The 4 things it takes to be an expert

Summary

This video explores the nature of expertise, contrasting it with the idea of 'superhuman' abilities. It delves into the cognitive processes behind expertise, highlighting the importance of pattern recognition and 'chunking' in memory. The script discusses the role of deliberate practice, feedback, and a valid environment in developing expertise. It also challenges the perception of certain professionals as experts, particularly in fields with low validity or infrequent feedback, such as stock picking and political predictions. The video emphasizes the need for pushing beyond comfort zones and engaging in deliberate practice to achieve true expertise.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The human brain operates with two systems of thought: System one is subconscious, fast, and automatic, while System two is conscious, slow, and effortful.
• 📐 Grant Gussman memorized 23,000 digits of pi to explore how these systems work in his head, demonstrating the capacity for extensive memory training.
• 🤔 Experts like Magnus Carlsen don't necessarily have higher IQs or better spatial reasoning; instead, they excel due to their ability to recognize patterns and 'chunk' information.
• 🤷‍♂️ Chess masters have superior memory for positions that could occur in a real game, not for random arrangements, highlighting the importance of context in expertise.
• 🔍 The concept of 'chunking' allows experts to recognize complex stimuli as single entities, which is crucial for expertise in any field.
• 🎓 Becoming an expert requires more than just 10,000 hours of practice; it also requires repeated attempts with feedback, a valid environment, and deliberate practice.
• 🚫 Some professionals, like political pundits, fail to demonstrate expertise because they lack repeated experience with the same types of problems and clear feedback.
• 🎰 The environment's validity is crucial for expertise; for example, gamblers at a roulette wheel may have repeated experiences but cannot become experts due to the random nature of the game.
• 📉 Even with experience, professionals in fields like stock market investing often fail to outperform the market average due to the low validity and unpredictability of short-term stock movements.
• 🤔 The human tendency to seek patterns, even in randomness, leads to poor decision-making strategies in environments with low validity.
• 🎓 To achieve expertise, one must engage in deliberate practice, pushing beyond comfort zones and continuously challenging oneself with new and difficult tasks.

Q & A

What is the significance of Grant Gussman memorizing 23,000 digits of pi?

Grant Gussman memorized 23,000 digits of pi to explore how the two systems of thought, conscious and subconscious, work in his own mind. This act demonstrates the capacity of the human brain to memorize vast amounts of information through conscious effort, which is a testament to the capabilities of system two, the conscious, slow, and effortful system.

What are the two systems of thought mentioned in the script?

The two systems of thought are system one, which is subconscious, fast, and automatic, and system two, which is conscious, slow, and effortful.

How does Magnus Carlsen demonstrate expertise in chess?

Magnus Carlsen demonstrates his expertise by being able to identify specific chess games from the arrangement of pieces on a board and by recognizing chess positions and instinctively knowing the best move, which is a result of his extensive experience and pattern recognition abilities.

What does the experiment by William Chase and Herbert Simon reveal about chess masters' memory capabilities?

The experiment by Chase and Simon showed that chess masters do not have better memory in general, but they have superior memory for chess positions that could occur in a real game. This is due to their ability to recognize patterns and 'chunk' information, which is a result of their extensive experience with chess games.

What is the concept of 'chunking' as it relates to expertise?

Chunking is the process by which the brain recognizes complex stimuli as a single entity based on stored patterns in long-term memory. Experts, such as chess masters, use chunking to quickly identify and understand complex configurations in their field of expertise.

What is the '10,000 hours' rule of thumb popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, and what are its limitations?

The '10,000 hours' rule suggests that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in a field. However, the rule has limitations as it does not account for the quality of practice, the need for deliberate practice, and the importance of a valid environment with timely feedback.

What are the four additional criteria that must be met to develop expertise beyond just 10,000 hours of practice?

The four additional criteria are: 1) Many repeated attempts with feedback, 2) A valid environment with regularities, 3) Timely feedback from each attempt, and 4) Deliberate practice that pushes beyond one's comfort zone.

Why do some experts, like political pundits, perform worse than random chance in making predictions?

Some experts perform worse than random chance because they often deal with one-off events that do not have repeated experiences with the same sorts of problems. This lack of repeated experience and feedback makes it difficult for them to recognize patterns and make accurate predictions.

What is the difference between an expert and a novice in terms of learning from feedback?

An expert has spent a significant amount of time in a valid environment, receiving clear and timely feedback from many repeated experiences, which allows them to recognize patterns and improve their performance. A novice, on the other hand, has not yet had the opportunity to accumulate this level of experience and feedback.

Why is deliberate practice important for developing expertise?

Deliberate practice is important because it involves pushing oneself beyond the comfort zone and focusing on improving specific weaknesses. It requires concentration and methodical repetition of tasks that are challenging, which is essential for continuous improvement and the development of expertise.

How does the script relate the concept of expertise to the idea of 'recognition'?

The script relates expertise to recognition by explaining that experts have stored a vast amount of structured information in their long-term memory, which allows them to quickly and accurately recognize patterns and make decisions in their field of expertise.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Understanding Expertise and Memory

The script introduces the concept of two systems of thought: the conscious, slow 'System Two' and the subconscious, fast 'System One'. It discusses Grant Gussman's endeavor to memorize 23,000 digits of pi to explore these systems, highlighting the idea of 'chunking' in memory. Expertise is then explored through the example of Magnus Carlsen, a chess grandmaster, who demonstrates exceptional memory for chess positions but not for random pieces. The script explains that chess masters excel due to their recognition of patterns from extensive experience, not because of superior memory in general.

05:01

🎯 The Role of Experience and Environment in Expertise

This section delves into the criteria necessary for developing expertise. It emphasizes the importance of repeated attempts with feedback, as illustrated by the experiences of tennis players, chess players, and physicists. The script contrasts this with the inaccuracy of predictions made by political and economic experts, suggesting that their lack of repeated experience with the same problems undermines their expertise. It also discusses the necessity of a valid environment with regularities for learning and the pitfalls of low-validity environments, such as stock market investing and roulette, where even experts struggle to demonstrate reliable skill.

10:03

🚀 The Pursuit of Excellence Beyond Comfort Zones

The script addresses the concept of deliberate practice and the importance of pushing beyond one's comfort zone to achieve expertise. It uses the example of driving a car to illustrate how comfort can lead to a plateau in skill development. The narrative continues with the idea that even extensive experience, such as playing the guitar or being a doctor, does not guarantee expertise without deliberate practice aimed at continuous improvement. The section also touches on the value of coaches and teachers in facilitating this kind of practice and the role of refresher courses in maintaining expertise.

15:04

🌟 The Magic of Mastery and Lifelong Learning

The final paragraph wraps up the discussion on expertise by emphasizing the four key components for developing long-term memory and mastery: a valid environment, numerous repetitions, timely feedback, and thousands of hours of deliberate practice. It concludes with a call to action for lifelong learning and growth, highlighting the importance of stepping out of comfort zones and embracing the challenge of learning new things. The script also includes a promotional message for Brilliant.org, encouraging viewers to engage in active problem-solving and learning in the fields of STEM and logic.

Keywords

💡Expertise

Expertise refers to a high level of skill or knowledge in a specific area, often acquired through extensive study, practice, and experience. In the video, expertise is explored through the lens of cognitive systems, with a focus on how experts like chess masters and memorizers of pi utilize pattern recognition and 'chunking' to excel in their fields. The video emphasizes that expertise is not just about having superior memory or intelligence but also about the ability to recognize and respond to complex stimuli based on stored knowledge.

💡System One and System Two

These terms refer to two different systems of thought as described by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. System one is subconscious, fast, and automatic, while system two is conscious, slow, and effortful. The video uses these concepts to discuss how Grant Gussman memorized pi and how Magnus Carlsen, a chess grandmaster, processes chess positions. The script illustrates that experts often rely on system one for quick recognition and decision-making.

💡Chunking

Chunking is a cognitive process that allows people to organize and consolidate individual pieces of information into larger units, or 'chunks,' to simplify processing and recall. The video explains that chess masters use chunking to remember complex board positions as single entities, and Grant Gussman applies it to memorize thousands of digits of pi, demonstrating how experts leverage this process to excel in their areas of expertise.

💡Pattern Recognition

Pattern recognition is the ability to identify regularities or patterns in data or stimuli. In the video, it is highlighted as a key aspect of expertise, where chess masters can quickly identify optimal moves based on patterns they've learned from numerous games. The concept is also applied to the memorization of pi, where the individual digits are grouped into meaningful sequences.

💡10,000-Hour Rule

The 10,000-hour rule, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, suggests that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. The video discusses this concept, emphasizing that while extensive practice is necessary for expertise, it must be combined with deliberate practice, feedback, and a valid learning environment to be truly effective.

💡Deliberate Practice

Deliberate practice is a focused and structured approach to learning that involves pushing beyond one's current abilities and comfort zone. The video mentions this as a critical component for developing expertise, where individuals must continually challenge themselves with tasks that are difficult and require improvement, such as chess players studying complex game strategies.

💡Feedback

Feedback in the context of learning and expertise refers to the information or responses received after an action or attempt, which can be used to adjust and improve performance. The video script explains that timely and clear feedback is crucial for experts to refine their skills, contrasting the immediate feedback received by anesthesiologists with the delayed feedback challenges faced by radiologists.

💡Validity of Environment

The validity of an environment, as discussed in the video, pertains to the predictability and regularity present in a given domain, which allows for the learning of patterns and skills. The script uses the example of stock market investing to illustrate a low-validity environment where even experts struggle to outperform the market due to the inherent randomness and lack of consistent patterns.

💡Recognition

Recognition is the process of identifying something as previously known or encountered. In the video, recognition is central to the concept of expertise, as it enables experts to quickly and accurately identify complex patterns or situations, such as chess masters recognizing game positions or memorizers recalling long sequences of numbers.

💡Comfort Zone

The comfort zone refers to a state of minimal stress and risk where one feels at ease. The video emphasizes that to achieve expertise, one must practice deliberately, often pushing beyond this comfort zone to engage in activities that are challenging and require improvement. Staying within the comfort zone can lead to stagnation rather than growth in skill.

Highlights

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

There are two systems of thought: the conscious, effortful system two, and the subconscious, automatic system one.

Experts like Magnus Carlsen demonstrate superhuman abilities through pattern recognition and intuition.

Chess masters do not have better general memory but excel in recalling positions that could occur in a real game.

The 'chunking' phenomenon allows experts to recognize complex stimuli as single entities.

Expertise is developed through recognition and pattern learning rather than general cognitive abilities.

10,000 hours of practice is a rule of thumb for developing expertise, but it requires more than just time.

Four criteria must be met for expertise to develop: repeated attempts with feedback, a valid environment, and deliberate practice.

Experts in fields with low-validity environments, such as political predictions, often perform no better than chance.

Investor Warren Buffet's bet illustrates the difficulty of outperforming the market due to its low validity.

The importance of timely feedback for learning and improvement, as demonstrated by anesthesiologists vs. radiologists.

The challenge of recognizing patterns in rare events, impacting the performance of even experienced professionals.

Deliberate practice involves pushing beyond one's comfort zone and is essential for continuous improvement.

Coaches and teachers play a crucial role in facilitating deliberate practice by assigning targeted tasks.

True expertise is built on structured information stored in long-term memory, requiring a valid environment and many repetitions.

The role of recognition in expertise, turning complex information into intuitive understanding.

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

The importance of stepping out of comfort zones and embracing discomfort for growth and expertise development.

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.