熟能生巧？那可不一定！

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

近日，一些研究人員公然無視熟能生巧的普世道理，得出結論說：熟不一定能生巧。

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

一項對小提琴演奏者的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果不考慮教學質量、學習技巧和天分等因素的差異，水平過得去的演奏者和杰出的演奏者練習的時間一樣多，甚至可能更多。

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

這一研究結果是對“一萬小時定律”的最新挑戰(zhàn)。馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾在2008年著作《異類》中提出了這一定律，他的觀點是只要練習得足夠多，任何人都可以成為專家。在書中，格拉德威爾指出，“一萬個小時是鑄就偉大成就的神奇數(shù)字”。

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

美國俄亥俄州克利夫蘭凱斯西儲大學的心理學家布魯克·麥克納馬拉說：“熟能生巧的觀點已經(jīng)深深植根于我們的文化，但是這種觀點過于簡單化了。在人類技巧方面，要綜合考慮環(huán)境、基因及其相互作用來解釋人與人之間的表現(xiàn)差異。”

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

“一萬小時定律”的依據(jù)來自1993年對小提琴和鋼琴演奏者的一項研究，這項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，累積的練習時間越長，音樂技能越高超。平均來看，一流的小提琴家在20歲前的練習時間達到了1萬個小時，但也有許多小提琴家的實際練習時間不足1萬個小時。該研究的作者否定了天分的重要作用，指出即使是在頂級音樂家當中，能力差異在很大程度上取決于他們的練習量。格拉德威爾用這項研究提到的一萬小時解釋了比爾·蓋茨、甲殼蟲樂隊等名人的成功。

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

麥克納馬拉和她的同事梅格哈·麥特拉重復了1993年研究的一部分，想看看是否能得出同樣的結論。研究人員調查了13名小提琴演奏者，按照最好、不錯、較差水平三個評級將他們分成三組，讓他們填寫了自己一周活動的日記，并通過采訪了解到他們的練習習慣。

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

水平較差的小提琴演奏者在20歲前的練習時間平均約為6000個小時，但是不錯的演奏者和最好的演奏者之間幾乎沒有差別，兩者的平均練習時間都是11000個小時左右。這項發(fā)表在《英國皇家學會開放科學》雜志上的研究指出，這三組人之間的技能差異僅有四分之一是由練習時間導致的。

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

麥克納馬拉認為，練習的作用并沒有那么大。她說：“一旦你達到了較高的水平，練習帶來的差別就消失了。每個人都進行了大量練習，能否達到精英水平就開始取決于其他因素了。”

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

“這些因素依據(jù)學習的技能不同而發(fā)生改變：如果學的是國際象棋，決定因素可能是智力或工作記憶;如果學的是運動，決定因素可能是一個人利用氧氣的效率。還有更復雜的情況是，有時候一個因素還會作用于另一個因素。舉例而言，一個喜歡拉小提琴的孩子可能比較愿意練習，注意力也比較集中，因為他們不把練琴看成苦差。”

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

不過，1993年那項研究的作者卻不為所動。該研究的共同作者、佛羅里達州立大學的心理學家安德斯·埃里克森說，新研究報告復制了他們的大部分研究結果。他說，麥克納馬拉所說的不錯的演奏者和最好的演奏者之間沒有客觀差異，所以他們投入的練習時間一樣多也就不奇怪了。

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

1993年研究的另一位合著者、魯汶天主教大學的心理學家拉爾夫·克蘭佩說，麥克納馬拉的論文中沒有任何能讓他質疑原研究結果的內容。他說：“難道我認為練習就是一切，練習時長是決定成就的唯一因素嗎?不，我不這么認為。”他補充道，練習質量、老師和父母的支持也很重要。“但我依然認為有意的練習是迄今為止最重要的因素。”

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

麥克納馬拉說，盡管如此，讓人們理解練習的局限性還是很重要。“大多數(shù)時候，練習都能讓你超越過去的自己，”她說，“但練習可能無法讓你超越你的鄰居，或小提琴課上的其他孩子。”