talking about what lead me to improve more effectively. It all came down to learning how to do deliberate practice, which I learned from Anders Ericsson's book. It's essentially finding your weaknesses through feedback, working on those areas by studying those who do it best, then applying it to your own work for further feedback; That's pretty much what my typical day looks like. Though, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that. I highly recommend looking into deliberate practice to anyone serious about improving.
Hey,
I think the things you say here point to a problem with the advice we often give. I will argue that training your macro will always pay off. This is why it's often the first and last piece of advice given out to players.
However, I would highly encourage you to read Peak by Anders Ericsson. In it, he describes what has been learned from the scientific study of expert performance and how to achieve it yourself most efficiently. One thing he notes is that at any given point, you need to evaluate what your personal weakness is. Break the activity into groups of skills and pick the one that is holding you back the most. Focus all your effort in deliberate practice training (isolation of a component outside of actual game time using drills) on that one skill for a few weeks or a couple of months. Rinse and repeat. It seems that, while your macro certainly can continue to improve (you Flash bro?), at this point, your macro is not your weakest skill. So focus on those instead. The comments you get on reddit aren't responsive to your current / present situation, like the advice of a coach would be.
So, what to do if you're in your particular situation. Ericsson indicates that Chess (of which Starcraft shares many similarities except the mechanical aspect) Grand Masters are identified most readily not by how many games they've played, but how many they've studied. This suggests that the "games sense" or "game knowledge" that would allow you to identify clues and instantly hit upon the exact response needs work.
Here is how I address this problem: create a loss log. Use this to index all your losses. Then every 100 games or so, evaluate what is causing you to lose most in any given match up. If you notice you lost most often to ZvP cheese such as ling bane busts, then take the next step. Find a friend. Either by joining a clan, or asking in the r/ allthingsX communities. Identify what you want to work on and drill, over and over, that hold until you get it. Then, ladder some more. Find that you now lose the most to TvP 5 rax before Factory timings (Maru v sOs)? Do the same thing, go to r/allthingsterran, or your clan and ask for a terran of your or higher skill to run that build against you over and over and over.
Also, watch and index pro games by player, map, build and date. Keep this log and when you find a build that gives you trouble, look at your pro game log and find examples of how your Protoss pro counterparts reacted. THen do that in your practice games with your practice partners. Over time, you will develop the ability to respond instantly to the info you scout.
And remember, you are losing to things you should be losing to. Each game is a gift given to you by your opponent. They are giving you their precious time to help you identify what you are weak to. How you react is up to you. React appropriately by thanking them, making a note of that weakness and making a plan to address it. Otherwise the salt will take over.
Lastly. One thing I always find inspiring when salty. The root word (In latin I think) for "compete" means to "strive together." Our society and culture has turned competition into this, you vs me, you lose I win, zero sum game. But it doesn't have to be this way. The Romans looked at competition as an "us" thing, an activity that allowed both participants to improve together. Don't hate your opponent. Without them you could never identify weaknesses and thus could never improve.
Props to you for taking the leap and I wish you the best of luck.
I completely agree that motivation is overrated, but I have one minor nitpick. In my mind, discipline is almost synonymous with willpower. I know they have their differences, but there is significant overlap. Having discipline is still kind of a white-knuckled approach.
What I suggest is developing a routine. Routines are not subject to motivation and they result in a cumulative daily effect that adds up and compounds over time. In the words of W. H. Auden: "Routine in an intelligent man, is a sign of ambition."
 
If you're interested in developing a routine, you have to consume information about strategies from the experts. Here are some of my favorite sources:
There are many others but these are some great places to start.
 
Social accountability is also important as another user mentioned. I recommend telling friends about your site or doing a case study. There are also great tools like stickk that donate your money to a charity or cause you hate if you don't meet your goal.
Lol I too I retreat back to drawing my cute girls after I'm done with the lessons for the day.
​
Fun is good and it's okay but I do think if you practice only when you're having fun you wont get very far. Some days you just don't feel like doing it and if you listen to yourself on those days, you wont progress on that particular day. And that's fine if you're okay with that of course. But if your goal is to progress every day, you do it regardless of how you feel about it.
​
Actually, the feeling of difficulty and struggle is a good indicator that you are out of your comfort zone, and you are doing something right. If it's always easy and fun you are simply not progressing very fast.
​
This book talks about it fair bit. Practice isn't supposed to be fun, if your goal is to progress.
https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise-ebook/dp/B011H56MKS
for learning/cognitive related i recommend checking out:
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman,
Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by Anders Ericsson
and the various Cal Newport books (he also has a blog),
Thomas Frank from College Info Geek is also cool.
i personally prefer actionable coaching over talk therapy as it helps me get shit done rather than sit around and introspect which i already do enough of.
there is a /r/Stoicism
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing by Marie Kondo, check it out
Brene Brown for self compassion, talks on Youtube, you could check out.
The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life by Mark Manson is another good one.
Have you heard of deliberate practice? I'm terrible at explaining things, but luckily other people have made much better guides on deliberate practice, explaining it and teaching you how to apply it to anything. I highly suggest reading peak. Its a fantastic book that seriously helped me with learning any skill.
There is a great reddit post explaining deliberate practice, and showing how to apply it in starcraft 2. There is also an awesome video Artosis made that helps a lot. Its about SC remastered, but you can easily apply it in SC2
If you are serious about getting better at Starcraft I highly recommend learning about deliberate practice!
I wrote a pair of blog posts addressing a post like this one not too long ago. I'm copying and pasting them here.
​
PART ONE: WRITING IS AN ART
A few days ago, I read this thread on /r/selfpublish about how the stigma against self-publishers sucks. Members of the subreddit chimed in with their experiences: how booksellers refused to carry a few books on the sole basis that they were self-published, how other writers rebuffed them, and how a reader accused a member at a book fair of being self-published. How is self-publishing a crime?
Reading this thread, reading a book called, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by Robert Poole and Anders Ericsson, my experience submitting to literary magazines and contests, reading about other people’s experiences submitting, and finally, watching the movie Ratatouille has moved me to piece together this two-part article about writing and publishing.
One of these things is not like the other. What does Ratatouille have to do with writing?
If you are unfamiliar with Ratatouille, the story is about a rat, Remy, who has a talented nose and refined palate. Remy ventures into kitchens full of poison, mouse traps, and other dangers for the sake of good food, and he becomes inspired to cook by the famous chef, Auguste Gusteau, whose motto spurs him on: “Anyone can cook!” After coincidences land him in Paris under the toque of an aspiring chef, Linguini, together they cook their way to stardom. But standing in their way is Anton Ego, a food critic whose sharp tongue cut away one of Auguste Gusteau’s five stars.
The first words Ego speaks will contain a familiar sentiment from writers of a certain attitude: “Amusing title, “Anyone Can Cook!”. What’s even more amusing is that Gusteau actually seems to believe it. I, on the other hand, take cooking seriously. And, no, I don’t think anyone can do it.”
This is my fight against the Egos of writing.
I have two lines of thinking to spool out here. The first concerns great writing, what it is, how to make it, and how to become a great writer, and the second concerns what publishing, both self and traditional, has to do with it.
Long story short, writing is an art, but publishing is a business.
Deliberate Practice and Feedback
My goal first and foremost is to become a great writer. So, I practice. I read constantly and interrogate myself on what I liked about what I read, what I hated, and what did the author do specifically to be so effective. Then, I write down my analysis and publish it on my blog. One blog post centered on Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Peak asks the question, “Why are some people so amazingly good at what they do?” To answer, the book’s authors spent thirty years studying experts and novices across fields and concluded that experts deliberately practiced and received expert feedback and direction. For now, let’s focus on the deliberate practice and the expert feedback part as it relates to becoming a great writer.
Deliberate practice is focused, informed effort to push past personal boundaries and develop relevant skills. The authors said, “Learning to engage [in purposeful practice]— consciously developing and refining your skills— is one of the most powerful ways to improve the effectiveness of your practice.” Peak’s authors note that when you practice by yourself, you have to be able to identify when you are doing something wrong and correct it.
“This is not impossible, but it is much more difficult and less efficient than having an experienced teacher watching you and providing feedback. [sic] Even the most motivated and intelligent student will advance more quickly under the tutelage of someone who knows the best order in which to learn things, who understands and can demonstrate the proper way to learn various skills, who can provide useful feedback, and who can devise practice activities designed to overcome particular weaknesses. Thus, one of the most important things you can do for your success is to find a good teacher and work with him or her.”
Sounds simple: deliberate practice plus feedback equals improvement. However, there’s more to improvement than that. Peak acknowledges that this advice depends on the field of expertise. Fields like sports, chess, ballet, and classical music have rich history of teaching methods, institutional support, objective standards for quality performance, and a clear hierarchy of quality (for example, the best golfer wins the most tournaments). Fields like creative writing don’t. Writers generally have an idea of great writing. Great writing involves an alchemical formula: language, clarity, characters, ideas, structure, and plot that hang together to become an engaging story that’s more than the sum of its words. At least, that’s my definition. Other people’s definitions have conjured writing courses, university programs, magazines, coaches, and other professional services that proclaim that they know what great writing is and they can help you become a great writer too.
But how do we know what’s great writing? For that matter, what does it mean to be great? How does great differ from being bad or good?
Good post. I personally don't like Gladwell, in my opinion he's just one very typical self-help author with no practical advice. The 10k "rule" is so trivial, that's almost annoying how willingly the media picks it up. Ericsson mostly published quite expensive research based books, but recently a commercial summary of his findings or theories was published. I think it's one of those 5-page-blown-up-to-250-books so I would recommend listen to podcast interviews he was attending to promote the book instead.
Shows the power of influence of Malcolm Gladwell. 10,000 hours was the average hours it took violinists to become experts. The amount of hours varies between disciplines with deliberate practice being the most important factor. It will likely take that long, but it's not a set number.
For anyone interested in what the actual researcher of that study has to say he released a book on deliberate practice:
https://www.amazon.ca/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise-ebook/dp/B011H56MKS
All the research says that a healthy person can learn anything with the right kind of practice over a sufficient period of time. There's no secret to expertise. Obviously, not everyone has life circumstances that allow them to do this, but people can learn more quickly and thoroughly than they think with the right kind of practice.
Peak: Secrets From The New Science of Expertise does a good job summarizing the research. Another interesting example is the Polgar family.
Part of it is an outlook issue. There's a difference between "I can't do math" and "I haven't figured out how to do math, yet." A person with the former belief will see obstacles as justification for quitting, while a person with the latter belief will go looking for a different way to practice.
With respect to math, I guarantee you that the typical programmer is doing more math than they realize. They don't realize it because they have a certain idea of what math is, what it looks like, what it feels like to "do math", etc. and they neither see nor feel any of that in their programming work.
A person with the latter attitude might ask themselves, "How does math play a role in what I'm currently doing? Can I find the math in what I'm already doing and use that as a first step in getting better at math?" A person with the former attitude won't — if they can't "do math" then, by definition, whatever they're doing can't be math.
Dreaming is easy - taking your workouts seriously is harder.
Read these two books of you are looking for motivation to reach your potential.
War of Art - Pressfield
Peak - Ericsson
Or don't :P
I can't say it's changed my parenting (wife is 40+2 with our first), but I wish I had read Anders Ericsson's Peak years ago. Grad school would have been a lot easier. Ericsson is the scientist upon whose work Malcolm Gladwell based his "10,000 hour rule" (which misses the biggest takeaway from Ericsson's research, by the way). My work habits have changed quite a bit because of his research, and I've been far more productive since. I can see a lot of applications for child rearing.
I recommend learning about the development of expertise in general. The expert on this topic is Anders Ericcson. His book Peak lays out his research for a general audience. It describes how people in various disciplines, such as music, dance, and chess, train to become experts. His research is the basis for the oft-misquoted “10000 hour rule.”
One key is deliberate practice. In the case of writing, this might look like writing 5 plot outlines, 5 descriptions of people/places/things, and 5 scenes of dialogue each day. You can tailor it to what you you think you need to work on most.
Another key is measuring progress toward a specific goal. For example, writing X hundred or thousand words per day is a start, but that should be paired with a way to measure how much better each day’s writing is than the day before. One way to measure might be posting your writing on Reddit and counting how many comments/upvotes it gets, or sending your writing to publishers and seeing how many acceptances you receive. It is hard to measure improvement in writing, but that is key.
Can’t recommend Peak more - it’s shows that getting better isn’t just about time at the keyboard. I’d love to hear how you think it can be applied to writing.
From Peak, by K. Anders Ericsson.
https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise-ebook/dp/B011H56MKS
It also states that expert Go players, a game even more difficult than chess, have slightly lower than average IQ.
Plateauing is a thing. It comes from reaching the peak available with your current training environment and personal approach. You can break through without changing anything, but typically you need to change something unless you are patient (as in, like pyramids and sequoias).
Changing things is really called for, and if you're not going to change your gym that means change yourself. Consider breaking your training model--don't permit yourself to use your game, video your performance, start working with flashcards, ask your partners to do only positional sparring (my favorite), roll at 80% speed with white belts...do something different. These are just random suggestions; my last breakthrough came after a lot of time off (surgery) and a lot of thinking about my approach.
For a book on performance, consider Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by Anders Ericsson. It's very readable and entertaining, and might give you perspective on how to approach your own training. Good luck.
Edit Formatting.
Read Peak for the science behind practice and developing expertise
If any of you guys are interested in a good read on this topic (my opinion), there's a book called "Peak" by Anders Ericson that highlights the importance of the work of "deliberate practice".
I enjoyed the read and I think you may as well!
Its the theory of purposeful practice in motion. You can't just get better at a skill by playing the game. You have to break it down into steps and work at them individually. A lot of pro-sports players say they actually cut back on weight lifting or do a very limited form of it to attain the type of body they want while reducing the possibility of injury. In their world squatting 3x body weight or any big 3 lift doesn't matter if you don't have strong ball handling, endurance for consistent minutes played, and ability to bring home titles.
If anyone wants to read a book, Peak by Anders Ericsson, is a great book outlining the principle of purposeful training. People misconstrue it to be "Dedicate 10,000 hours to anything and you'll be great at that skill". But there is a huge difference between playing pick-up games for 10,000 hours versus using those 10,000 hours to work on the different facets of the game and learning how to properly incorporate them.