the real reson why there are only a small number of great/public viewers

RV Protocol

GO VIEW! @TKR's dojo

Project Home Page

RV webForum (here!)

Email: @Yahoo|@Google

Help make it possible for everyone!

TKR is Funded by:
PJ of Dojo Psi

Simple Session

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

P.I.A.

Greg K's ARV Trials

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Daz]

It Takes 10,000 Hours of Practice to Become a Genius

http://tinyurl.com/68zc96

A new study carried out by the British scientists revealed that it takes a person 10,000 hours of practice to become ace in a certain discipline. They say that top musicians, sportsmen and chess players were all able to become masters in their field by achieving the level where their time of practice reached 10,000 hours.

Researchers suggest that the time spent for practicing makes the difference between a person who is good and the one that is brilliant. They carried out their study at Berlin's Academy of Music by observing violin students who began playing at the age of five. These students started practicing for 2 or 3 hours a week and as they grew so increased the time they spent for practicing.

Top performers, by the time they celebrated their 20th birthday, reached 10,000 hours of practice, but those who simply showed good results achieved the amount of 8,000 hours.

"It seems it takes the brain this long to assimilate all it needs to know to achieve true mastery," explained neurologist Daniel Levitin to Focus, a BBC science magazine, which published The Story of Success.

In his book, entitled Outliners, Malcolm Gladwell wrote that The Story of Success may explain why Beatles became so popular. While in Hamburg, Germany, the band played about 8 hours a night, seven days a week in their early days. When they became popular the Fab Four had already performed about 1,200 live concerts, more than many young bands play during their career.

[PJ]

Reminds me of a math I once did calculating Joe McMoneagle's time spent viewing. I concluded that for my time to equal his I'd need to live to be 300 something LOL.

My theory is that we better hope that HAVING Ingo and Joe actually provides some degree of blessing to the rest of us just by knowledge-shared. We hope.

So if you practice a full hour every single day of the week, every week of the year, that's 7x52=364.
If you practice every single month and every single year, it will take you 27.47.... years to reach 10,000 hours.

Heh.

[plodder]

It sounds like there may not be enough time to be truly great at everything!

[LD]

"How do you get to Carnegie Hall?"...

[sonny5085]

Mastery:?

A violin study..sheesh..but if you enjoy it..you would not just be confined
to the practice of actually physically doing it..but you would be thinking it
even at off times..inmeasurable if you ask me....

[Daz]

true sonny but lets play with a few figures here.

lets say you do and think about rv half the working week - say 20 hours.
you do this every week of the year (x52).
this would be 1040 hrs a year.

So to reach the magic 10,000 it would still take you ten years.



hey Im not saying its exact or anything - but it might be the reason why.

daz

[sonny5085]

Uh oh.... here we go...


Mastery : again that defining moment...mastery...

Lets say I am the phd of ditch diggers...I would compare my ditch digging skills of 5 hrs to
20,000 hr vet..and then what.. would I beat them? ....( a pun of ditch digging mastery vs the chello mastery)

I used to wonder about the concept of about long term truck drivers..
telling me over the cb..that they learned something new every day...

I used to wonder what did the retard learn...?(including me of course)...

[Banded_Krait]

A new study carried out by the British scientists revealed that it takes a person 10,000 hours of practice to become ace in a certain discipline.

Research into the general nature of excellence in a field has been going on a lot longer than the study referred to in the article in Daz's post.  Here's an article from the N.Y. Times from 1994 discussing the same kind of research: http://tinyurl.com/8jgb7j.

I am curious if this applies to remote viewing, though.  When I attended Joe McMoneagle's remote viewing workshop at the Rhine Research Center in February, 2005, Joe stated unequivocally that you can't teach remote viewing, that "remote viewers walk out the door with the same level of viewing ability they had when they walked in."

I also think about Hella Hammid, one of remote viewers historically recognized as being one of the best of the original SRI remote viewers.  It is interesting to note that she was originally recruited to act as a control in some of the original experiments.  Targ and Puthoff wanted to compare "an ordinary person's" remote viewing ability against Ingo Swann and Pat Price.  Indeed, in her first sessions Hammid would ask the researchers, "What do I do?"  But, it turned out, she was a complete natural and exhibited remote viewing ability better than some of the designated experimental subjects.

I also keep coming back to this video from an episode of a BBC TV series from 1996.  It shows a young woman with no remote viewing experience having an outstanding session on her very first try: http://tinyurl.com/642dla .

Did McMoneagle or Hammid get better with practice, or did their ability stay the same?  Or, did their ability decline over time?  It is well established in psi research that a decline effect takes place with some experimental subjects:  that is, their score declines over time (although my general sense is that this was observed more in the experimental studies using forced choice protocols that involved a high degree of tedium).

One thing I do know:  If you are going to spend 10,000 hours in a given field, you had better love it.  I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago with regard to chess "prodigies".  I was comparing the Polgar sisters (see the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polgar_sisters ) with Gata Kamsky (see the N.Y. Times article: http://tinyurl.com/9esohc ).  The three Polgar sisters--Susan, Sophia, and Judit--were raised in an experiment by their Hungarian psychologist father, Laszlo, and their Ukrainian schoolteacher mother, Klara (see the Psychology Today article: http://tinyurl.com/8e7jvp ).  Laszlo wanted to test the concept Daz introduced in this topic thread--that mastery in any field is largely the result of intense practice over many years.  In fact, he "recruited" his wife specifically to test this theory.  Now, according to the Psychology Today article referenced above, first-born Susan chose the field with which the Polgars eventually conducted their study by showing an interest in chess at the age of four.  This sounds a little contrived to me; on the other hand, since all the Polgar girls seem to have grown up well-adjusted and happy, I do not think any of them had any strong objections to their upbringing or to the family's choice of chess as the field of mastery.

This is in stark contrast to the story of Gata Kamsky.  The Fred Waitzkin article in the N.Y. Times paints Kamsky's father as a cruel exploiter of his son's chess talent who unmercilessly drove his son to study and practice chess 14 hours a day.  It was no surprise to me, then, to read that Gata walked away from chess for a 7-year period beginning in 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gata_Kamsky ).

[Dan N]

It's more than the number of hours. I suspect that behind every genius there is a small child trying to please a demanding parent, like with BK's chess players.

[PJ]

One thing that bugs me about Joe's comment is that how he means it and how people interpret it are two completely different things. There are two very different issues in remote viewing. 

One is so-called "target contact" which is the base of accuracy. Even really good viewers sometimes have stunning sessions on something that definitely has nothing in common with the target (VERY frustrating), or just a 'eh' session that shows no sign of matching the target; it happens. Every person, if tested in a lab, would eventually come out to a 'ratio' or percentage of their overall work that appeared to be on-target vs. off. Bearing in mind that a 5 minute session would probably enable this to be evaluated. 

Bit of a mystery, but that number does not appear to change over time, even over decades, even with people who view massively. That is to say, if you are 'off target' 2 out of 10 times when you begin, it appears that statistic will probably hold for you in ten years too.  (A complicating factor for laymen is that sometimes, process issues can affect proper evaluation of contact issues.) I would like to see this change. It pisses me off that anything should be unchanged over time of doing it. But that is the data they have.

The second thing however is the process of remote viewing itself: the process of attempting to control it, of fleshing things out, of understanding how your mind works, of improving your communication, and so on. THIS point is the one that we are affecting by practice.

In this respect, people DO get better--of course! Joe would not write books outlining RV and emphasize in lectures "practice!" if there were no point to it and nobody would ever improve from it. However this is something that merely DO-ing RV in protocol and paying attention will teach over time; sometimes you can get good tips from others, whether it's a coach or friend or someone on the internet, but the irony is that the main lessons even if someone tells you, you only learn the hard way anyway, as it's just got to come from within.

When laymen think of ability they are thinking of the latter point: the quality of the sessions. How much data, how unique, how to the point of the focus it might be, how well communicated it might be.

When scientists think of ability they are often thinking of the former point: the quantity of sessions that are going to be at-base (if not mucked up by communication or other issues) matchable to the target.

Just fwiw.

PJ

Username:
Password: