研究发现：熟不一定能生巧

加拿大作家马尔科姆·格拉德威尔曾提出过著名的“一万小时定律”，他认为只要付出持续不断的努力，任何人都能成为专家。就像俗话说的那样，熟能生巧。但是最近的一项研究却公然挑战这一定律，指出投入的练习时间多不一定就能达到比别人更好的技能状态。

With blatant disregard for the public benefits of motivational idioms, researchers have concluded that practice does not, necessarily, make perfect.

近日，一些研究人员公然无视熟能生巧的普世道理，得出结论说：熟不一定能生巧。

A study of violinists found that merely good players practised as much as, if not more than, better players, leaving other factors such as quality of tuition, learning skills and perhaps natural talent to account for the difference.

一项对小提琴演奏者的研究发现，如果不考虑教学质量、学习技巧和天分等因素的差异，水平过得去的演奏者和杰出的演奏者练习的时间一样多，甚至可能更多。

The work is the latest blow to the 10,000-hour rule, the idea promoted in Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, Outliers, which has been taken to mean that enough practice will make an expert of anyone. In the book, Gladwell states that “ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness”.

这一研究结果是对“一万小时定律”的最新挑战。马尔科姆·格拉德威尔在2008年著作《异类》中提出了这一定律，他的观点是只要练习得足够多，任何人都可以成为专家。在书中，格拉德威尔指出，“一万个小时是铸就伟大成就的神奇数字”。

"The idea has become really entrenched in our culture, but it’s an oversimplification,” said Brooke Macnamara, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “When it comes to human skill, a complex combination of environmental factors, genetic factors and their interactions explains the performance differences across people.”

美国俄亥俄州克利夫兰凯斯西储大学的心理学家布鲁克·麦克纳马拉说：“熟能生巧的观点已经深深植根于我们的文化，但是这种观点过于简单化了。在人类技巧方面，要综合考虑环境、基因及其相互作用来解释人与人之间的表现差异。”

The seed for the 10,000-hour rule was a 1993 study of violinists and pianists which found that accumulated practice time rose with musical prowess. On average, top-ranked violinists had clocked up 10,000 hours of practice by the age of 20, though many had actually put in fewer hours. In the study, the authors rejected an important role for natural talent and argued that differences in ability, even among top musicians, were largely down to how much they practised. Gladwell seized on the round number to explain the success of notables from Bill Gates to the Beatles.

“一万小时定律”的依据来自1993年对小提琴和钢琴演奏者的一项研究，这项研究发现，累积的练习时间越长，音乐技能越高超。平均来看，一流的小提琴家在20岁前的练习时间达到了1万个小时，但也有许多小提琴家的实际练习时间不足1万个小时。该研究的作者否定了天分的重要作用，指出即使是在顶级音乐家当中，能力差异在很大程度上取决于他们的练习量。格拉德威尔用这项研究提到的一万小时解释了比尔·盖茨、甲壳虫乐队等名人的成功。

Macnamara and her colleague Megha Maitra set out to repeat part of the 1993 study to see whether they reached the same conclusions. They interviewed three groups of 13 violinists rated as best, good, or less accomplished about their practice habits, before having them complete daily diaries of their activities over a week.

麦克纳马拉和她的同事梅格哈·麦特拉重复了1993年研究的一部分，想看看是否能得出同样的结论。研究人员调查了13名小提琴演奏者，按照最好、不错、较差水平三个评级将他们分成三组，让他们填写了自己一周活动的日记，并通过采访了解到他们的练习习惯。

While the less skilful violinists clocked up an average of about 6,000 hours of practice by the age of 20, there was little to separate the good from the best musicians, with each logging an average of about 11,000 hours. In all, the number of hours spent practising accounted for about a quarter of the skills difference across the three groups, according to the study published in Royal Society Open Science.

水平较差的小提琴演奏者在20岁前的练习时间平均约为6000个小时，但是不错的演奏者和最好的演奏者之间几乎没有差别，两者的平均练习时间都是11000个小时左右。这项发表在《英国皇家学会开放科学》杂志上的研究指出，这三组人之间的技能差异仅有四分之一是由练习时间导致的。

Macnamara believes practice is less of a driver. “Once you get to the highly skilled groups, practice stops accounting for the difference. Everyone has practised a lot and other factors are at play in determining who goes on to that super-elite level,” she said.

麦克纳马拉认为，练习的作用并没有那么大。她说：“一旦你达到了较高的水平，练习带来的差别就消失了。每个人都进行了大量练习，能否达到精英水平就开始取决于其他因素了。”

"The factors depend on the skill being learned: in chess it could be intelligence or working memory, in sport it may be how efficiently a person uses oxygen. To complicate matters further, one factor can drive another. A child who enjoys playing the violin, for example, may be happy to practise and be focused on the task because they do not see it as a chore.”

“这些因素依据学习的技能不同而发生改变：如果学的是国际象棋，决定因素可能是智力或工作记忆;如果学的是运动，决定因素可能是一个人利用氧气的效率。还有更复杂的情况是，有时候一个因素还会作用于另一个因素。举例而言，一个喜欢拉小提琴的孩子可能比较愿意练习，注意力也比较集中，因为他们不把练琴看成苦差。”

The authors of the 1993 study are unimpressed, however. One co-author, Anders Ericsson, a psychologist at Florida State University, said the new paper actually replicated most of their findings. He said there were no objective differences between Macnamara's best and good violinists, so no surprise they put in the same amount of practice.

不过，1993年那项研究的作者却不为所动。该研究的共同作者、佛罗里达州立大学的心理学家安德斯·埃里克森说，新研究报告复制了他们的大部分研究结果。他说，麦克纳马拉所说的不错的演奏者和最好的演奏者之间没有客观差异，所以他们投入的练习时间一样多也就不奇怪了。

Another co-author on the 1993 study, Ralf Krampe, a psychologist at the Catholic University of Leuven, said nothing in Macnamara’s paper made him question the original findings. “Do I believe that practice is everything and that the number of hours alone determine the level reached? No, I don’t,” he said, adding that the quality of practice, teachers and parental support all matter too. “But I still consider deliberate practice to be by far the most important factor.”

1993年研究的另一位合著者、鲁汶天主教大学的心理学家拉尔夫·克兰佩说，麦克纳马拉的论文中没有任何能让他质疑原研究结果的内容。他说：“难道我认为练习就是一切，练习时长是决定成就的唯一因素吗？不，我不这么认为。”他补充道，练习质量、老师和父母的支持也很重要。“但我依然认为有意的练习是迄今为止最重要的因素。”

Macnamara said it was important for people to understand the limits of practice, though. “Practice makes you better than you were yesterday, most of the time,” she said. “But it might not make you better than your neighbour. Or the other kid in your violin class.”

麦克纳马拉说，尽管如此，让人们理解练习的局限性还是很重要。“大多数时候，练习都能让你超越过去的自己，”她说，“但练习可能无法让你超越你的邻居，或小提琴课上的其他孩子。”

文章来源：中国日报英语点津

图片来源：高品图像