The 4 things it takes to be an expert

Summary

Dieses Video-Skript enthüllt die Geheimnisse hinter Expertise und zeigt, wie Wissen, Erkenntnis und gezielte Übung zu herausragenden Fähigkeiten führen. Es erläutert, dass Chessmeister nicht an allgemeineren Merkfähigkeiten überlegen sind, sondern durch das Erkennen von Muster in Schachpositionen ihre Intuition stärken. Der Fokus liegt auf der Bedeutung bewusster Wiederholung, zeitnaher Rückmeldung und sorgfältiger, herausfordernder Übung, um Experten in ihren jeweiligen Bereichen zu formen. Das Skrippt nutzt Beispiele von Magnus Carlsen, einem fünffachen Schachweltmeister, und Grant Gussman, der 23.000 Ziffern des Kreiszahlpi memorisiert hat, um die Prinzipien der Expertise zu veranschaulichen.

Takeaways

• 🧠 Die Expertise beruht auf der Erkennung komplexer Muster durch das Langzeitgedächtnis, das durch strukturierte Informationen aufgebaut wird.
• 🎯 Um Experten zu werden, müssen viele Wiederholungen, zeitnahe Rückmeldungen und tausende Stunden sorgfältiger, zielgerichteter Übung stattfinden.
• 🔢 Die Zahl der Pi-Ziffern, die Grant Gussman memorisiert hat, beträgt 23.000, was die Vorbereitung für die Herausforderung des nordamerikanischen Rekords widerspiegelt.
• 🤔 Die Untersuchung von Schachmeistern zeigte, dass sie im Allgemeinen nicht in Intelligenz, räumlicher Vorstellungskraft oder Kurzzeitgedächtnis überlegen sind, sondern in ihrem spezifischen Fachwissen.
• 🤹‍♂️ Experten haben eine Fähigkeit namens 'Chunking', bei der sie komplexe Situationen wie Schachpositionen als ein einzelnes Muster erkennen.
• 🃏 Schachmeister erinnern sich an Positionen, indem sie an erkannte Muster erinnern, ähnlich wie wir Gesichter erkennen und darauf aufbauend vorhersagen, was als Nächstes passieren wird.
• 🎓 Die Entwicklung des Langzeitgedächtnisses eines Experten kann 10.000 Stunden dauern, aber reine Übung ist nicht ausreichend; es müssen vier zusätzliche Kriterien erfüllt sein.
• 🔮 Es ist schwierig, Experten in Bereichen zu finden, in denen sie keine wiederholte Erfahrung mit dem gleichen Problem haben, wie bei Politik- und Wirtschaftsprognosen.
• 🎰 Die Umweltbedingungen müssen valid sein, um Regelmäßigkeiten zu erkennen und zu lernen, wie beim Roulettespiel, wo es keine zu erlernenden Regelmäßigkeiten gibt.
• 🏆 Warren Buffet gewann einen Wettbewerb, indem er einen Indexfonds auswählte, der die Leistung von Hedge-Fonds überträffter, da Aktienmärkte in der kurzen bis mittleren Frist zufällig sind.
• 🚀 Um kontinuierlich zu lernen und wachsen zu können, muss man in die unbequeme Zone treten und sich wiederholt mit Herausforderungen konfrontieren, die man noch nicht meistern kann.

Q & A

Wie viele Ziffern von Pi hat Grant Gussman sich gemerkt?

Grant Gussman hat sich 23.000 Ziffern von Pi gemerkt.

Was ist das Ziel von Grant Gussman hinter dem Merken von 23.000 Ziffern von Pi?

Sein Ziel ist es, den nordamerikanischen Rekord zu herausfordern.

Wer ist Magnus Carlsen und was kann er in Bezug auf Schachbrettpositionen tun?

Magnus Carlsen ist fünffacher Schachweltmeister. Er kann Schachbrettpositionen identifizieren, in denen sie auftraten, und weiß, wer an der Schwarzen Seite gespielt hat.

Was haben frühere Wissenschaftler herausgefunden, was Schachmeistern wie Magnus Carlsen auszeichnet?

Sie haben herausgefunden, dass Schachmeister als Gruppe in keiner der Maße wie IQ, räumliches Denken oder Kurzzeitgedächtnis außergewöhnlich sind, sondern dass sie in der Erinnerung von Schachpositionen, die in einem echten Spiel auftreten könnten, deutlich überlegen sind.

Was ist das Konzept des 'Chunking'?

Chunking ist das Konzept, bei dem das Gehirn komplexe Stimuli als eine Sache erkennt, indem es sie in kleinere, erkennbare Konfigurationen unterteilt, die im Langzeitgedächtnis gespeichert sind.

Was ist die Bedeutung von 'Deliberate Practice'?

Deliberate Practice bezieht sich auf das bewusste und methodische Üben jenseits des Komfortzones, bei dem man sich wiederholt auf Fähigkeiten konzentriert, die man noch nicht beherrscht.

Was sind die vier zusätzlichen Kriterien, die erfüllt sein müssen, um ein Experte zu werden?

Die vier Kriterien sind: viele wiederholte Versuche mit Feedback, eine gültige Umgebung, die regelmäßige Vorkommensmustern enthält, die Möglichkeit, sich in der Unbekannten zu üben und Deliberate Practice.

Warum sind viele Experten in ihren jeweiligen Bereichen nicht in der Lage, die Ergebnisse zu verbessern?

Viele Experten sind nicht in der Lage, ihre Leistung zu verbessern, weil sie sich in ihrer Praxis oft nicht in der Unbekannten bewegen und nicht genug Deliberate Practice betreiben.

Was ist der Unterschied zwischen der Leistung von Anästhesisten und Radiologen hinsichtlich des Feedbacks?

Anästhesisten erhalten unmittelbares Feedback über die Wirksamkeit ihrer Maßnahmen, während Radiologen oft verzögertes oder kein Feedback zu ihren Diagnosen erhalten, was ihre Fähigkeit, Muster zu erkennen und zu verbessern, einschränkt.

Was zeigt die Studie von Richard Melton über die Vorhersage der Noten von Erstsemestern?

Die Studie zeigt, dass ein von Melton entwickeltes Algorithmus, der nur eine kleine Auswahl an Informationen verwendet, genauer war als die Vorhersagen von 11 von 14 Beratungsbeamten, die auf umfangreichere Informationen zugreifen konnten.

Wie kann man das Konzept des Deliberate Practice in der Praxis anwenden?

Man kann Deliberate Practice anwenden, indem man aktiv in der Unbekannten übt, sich ständig neue Herausforderungen stellt und sich in schwierigen Situationen bewegt, um die Fähigkeiten weiter zu verbessern.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Gedankensysteme und Expertenwissen

Dieser Absatz behandelt die Untersuchung von Denksystemen durch Grant Gussman, der 23.000 Ziffern des Pi memorisiert hat, um die Funktionsweise des Unterbewusstseins (System 1) und des bewussten, langsamen Denkprozesses (System 2) zu erforschen. Es wird auch über Experten wie Schachweltmeister Magnus Carlsen gesprochen, der in der Lage ist, Schachpositionen zu erkennen und aus seiner langjährigen Erfahrung heraus die beste Zugauswahl zu treffen. Die Wissenschaft hat herausgefunden, dass Schachmeister in Allgemeinmerkmalen wie IQ oder räumlicher Vorstellungskraft nicht außergewöhnlich sind, sondern durch ihre Fähigkeit, Muster in Schachpositionen zu erkennen, ihre Expertise zelebrieren. Dies wird durch das Konzept des 'Chunking' erläutert, bei dem komplexe Informationen als eine Einheit erkannt werden, ähnlich wie Magnus Carlsen Schachpositionen erkennt, anstatt einzelne Figuren zu betrachten.

05:01

🎯 Wiederholte Erfahrungen und Feedback in der Expertenentwicklung

Dieser Absatz konzentriert sich auf die Bedeutung von wiederholten Versuchen und Feedback für das Erreichen von Expertise. Er verwendet Beispiele aus Tennis, Schach und Physik, um zu zeigen, wie Feedback nach jeder Aktivität - ob ein Tennisschuss erfolgreich war, ob ein Schachzug gewonnen oder verloren wurde oder ob eine physikalische Aufgabe richtig oder falsch gelöst wurde - zur Verbesserung der Fähigkeiten beiträgt. Der Absatz stellt jedoch auch die Unterschiede zwischen Professionen her, die wiederholte Erfahrungen mit denselben Problemen haben und denen, die dies nicht tun, wie z.B. politische Analysten, die sich oft schwer tun, Ereignisse korrekt vorherzusagen, da sie oft mit einzigartigen, nicht wiederholten Ereignissen konfrontiert werden.

10:03

🎲 Die Bedeutung einer gültigen Umgebung für Expertise

In diesem Absatz wird erläutert, dass eine gültige Umgebung, die Regelmäßigkeiten enthält, die das Lernen von Mustern ermöglichen, entscheidend ist, um Expertise zu erlangen. Beispiele wie der Rouletterad-Spieler, der trotz tausender Erfahrungen in einem zufälligen Umfeld keine Expertise erlangen kann, und der Schachspieler, der durch wiederholtes Spielen und Lernen von Mustern in einer hochgültigen Umgebung Expertise aufbaut, werden diskutiert. Der Absatz betont auch, wie Warren Buffets Wettbewerb mit Hedge-Fonds zeigt, dass selbst hochqualifizierte Finanzprofis oft nicht in der Lage sind, die Märkte zu schlagen, da Aktienkurse in kurzen Zeiträumen zufällig sind und somit keine zuverlässigen Feedbacks bieten, um Entscheidungsqualität zu reflektieren.

15:04

🚀 Deliberate Practice und der Weg zur Expertise

Der vierte Absatz unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit des Deliberate Practice, um Expertise in einem Feld zu erreichen. Er erklärt, dass die bloße 10.000-Stunden-Regel nicht ausreicht und dass zusätzliche Kriterien erfüllt sein müssen, um Experten zu werden. Dazu gehören eine gültige Umgebung, viele Wiederholungen, zeitnahe Rückmeldung und tausende von Stunden des Deliberate Practice. Der Absatz nutzt Beispiele wie die Unterschiede in der Diagnosefähigkeit von Ärzten, die auf das Konzept des Deliberate Practice zurückzuführen sind, und wie Schachspieler durch intensives, einsames Training und das Lösen von Kompositionen ihre Fähigkeiten verbessern. Es wird betont, dass wahrhaftige Expertise nicht magisch ist, sondern aus einer unglaublichen Menge an hochstrukturierter Information im Langzeitgedächtnis resultiert, die durch die genannten vier Dinge aufgebaut werden muss.

Keywords

💡Expertise

Expertise bezieht sich auf die Fähigkeit, eine hohe Kompetenz in einer bestimmten Domäne durch intensives Lernen und Üben zu erreichen. Im Video wird gezeigt, dass Experten wie Schachmeister nicht durch allgemein bessere kognitive Fähigkeiten, sondern durch das Erkennen von Mustern und das 'Chunking' von Informationen, die sie im Laufe der Zeit gelernt haben, ihre Fähigkeiten entwickelt haben. Beispielsweise erkennt Magnus Carlsen Schachpositionen und weiß intuitiv die beste Zug aus.

💡Deliberate Practice

Deliberate Practice ist ein Konzept, das besagt, dass man sich in der Unannehmlichkeitszone bewegen und sich ständig herausfordern muss, um zu einem Experten zu werden. Im Video wird betont, dass einfaches Üben ohne Herausforderung des Komfortbereichs nicht zu Verbesserung führt, sondern dass man sich ständig neue Herausforderungen stellen und sich verbessern muss, um ein Experte zu werden.

💡Chunking

Chunking ist das Konzept, bei dem Informationen in kleinere Einheiten oder 'Chunks' gruppiert werden, die leichter zu verstehen und zu speichern sind. Im Video wird dies anhand der Erinnerung von Pi-Ziffern veranschaulicht, indem die Ziffern in有意义的序群 zusammengefasst werden, anstatt als eine Reihe von zufälligen Zahlen betrachtet zu werden.

💡Long-term Memory

Die Langzeitspeicherung ist das Gedächtnissystem, das Informationen über längere Zeiträume aufbewahrt. Im Video wird erklärt, dass Experten wie Schachmeister durch das Speichern von Mustern und Musterschachpositionen in ihrer Langzeitspeicherung in der Lage sind, komplexe Situationen schnell zu erkennen und zu beurteilen.

💡Feedback

Feedback ist eine Rückmeldung auf eine bestimmte Leistung, die dazu beiträgt, die Leistung zu verbessern. Im Video wird betont, dass klare, zeitnahe Rückmeldung für das Erlernen von Mustern und das Steigern der Fähigkeit in einer Domäne unerlässlich ist, wie es bei Tennisspielern der Fall ist, die durch die Reaktion des Balls Feedback auf ihre Schläge erhalten.

💡Recognition

Erkennen bedeutet, Muster oder Objekte schnell und automatisch zu identifizieren. Im Video wird erklärt, dass Erkennen der Grundbaustein von Expertise ist, da es Experten ermöglicht, komplexe Situationen wie Schachpositionen zu erkennen und daraufhin zu handeln.

💡Intuition

Intuition ist die Fähigkeit, Entscheidungen oder Erkenntnisse ohne bewusste Analyse oder Logik zu treffen. Im Video wird angegeben, dass Erkenntnisse zu Intuition führen können, indem sie Experten wie Schachmeistern helfen, die beste Entscheidung in einer komplexen Situation zu treffen.

💡10,000-Stunden-Regel

Die 10,000-Stunden-Regel ist eine These, die besagt, dass es in der Regel 10.000 Stunden an bewusstem Üben dauert, um ein Experte in einer bestimmten Disziplin zu werden. Im Video wird diese Regel als Faktor diskutiert, der zusammen mit anderen Kriterien wie wiederholter Erfahrung, Feedback und bewusstem Üben zu Expertise führt.

💡Gültigkeit der Umgebung

Gültigkeit der Umgebung bezieht sich auf die Vorhersagbarkeit und Regelmäßigkeit einer Umgebung, die es ermöglicht, Muster zu erkennen und zu lernen. Im Video wird gezeigt, dass Investitionen in Aktien oft in einer Umgebung mit niedriger Gültigkeit stattfinden, was bedeutet, dass es schwierig ist, dauerhaft erfolgreich zu sein, da es keine zuverlässigen Muster gibt.

💡Valide Umgebung

Eine valide Umgebung ist eine, die Regelmäßigkeiten aufweist, die es erlauben, durch wiederholtes Erlebnis und Feedback Muster zu erkennen und zu lernen. Im Gegensatz dazu, wie im Video erwähnt, ist das Radspiel ein Beispiel für eine Umgebung mit niedriger Validität, da es keine zuverlässigen Muster gibt, die gelernt werden könnten.

💡Bewusstes vs. Unterbewusstes Denken

Im Video werden zwei Systeme des Denkens beschrieben: System 1 ist das schnelle, automatische und unterbewusste Denken, während System 2 das langsame, bemühte und bewusste Denken ist. Diese Konzepte sind entscheidend für das Verständnis, wie Experten schnelle Entscheidungen treffen können, basierend auf ihrem langjährigen Erlernen und Speichern von Mustern in ihrer Langzeitspeicherung.

Highlights

Grant Gussman memorized 23,000 digits of pi to explore thought systems.

Experts like Magnus Carlsen demonstrate recognition abilities beyond amateurs.

Chess masters have superior memory for real game positions, not random ones.

Experts' brains learn patterns through 'chunking', simplifying complex stimuli.

Expertise is about recognition leading to intuition, as seen in chess masters.

10,000 hours of practice is not enough to become an expert; four criteria must be met.

Experts need repeated attempts with feedback for improvement.

Some professionals lack repeated experience with the same problems, affecting their predictions.

A valid environment with regularities is required for expertise development.

Investor Warren Buffet's bet illustrates the unpredictability of stock picking.

Expert performance is not demonstrated by most active investment managers.

Humans struggle with accepting average results and see patterns in randomness.

Immediate feedback is crucial for learning and improving in a profession.

Deliberate practice, pushing beyond comfort zones, is essential for expertise.

Coaches and teachers play a vital role in facilitating deliberate practice.

Expertise comes from structured information in long-term memory, requiring a valid environment, repetitions, feedback, and practice.

Brilliant.org offers courses that facilitate deliberate practice and lifelong learning.

Transcripts

- Do you bring this trick out at parties?

- Oh no. It's a terrible party trick.

Here we go.

3.141592653589793

- This is Grant Gussman.

He watched an old video of mine

about how we think

that there are two systems of thought.

System two is the conscious slow effortful system.

And system one is subconscious.

Fast and automatic.

To explore how these systems work in his own head,

Grant decided to memorize a hundred digits of pi.

- Three eight four four six...

- Then he just kept going.

He has now memorized 23,000 digits of pi

in preparation to challenge the north American record

- .95493038196.

That's 200.

(Derek laughs)

- That's amazing.

I have wanted to make a video about experts for a long time.

This is Magnus Carlsen,

the five time world chess champion.

He's being shown chessboards

and asked to identify the game in which they occurred.

- This looks an awful lot like Tal V Botvinnik.

(playful music)

- Whoops.

- Okay. This is the 24th game from Sevilla obviously.

(chuckling)

- Now I'm going to play through an opening.

And stop me when you recognize the game.

And if you can tell me who was playing black in this one.

Okay.

(playful music)

I'm sure you've seen this opening before.

- Okay. It's gonna be Anand.

(laughs)

- Against?

- Zapata.

- How can he do this?

It seems like superhuman ability.

Well decades ago,

scientists wanted to know

what makes experts like chess masters special.

Do they have incredibly high IQ's,

much better spatial reasoning than average,

bigger short term memory spans?

Well, it turns out that as a group,

chess masters are not exceptional on any of these measures.

But one experiment showed

how their performance was vastly superior to amateurs.

In 1973, William Chase and Herbert Simon

recruited three chess players,

a master, an A player,

who's an advanced amateur, and a beginner.

A chess board was set up with around 25 pieces

positioned as they might be during a game.

And each player was allowed

to look at the board for five seconds.

Then they were asked

to replicate the setup from memory

on a second board in front of them.

The players could take as many

five second peeks as they needed

to get their board to match.

From just the first look,

the master could recall the positions of 16 pieces.

The A player could recall eight,

and the beginner only four.

The master only needed half the number of peeks

as the A player to get their board perfect.

But then the researchers arranged the board

with pieces in random positions

that would never arise in a real game.

And now, the chess master performed

no better than the beginner.

After the first look,

all players, regardless of rank

could remember the location of only three pieces.

The data are clear.

Chess experts don't have better memory in general,

but they have better memory specifically

for chess positions that could occur in a real game.

The implication is what makes the chess master special,

is that they have seen lots and lots of chess games.

And over that time,

their brains have learned patterns.

So rather than seeing

individual pieces at individual positions,

they see a smaller number of recognizable configurations.

This is called 'chunking'.

What we have stored in long-term memory

allows us to recognize complex stimuli as just one thing.

For example, you recognize this as pi

rather than a string of six unrelated numbers

or meaningless squiggles for that matter.

- There's a wonderful sequence I like a lot

which is three zero one seven three.

Which to me, means Stephen Curry number 30, won 73 games,

which is the record back in 2016.

So three oh one seven three.

- At its core, expertise is about recognition.

Magnus Carlsen recognizes chess positions

the same way we recognize faces.

And recognition leads directly to intuition.

If you see an angry face,

you have a pretty good idea

of what's gonna come next.

Chess masters recognize board positions

and instinctively know the best move.

- Most of the time, I know what to do.

I don't have to figure it out.

- To develop the long term memory of an expert

takes a long time.

10,000 hours is the rule of thumb

popularized by Malcolm Gladwell,

but 10,000 hours of practice by itself is not sufficient.

There are four additional criteria that must be met.

And in areas where these criteria aren't met,

it's impossible to become an expert.

So the first one is many repeated attempts with feedback.

Tennis players hit hundreds of fore hands in practice.

Chess players play thousands of games

before they're grand masters

and physicists solve thousands of physics problems.

Each one gets feedback.

The tennis player sees

whether each shot clears the net and is in or out.

The chess player either wins or loses the game.

And the physicist gets the problem right or wrong.

But some professionals don't get repeated experience

with the same sorts of problems.

Political scientist, Philip Tetlock picked 284 people

who make their living commenting or offering advice

on political and economic trends.

This included journalists,

foreign policy specialists,

economists, and intelligence analysts.

Over two decades,

he peppered them with questions like

Would George Bush be re-elected?

Would apartheid in South Africa end peacefully?

Would Quebec secede from Canada?

And would the .com bubble burst?

In each case, the pundits rated the probability

of several possible outcomes.

And by the end of the study,

Tetlock had quantified 82,361 predictions.

So, how did they do?

Pretty terribly.

These experts, most of whom had post graduate degrees,

performed worse than if they had just

assigned equal probabilities to all the outcomes.

In other words,

people who spend their time

and earned their living studying a particular topic,

produce poorer predictions than random chance.

Even in the areas they knew best,

experts were not significantly better than non-specialists.

The problem is,

most of the events they have to predict are one-offs.

They haven't had the experience

of going through these events

or very similar ones many times before.

Even presidential elections only happen infrequently,

and each one in a slightly different environment.

So we should be wary of experts

who don't have repeated experience with feedback.

(upbeat music)

The next requirement is a valid environment.

One that contains regularities

that make it at least somewhat predictable.

A gambler betting at the roulette wheel for example,

may have thousands of repeated experiences

with the same event.

And for each one,

they get clear feedback

in the form of whether they win or lose,

but you would rightfully not consider them an expert

because the environment is low validity.

A roulette wheel is essentially random,

so there are no regularities to be learned.

In 2006, legendary investor, Warren Buffet

offered to bet a million dollars

that he could pick an investment

that would outperform Wall Street's best hedge funds

over a 10 year period.

Hedge funds are pools of money

that are actively managed by some of the brightest

and most experienced traders on Wall Street.

They use advanced techniques like short selling,

leverage, and derivatives

in an attempt to provide outsized returns.

And consequently, they charge significant fees.

One person took Buffet up on the bet;

Ted Seides of Protege Partners.

For his investment, he selected five hedge funds.

Well actually, five funds of hedge funds.

So in total, a collection of over 200 individual funds.

Warren Buffet took a very different approach.

He picked the most basic,

boring investment imaginable;

a passive index fund that just tracks

the weighted value of the 500 biggest

public companies in America, the S&P 500.

They started the bet on January 1st, 2008,

and immediately things did not look good for Buffet.

It was the start of the global financial crisis,

and the market tanked.

But the hedge funds could change their holdings

and even profit from market falls.

So they lost some value,

but not as much as the market average.

The hedge funds stayed ahead

for the next three years,

but by 2011, the S&P 500 had pulled even.

And from then on, it wasn't even close.

The market average surged

leaving the hedge funds in the dust.

After 10 years, Buffet's index fund gained 125.8%

to the hedge funds' 36%.

Now the market performance

was not unusual over this time.

At eight and a half percent annual growth,

it nearly matches the stock market's long run average.

So why did so many investment professionals

with years of industry experience,

research at their fingertips,

and big financial incentives to perform,

fail to beat the market?

Well because stocks are a low validity environment.

Over the short term,

stock price movements are almost entirely random.

So the feedback, although clear and immediate

doesn't actually reflect anything

about the quality of the decision making.

It's closer to a roulette wheel than to Chess.

Over a 10 year period,

around 80% of all actively managed investment funds

fail to beat the market average.

And if you look at longer time periods,

under performance rises to 90%.

And before you say,

"Well that means 10% of managers have actual skill,

consider that just through random chance,

some people would beat the market anyway.

Portfolios picked by cats or throwing darts

have been shown to do just that.

And in addition to luck,

there are nefarious practices

from insider trading to pump and dump schemes.

Now I don't mean to say there are no expert investors.

Warren Buffet himself is a clear example.

But the vast majority of stock pickers

and active investment managers,

do not demonstrate expert performance

because of the low validity of their environment.

Brief side note,

if we know that stock picking

will usually yield worse results over the long term,

and that what active managers charge in fees

is rarely compensated for in improved performance,

then why is so much money

invested in individual stocks,

mutual funds, and hedge funds?

Well let me answer that with a story.

There was an experiment carried out with rats and humans,

where there's a red button and a green button

that can each light up.

80% of the time, the green button lights up.

And 20% of the time the red button lights up,

but randomly.

So you can never be sure which button will light.

And the task for the subject,

either rat or human,

is to guess beforehand which button will light up

by pressing it.

For the rat,

if they guess right, they get a bit of food.

And if they guess wrong, a mild electric shock.

The rat quickly learns to press only the green button

and accept the 80% win percentage.

Humans on the other hand,

usually press the green button.

But once in a while,

they try to predict when the red light will go on.

And as a result, they guess right only 68% of the time.

We have a hard time accepting average results.

And we see patterns everywhere, including in randomness.

So we try to beat the average by predicting the pattern.

But when there is no pattern, this is a terrible strategy.

Even when there are patterns,

you need timely feedback in order to learn them.

And YouTube knows this,

which is why within the first hour

after posting a video,

they tell you how its performance compares

to your last 10 videos.

There's even confetti fireworks

when the video is number one.

I know it seems like a silly thing,

but you have no idea how powerful a reward this is

and how much YouTuber effort

is spent chasing this supercharged dopamine hit.

To understand the difference between

immediate and delayed feedback,

psychologist Daniel Kahneman contrasts

the experiences of anesthesiologists and radiologists.

Anesthesiologists work alongside the patient

and get feedback straight away.

Is the patient unconscious with stable vital signs?

With this immediate feedback,

it's easier for them to learn

the regularities of their environment.

Radiologists, on the other hand,

don't get rapid feedback on their diagnoses

if they get it at all.

This makes it much harder for them to improve.

Radiologists typically correctly diagnose

breast cancer from x-rays just 70% of the time.

Delayed feedback also seems to be a problem

for college admissions officers and recruitment specialists.

After admitting someone to college,

or hiring someone at a big company,

you may never, or only much later find out how they did.

This makes it harder to recognize the patterns

in ideal candidates.

In one study,

Richard Melton tried to predict

the grades of freshmen

at the end of their first year of college.

A set of 14 counselors

interviewed each student

for 45 minutes to an hour.

They also had access to high school grades,

several aptitude tests,

and a four page personal statement.

For comparison, Melton created an algorithm

that used as input,

only a fraction of the information.

Just high school grades and one aptitude test.

Nevertheless, the formula was more accurate

than 11 of the 14 counselors.

Melton's study was reported alongside

over a dozen similar results

across a variety of other domains,

from predicting who would violate parole

to who'd succeed in pilot training.

If you've ever been denied admission

to an educational institution,

or turned down for a job,

it feels like an expert has considered your potential

and decided that you don't have what it takes to succeed.

I was rejected twice from film school

and twice from a drama program.

So it's comforting to know

that the gatekeepers at these institutions

aren't great predictors of future success.

So if you're in a valid environment,

and you get repeated experience with the same events,

with clear, timely feedback from each attempt,

will you definitely become an expert

in 10,000 hours or so?

The answer unfortunately is no.

Because most of us want to be comfortable.

For a lot of tasks in life,

we can become competent in a fairly short period of time.

Take driving a car for example,

initially it's pretty challenging.

It takes up all of system two.

Bu after 50 hours or so it becomes automatic.

System one takes over,

and you can do it without much conscious thought.

After that, more time spent driving

doesn't improve performance.

If you wanted to keep improving,

you would have to try driving in challenging situations

like new terrain, higher speeds, or in difficult weather.

Now I have played guitar for 25 years,

but I'm not an expert because I usually play the same songs.

It's easier and more fun.

But in order to learn,

you have to be practicing at the edge of your ability,

pushing beyond your comfort zone.

You have to use a lot of concentration

and methodically repeatedly attempt things

you aren't good at.

- You can practice everything exactly as it is

and exactly as it's written,

but at just such a speed that

you have to think about

and know exactly where you are

and what your fingers are doing

and what it feels like.

- This is known as deliberate practice.

And in many areas

professionals don't engage in deliberate practice,

so their performance doesn't improve.

In fact, sometimes it declines.

If you're experiencing chest pain

and you walk into a hospital,

would you rather the doctor is a recent graduate

or someone with 20 years experience?

Researchers have found

that diagnostic skills of medical students

increase with their time in medical school,

which makes sense.

The more cases you've seen with feedback,

the better you are at spotting patterns.

But this only works up to a point.

When it comes to rare diseases of the heart or lungs,

doctors with 20 years experience were actually worse

at diagnosing them than recent graduates.

And that's because they haven't thought about

those rare diseases in a long time.

So they're less able to recognize the symptoms.

Only after a refresher course,

could doctors accurately diagnose these diseases.

And you can see the same effect in chess.

The best predictor of skill level,

is not the number of games or tournaments played,

but the number of hours dedicated

to serious solitary study.

Players spend thousands of hours alone

learning chess theory,

studying their own games and those of others.

And they play through compositions,

which are puzzles designed

to help you recognize tactical patterns.

In chess, as in other areas,

it can be challenging to force yourself

to practice deliberately.

And this is why coaches and teachers are so valuable.

They can recognize your weaknesses

and assign tasks to address them.

To become an expert,

you have to practice for thousands of hours

in the uncomfortable zone,

attempting the things you can't do quite yet.

True expertise is amazing to watch.

To me, it looks like magic, but it isn't.

At its core, expertise is recognition.

And recognition comes from the incredible amount

of highly structured information

stored in long-term memory.

To build that memory, requires four things:

a valid environment, many repetitions, timely feedback,

and thousands of hours of deliberate practice.

When those criteria are met,

human performance is astonishing.

And when it's not,

you get people we think of as experts

who actually aren't.

(techno sound)

If you want to become a STEM expert,

you have to actively interact with problems.

And that's what you can do with Brilliant,

the sponsor of this video.

Check out this course on computer science,

where you can uncover the optimal strategy

for finding a key in a room.

And you quickly learn

how your own strategy can be replicated in a neural network.

Logic is another great course

that I find challenges me mentally.

You go from thinking you understand something

to actually getting it.

And if it feels difficult, that's a good thing.

It means you're getting pushed outside your comfort zone.

This is how Brilliant facilitates deliberate practice.

And if you ever get stuck,

a helpful hint is always close at hand.

So don't fall into the trap of just getting comfortable

in doing what you know how to do.

Build in the habit of being uncomfortable,

and regularly learning something new.

That is the way to lifelong learning and growth.

So I invite you to check out the courses

over at Brilliant.org/veritasium,

and I bet you will find something there

that you wanna learn.

Plus if you click through right now,

Brilliant are offering 20% off

an annual premium subscription

to the first 200 people to sign up.

So I wanna thank Brilliant for supporting Veritasium,

and I wanna thank you for watching.