Q. you mentioned in an earlier blogpost ("Are 10,000 hrs needed for awakening? NO. How to practice better...") that research shows that 10,000 hrs of practice of any skill are required before one achieves "mastery", whether it's chess, meditation, sports, etc. i have been meditating for over 10,000 hrs and am still not awakened, why?
G. Well, as the blogpost pointed out, the popular book by Malcolm Gladwell, "Outliers: The Story of Success", was based upon the research of K. Anders Ericsson, @ Florida State University, who is a widely recognized world expert on "expertise".
One of Ericsson's key points was "Experts are always made, not born. Forget the folklore about genius." Ericsson cites Mozart as an example often used of a "born genius". Actually, Mozart's father was a famous music teacher who worked diligently w/him starting at the age of 4.
Ericsson also described at length in "The Making of an Expert" (2007) how "all practice isn't equal" and how to do "deliberate practice" which yields the best results as it is strategically focused.
He pointed out that most folk waste much of their time continuing to do the elements of the skill they already do well. The real gains come from focusing practice on what you don't do well - that which is outside your "comfort zone".
However, we all know folk, whether in sports, music, painting, or meditation/awakening, who don't fit that model, who seem to have a huge advantage, are "different" and seemingly perfect for that skill.
Last year, "The Sports Gene", by David Epstein, discussed the relative roles of genes and environment - nature and nurture - in building a "master" athlete. A fundamental conclusion - genes matter.
Epstein cites Stefan Holm who started high jumping at age 6, and trained more than 20,000 hrs before winning the 2004 Olympic gold medal - a clear demonstration of the Ericcson/Gladwell model that 10,000 hours is needed for "mastery" of high jumping, chess, rock climbing, etc.
However, Epstein then cites Donald Thomas who in the 2007 World Championships beat Stephan Holm. Thomas had only started high jumping eight months before. (However, Thomas could slam-dunk a basketball.) Thomas also beat Yaroslav Rybakov who had competed for 18 years w/o a single world championship.
Thomas, however, hasn't improved even one centimeter in the ensuing six years of high-jumping even w/thousands of hours of practice. (Haven't you seen examples of these three in meditators?)
Gladwell also cited the Beatles, who spent more than 10,000 hrs playing in nightclubs in Liverpool and Hamburg. (However, many of us know other bands who spent 10,000 hrs "practicing" and who are (understandably) still playing in Poughkeepsie.)
An important caveat that Epstein points out is the huge range of performance in achieving mastery in "anything". A study of 104 competitive chess players was done by psychologists F. Gobet and G. Campatelli (both chess masters) in "The Role of Domain-Specific Practice...in Chess" (2007) and by Gobet in "The Role of Deliberate Practice in Expertise: Necessary But Not Sufficient" (2008) .
Gobet, et al., found that an average of 11,053 hrs were required to achieve masters status. In chess, there is a mathematical system for different titles based on accumulated Elo points, so it is a more precise measure of "mastery". Ericsson's original work on violinists' mastery used only 10 subjects and had no such clear definition for "mastery" (like "enlightenment").
The range in chess is interesting. One folk achieved mastery in 3000 hrs, while another needed 23,000 hrs. As Gobet said "...some people need to practice 8 times more to reach the same level as someone else. And some people do that and have still not reached the same level."
Gobet points out that chess players learn in "chunks"; it takes about 300,000 chunks to become a grandmaster. If one learns chunks in 7 seconds and another takes 10 seconds, it makes a big difference in practice time. With practice after reaching mastery, some players advanced, while others did not.
Phillip Ackerman, a psychologist @ Georgia Tech found that "the effectiveness of practice depends on the task...In simple tasks, practice brings people closer together, but in complex ones, it often pulls them apart."
Ackerman's studies on grocery clerks found that (no surprise), more experienced ones are much faster than new ones. However, after 10 years of experience, the best are three times faster than the slowest, i.e. grocery clerking is a complex activity.
Ericsson similarly found that dart players' difference in performance after 15 years of practice was only 28% due to practice itself; the remaining 72% came from "something else".
Epstein compares genes and environment - nature and nurture - to software and hardware. Both are required, and at the right time.
The most cited study on genetics and training is "Familial Aggregation of VO2 Max Response to Exercise Training: Results from the Heritage Family Study", in which 481 participants from 98 two-generation families underwent stationary bicycle-training, 3X/wk, to increase their fitness. Fitness was determined by VO2 max - the amount of oxygen a body can utilize. DNA was taken from all participants.
The surprising results were that VO2 max improvement ranged from "nothing/0%" to "doubling/100%". Fifteen % saw no improvement; 15% increased by 50% or more. There was no correlation with initial fitness.
The improvement was 6X to 9X larger between different pairs of brothers than it was between brothers, i.e. genes ruled. Half of the ability to improve aerobic capacity was determined exclusively by genes.
There were 21 gene variants identified that related to aerobic improvement. Folk w/at least 19 of these improved their VO2 max 3X more than subjects w/fewer than 10 gene variants.
So, the takeaways are:
a) All practice isn't the same; dedicated practice focused on skill elements that are difficult for you is much more effective.
b) There is great variability in how long it takes to achieve "mastery" in sports, games, arts, and presumably meditation. This variation is larger in more complex tasks (meditation?).
c) There is a significant genetic component in determining how long it takes and whether or not you will achieve mastery in any skill, and after achieving mastery, whether you will continue to improve.
G. Well, as the blogpost pointed out, the popular book by Malcolm Gladwell, "Outliers: The Story of Success", was based upon the research of K. Anders Ericsson, @ Florida State University, who is a widely recognized world expert on "expertise".
 |
| K. Anders Ericsson Florida State University |
Ericsson also described at length in "The Making of an Expert" (2007) how "all practice isn't equal" and how to do "deliberate practice" which yields the best results as it is strategically focused.
He pointed out that most folk waste much of their time continuing to do the elements of the skill they already do well. The real gains come from focusing practice on what you don't do well - that which is outside your "comfort zone".
However, we all know folk, whether in sports, music, painting, or meditation/awakening, who don't fit that model, who seem to have a huge advantage, are "different" and seemingly perfect for that skill.
 |
| David Epstein |
Last year, "The Sports Gene", by David Epstein, discussed the relative roles of genes and environment - nature and nurture - in building a "master" athlete. A fundamental conclusion - genes matter.
Epstein cites Stefan Holm who started high jumping at age 6, and trained more than 20,000 hrs before winning the 2004 Olympic gold medal - a clear demonstration of the Ericcson/Gladwell model that 10,000 hours is needed for "mastery" of high jumping, chess, rock climbing, etc.
 |
| Stefan Holm |
However, Epstein then cites Donald Thomas who in the 2007 World Championships beat Stephan Holm. Thomas had only started high jumping eight months before. (However, Thomas could slam-dunk a basketball.) Thomas also beat Yaroslav Rybakov who had competed for 18 years w/o a single world championship.
Thomas, however, hasn't improved even one centimeter in the ensuing six years of high-jumping even w/thousands of hours of practice. (Haven't you seen examples of these three in meditators?)
Gladwell also cited the Beatles, who spent more than 10,000 hrs playing in nightclubs in Liverpool and Hamburg. (However, many of us know other bands who spent 10,000 hrs "practicing" and who are (understandably) still playing in Poughkeepsie.)
 |
| Fernand Gobet Brunel University |
Gobet, et al., found that an average of 11,053 hrs were required to achieve masters status. In chess, there is a mathematical system for different titles based on accumulated Elo points, so it is a more precise measure of "mastery". Ericsson's original work on violinists' mastery used only 10 subjects and had no such clear definition for "mastery" (like "enlightenment").
 |
| Anand vs Carlsen (Carlsen Won 6.5 to 3.5) |
Gobet points out that chess players learn in "chunks"; it takes about 300,000 chunks to become a grandmaster. If one learns chunks in 7 seconds and another takes 10 seconds, it makes a big difference in practice time. With practice after reaching mastery, some players advanced, while others did not.
 |
| Phillip Ackerman Georgia Tech |
Phillip Ackerman, a psychologist @ Georgia Tech found that "the effectiveness of practice depends on the task...In simple tasks, practice brings people closer together, but in complex ones, it often pulls them apart."
Ackerman's studies on grocery clerks found that (no surprise), more experienced ones are much faster than new ones. However, after 10 years of experience, the best are three times faster than the slowest, i.e. grocery clerking is a complex activity.
Ericsson similarly found that dart players' difference in performance after 15 years of practice was only 28% due to practice itself; the remaining 72% came from "something else".
Epstein compares genes and environment - nature and nurture - to software and hardware. Both are required, and at the right time.
The most cited study on genetics and training is "Familial Aggregation of VO2 Max Response to Exercise Training: Results from the Heritage Family Study", in which 481 participants from 98 two-generation families underwent stationary bicycle-training, 3X/wk, to increase their fitness. Fitness was determined by VO2 max - the amount of oxygen a body can utilize. DNA was taken from all participants.
The surprising results were that VO2 max improvement ranged from "nothing/0%" to "doubling/100%". Fifteen % saw no improvement; 15% increased by 50% or more. There was no correlation with initial fitness.
The improvement was 6X to 9X larger between different pairs of brothers than it was between brothers, i.e. genes ruled. Half of the ability to improve aerobic capacity was determined exclusively by genes.
There were 21 gene variants identified that related to aerobic improvement. Folk w/at least 19 of these improved their VO2 max 3X more than subjects w/fewer than 10 gene variants.
So, the takeaways are:
a) All practice isn't the same; dedicated practice focused on skill elements that are difficult for you is much more effective.
b) There is great variability in how long it takes to achieve "mastery" in sports, games, arts, and presumably meditation. This variation is larger in more complex tasks (meditation?).
c) There is a significant genetic component in determining how long it takes and whether or not you will achieve mastery in any skill, and after achieving mastery, whether you will continue to improve.
Does this mean some people will just die "unenlightened" because their genetics are limiting them?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous.
DeleteYes, that means that some people will die "unenlightened" because their genetics are limiting them. They may also be similarly limited by where and when they were born, who their parents were, who their friends were, and what experiences they had in their life. Also, whether or not they are interested in "spiritual work".
All of this is out of our control, as you may have read in many of "my" other posts, youTube videos, books, articles or interviews. The recent post "The impossibility of "free will"...scientifically and logically" or the video "Predestination, control, free will, and the illusion of time" are just two examples.
It is, however, just a Dance controlled as Albert Einstein said "...by an invisible piper", and "enlightenment" is an illusion that is just part of this.
stillness
gary
Hey Gary,
ReplyDeleteIs there any way of determining one's genetic situation in regards to achieving enlightenment/mastery? It would seem to be quite a deterrent if one were deemed genetically limited, and thus incapable of arriving at the goal.
Hi Nicholas,
DeleteWe don't have that yet, although it is conceivable, given the dramatic advances in speed and decreased cost of determining folks' genetics, that we will have some markers that might indicate whether someone will have a neural structure inclined for likely greater success @ achieving mastery of, and detachment from, their minds.
If we had such an ability it would need to forecast a) neural structures for focusing and controlling their minds, b) the thalamo-cortical neural structure to facilitate creating mystical experiences described in the blogpost "How the brain creates mystical states...how we activate them...", and c) be able to forecast perseverance, just for starters. These are complex attributes so it unlikely we will ever have something as clear as the brca1 and 2 genes as markers for breast cancer.
As pointed out by Ackerman in the post, for complex activities, and i would include "awakening/enlightenment" in that, genetics matters, but how their brains respond to practice matters and how they practice matter more, and there are environmental, cultural, when/where some lived and was born, education, family, etc. that make huge differences as well.
The great variation in chess players' practice time required to achieve mastery and whether they progress from there indicates the great difficulty to forecast it from genetics. It would be interesting if someone did such a genetic study on chess masters, which is much better metricated and standardized that "awakening/enlightenment" will likely ever be, but all of the other factors discussed above will likely matter more there as well.
stillness
We blame the difference on genetics, when we actually have NO CLUE (no proof, not even ideas of gene networks that could play the roles for these ideas causally).
ReplyDeleteI'd wager, based on studies into nocebo/placebo, belief changes and self-hypnosis, that internalized, below-the-conscious-level, emotion riddled beliefs are actually bigger limitations to practice, deliberate practise, sticking-to-practise, practising at the most fruitful (yet often scary/painful) 'growth zone', advancement, changes and eventually - self-realization.
If you have extremely strong limiting self-beliefs, that you are not even aware of, and have several of them -- then even ordinary therapy psychology / psychiatry shows it takes longer to neutralize and untangle them.
And if those limitations limit your self-inquiry, it's a double whammy: you have more to work on and the limitations themselves slow down your working.
These limitations and/or beliefs are not necessarily based on genetics (or even epigenetics), but could be results of repeat/strong trauma and classic conditioning. Plenty of examples in psychology literature about this.
Now, what's the route around this, if any? Why can't everybody just think/feel themselves around these issues?
I cannot know for sure, but based on multi-modality therapy research and clinical practise literature, I can wager a guess:
- Use coaches/therapist along with brain/mindfulness tech to identify areas of strong emotional resistance / limitations (know where you break in your training/practise, so that the practise doesnt actually help you)
- Reduce the amount of neural resistance and fear (perhaps using psychopharmacology, hypnosis or other techniques) so you can actually get to work on the underlying trauma associated with the belief patterns that limit you.
- Once the trauma-emotion trigger is reduced, you can move more towards self-inquiry type cognitive / feeling work, when your whole body/brain doesn't just freeze up, when you try to ask the questions. I.e. debug the major bugs from your debugger first, then you can actually start debugging your main OS code. With a faulty crashing debugger, you're just wasting your time.
There are plenty of tools available: neurofeedback w/ brain interfaces for keeping focus on self-inquiry and being present, anxiety reducing psychedelics, biofeedback for autonomous system fear detection, coaches/trauma-therapists (EMDR/EFT/many others) to help in calming down intense emotions that scramble the progress in inquiry.
If the cortex was all-powerful, we wouldn't have the limbic system, somatic distributed memory, neurocardiological non-efferent neurons, etc. Cognition, patterning, beliefs and "OS structures" are distributed in the body and work differently in different parts. That's why it also makes sense to use a multitude of techniques to deepen one's practise and experience with each block one has.
Just trying to ram it with pure self-inquiry is probably not always the most efficient or the most enjoyable route. That's my guess anyway, and I'm by no means disparaging self-inquiry. You just need to have a fairly ok balanced nervous system and neural biology to really get benefit from it rapidly.
Or have you seen a lot of chronic recurring-acute psychosis patients become self-realized through self-inquiry? You need to be able to at least semi-function first, so that practise can bear fruit. If you function optimally, it is likely that the results come faster.
Hi Anti Nymous,
DeleteThe only validation of the 10,000 hrs for which we have some good genetic data, that i have found, is in this post for genetic effects on training, which seems pretty robust. In practice, whether it is for sports training, chess or meditation, it doesn't require knowing the specific genes to posit genetic inheritance as a factor.
As far as your exhaustive check list of modalities and specialists required before one begins self-inquiry, that sounds like a psychologist/therapist speaking, not a nondual meditation practitioner. In fact, many of the folk that find their way to me have been in professional psychological counseling, some for decades, and w/little or no progress, and in some cases, some great distortions induced as they were pathologized by their psychologists. The blogposts "Are our mystical experiences psychotic?...key indicators" and "Is nondual awakening a mental disorder? Is it schizophrenia?" discuss this in some detail.
The problem with your hopelessly lengthy, very expensive and overly complex program is that it just deflects, and delays, the focus away from what is really a very simple and straight-forward process that almost immediately results in significant improvements. your languaging of "ram it with pure self inquiry" shows that you really have no understanding of, nor experience with, the process. As you say "that's your guess", which is exactly what it is.
i will agree that for someone to reach persistent, natural, thought-free nonduality for most of their waking day, which is fairly low probability, and is not what most folk pursue, requires something else - but it's not more psychological counseling. What it does require is a drive, beyond all reason, to be free of your suffering. This can come from a traumatic early history, but it can also arise from a recognition that "everyday life", even after indulging in every distraction imaginable, just isn't working. The suffering is still there.
Only with this "hair on fire", or as Ramana Maharshi said, "like being held underwater", will you have the desire to overcome all of the many fears that will present themselves in the latter parts of the path for those few who progress that far.
Some of these folk might fall into your "chronic recurring-acute psychosis patients", which is how the psychologists would pathologize them. If folk are in your "if you function optimally", not only will they NOT have "results come faster", but, IME, they will just remain in their "normal" consensus-level of suffering that most of the world struggles with and sees no possibility of escape from.
stillness
Maybe what mr. Anti means is just that there is alot of un-doing(past habits) before the doing. However, the breath is the bridge and the manifestation of the desire to cross it is ones ability to coeme ro terms w their selfishness. James Allen said it best, as a man thinketh in is heart, so is he.
ReplyDeleteHi Unknown,
Deletei'll stick with my original reply to Mr. Anti. i do work with many folk who have had deep psychological trauma from childhood sexual or physical abuse, and virtually all of them had worked with psychologists, totally unsuccessfully, for some time.
The psychologists' "Bible", the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, Version 5, has been issued as described in the blogpost "Are our mystical experiences psychotic?...key indicators" @ http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2015/09/are-our-mystical-experiences.html. DSM is a document the psychologists create for themselves, so they can agree on what to charge insurance plans for and version 5 has dramatically expanded the categories included as well as the symptoms they can charge.
A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Psychiatry of the DSM 5 for ADHD, for example, has been strongly criticized by a commentary from researchers at the National Institutes of Health @ http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2616165.
Conditions that used to require "serious impairment" before being diagnosed and treated, now only require "interfere" or "lower quality" in day-to-day functioning. Not surprisingly, the incidence of ADHD diagnoses has now DOUBLED.
Given this extensive increase in labeling and psychopathologizing of many typical behaviors in DSM 5, it is difficult to accept Mr. Anti's recommendations as anything more than approaches to generate higher billings, with little true interest in fundamentally addressing the core issues.
i work with folk who have been harmed by these extensions of DSM 5 by being placed in these new "boxes" that it has created. Some higher authority than the psychologists themselves needs to get seriously involved in this "run away" process.
stillness
gary
What about epigenetics? It was once thought that gene expression was fixed and the rest is up to environmental factors. I'm no expert, but if I understand correctly epigenetics state that environmental factors can trigger changes in gene expression. You may be stuck with whatever genetic blueprint you're born with but the gene expressions can change. Something like "you're stuck with the deck of cards you're dealt with but there's leeway on which ones will be on your hand"
ReplyDeleteHi Biriyo Neru. The term "epigenetic" has been widely misrepresented in popular media. Scientifically, what it means is a trait that you are born with that can be passed on to the next generation in how a certain gene is "expressed". It is not a change in the genes themselves, just how they function.
DeleteAn often cited example, and one i was exposed to when consulting for a UK-based food-ingredients company, was how the genes change their expression based upon what the mother was eating while the baby was a fetus. If a baby is going to survive when it is born, it had better come out ready to eat what the mother is eating or it will soon starve.
For example, if all the mother can find to eat is Big Macs, and the baby comes out wanting to eat tofu, it is not likely to survive. Consequently, while the baby is "in utero", the expression of those genes is changed to match, epigentically, what the mother is eating.
There are many popular, and incorrect usages, of the term which implies you can change your genes by mind control, which is not possible. As the Wikipedia article on "Epigenetics" stresses:
"Due to the early stages of epigenetics as a science and the sensationalism surrounding it in the public media, David Gorski and geneticist Adam Rutherford advised caution against proliferation of false and pseudoscientific conclusions by new age authors who make unfounded suggestions that a person's genes and health can be manipulated by mind control."
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary