/lit/ - Literature

Practise a thousand times, and it becomes difficult;
a thousand thousand, and it becomes easy; a
thousand thousand times a thousand thousand,
and it is no longer Thou that doeth it, but It that
doeth itself through thee. Not until then is that
which is done well done.
Thus spoke FRATER PERDURABO as he leapt
from rock to rock of the moraine without ever
casting his eyes upon the ground.

>>18606919
You're using a lot of words to simply say "i'm frustrated because i can't find the best way to become better at something every time i try to become better at something."

>The assumption that practice actually does anything at all being totally unfounded and Empirically untenable
A musician identifies notes. Playing notes in a series, he identifies a scale. Playing scales, he becomes familiar and innovative with musical expression. Practicing thus, he becomes a better musician. This has been an observable reality for millennia. How is practice "unfounded and empirically untenable"?

You are using philosophical language to bypass the reality that you're just personally frustrated with your endeavors.

>>18607395
>How is practice "unfounded and empirically untenable"?
>However, no one can demonstrate what "the right amount" or "the right kind" of practice is, one simply backwardly-reasons that the practice must have been as such if it yields the desired results and likewise backwardly-reasons it as "too much" or "the wrong kind of" practice if it does not.

>>18607442
> no one can demonstrate what "the right amount" or "the right kind" of practice is, one simply backwardly-reasons that the practice must have been as such if it yields the desired results and likewise backwardly-reasons it as "too much" or "the wrong kind of" practice if it does not.

this can only be the case if people did things once. sure you may be retrodacting when it comes to skills no ones ever tried, but through thousands of repeated trials and errors the process is honed and perfected using experimentation and evidence.
Further there aren’t single paths and single goals in terms of skills. Wes Montgomery was one of the best guitarists ever, couldn’t read music and only ever strummed strings with his thumb.
What are you trying to learn that’s got you so frustrated, buddy?

>>18607476

Very incoherent reply, does not pertain to anything I've said.

So the incels have begun to apply what they have learned these past few years to the rest of their lives?

>>18607489
so reading then? that’s what you’re struggling to do?

>>18607496

Your sentences don't even relate to each other, let alone mine.

>>18606919
A child is learning to play a scale on a piano. At first, they can barely do it at all: they do it choppily, insert wrong notes, use the wrong fingers, etc. They repeatedly try to play the scale for one hour every morning. At the end of the week, they can play it proficiently.

What accounts for this improvement if not practice?

>>18607517
I know it seems that way, but with enough practice lol you should be able to realize the connection and the implication of what I’m saying.

>>18607521

This is backward reasoning. As I said, it IS demonstrable that an "excess" of practice has no effect, it is NOT demonstrable that any amount of practice has any effect.

>>18607541
The question wasn't rhetorical. There's an observed difference in the child's proficiency at the beginning of a week and the end of the week. What, on your view, explains that difference?

>>18606919
Anon, practice is literally just learning. Effective practice is deliberative practice because it requires focus, focusing activates a prt of your brain that releases chemicals which induce learning

>>18607442
>An act should be done
>The act can not presently be done by the actor
>The actor breaks down the act into sub-acts which can be isolated and refined more easily than the whole act
>The actor brings honed sub-acts together to attempt the act
>The act is either done or not done
>If it is done, the act is added/repeated. If it is not done, it is either attempted again or given up on

This is intuitive and takes no philosophical effort. You are confusing a half-baked language relation for reality.

The foundation of this seems to be your thought that "right amount" or "right kind" of practice is some universal identifiable platonic form, which it isnt.

If practice didn't do anything, and wasn't a verifiable observable process, how could you be using language above the degree of initial acquisition

Again, stop pretending this is a philosophical insight. Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

>>18607541
it's not backward reasoning, it's called "deductive" reasoning. read a book some time.

>>18607556

The movement of the stars? The cartoons he watches? The vowel to consonant ratio in the president's speeches?

>>18607496
also hi laura its me

>>18607442
>However, no one can demonstrate what "the right amount" or "the right kind" of practice is
The right kind of practice is practice utilizing proper technique. If you're practicing violin and your posture is all fucked up, you will improve to a point but eventually you hit a wall.

>>18607541
>it is NOT demonstrable that any amount of practice has any effect
I do not see how you could say something like this, it is something that anyone can observe in their own life

>>18607558

There is no Empirical distinction between "wrong" and "right" practice.

>>18607575
ah yes, because it is just as likely that a thousand external factors are just as important as the one reinforced, intentional activity that is only NOT the final result because it isn't yet refined enough through (get ready for it) practice.
anon, you're a fucking idiot. try hard at something worth people's time.

>>18607583
Yes there is, wrong practice is doing something without paying attention or trying to improve and it is empirical due to what I just explained.

>>18607565
>If practice didn't do anything, and wasn't a verifiable observable process, how could you be using language above the degree of initial acquisition

More backward reasoning aside, being inept and being adept seem to be binary Monads that do not communicate.

>>18607579
hey dude. draw anything cool lately?

>>18607583
Yes there is. You obviously don't know what empirical means, so I will provide a definition.

EMPIRICAL: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience

If practice is a repeated effort towards a desired act, there is a VERIFIABLE AND OBSERVABLE DISTINCTION between actions which manifest the desired act or do not manifest it.YVVJQ

>>18606919
Lot of words to say you're a lazy bitch

itt: anons prove OP right.

>>18607575
Is this a joke answer from someone else, or an actual answer from OP? Assuming it's a genuine reply:

In your original post you say that you are "familiar with arguments against causality in general." This suggests to me that you are relying on some kind of global skepticism about causation in your claims about practice.

Without such a global skepticism, I don't know how you could reasonably suggest that the stars, or cartoons, or whatever could explain the child's improved proficiency in playing the scale.

>>18607574

On what grounds are you deducing it?

>>18607605
Look if you want to parade your narcissism that you've wrapped up in incoherent psuedo-philosophy, be my guest, but I'm more concerned with what you're trying to practice and helping you get there. You can distract yourself with language games all you want, but I highly recommend breaking that spell before it breaks you.

>>18607627
>child is otherwise unremarkable
>child is given practice
>skill is acquired
>should one removed [practice] one would likely not obtain [skill]
those grounds ^

>>18607598
>>18607612

Imagine me repeatedly clicking a pen at a speed and intensity of your choice. How would you tell if I am "rightly" or "wrongly" practicing?

>>18607627
Yeah, no relevant argument involved is deductive. The efficacy of practice (in general or in particular cases) is obvious, but it's inductive nonetheless.

>>18607613

Few words to say...nothing?

>>18607639
the way it was phrased was an appeal to deductive reasoning; it is deduced that practice was the factor of causation because no other relevant factor is presented. you can take it from an inductive angle, but to ask "what if not X--" is like deductive reasoning 101

>>18607638
What the fuck are you even talking about? Right practice is just effective practice and effective practice is effective because if it helps you reach a goal of developing some skill. If your goal is to click the pen at a certain rhythm then “right” or effective practice would be focusing on clicking it at that rhythm and “wrong” or ineffective practice would be just clicking the pen randomly. Are you schizophrenic or just trolling?

>>18607592

By this Logic, a bicycle would implicitly turn into a motorcycle just by being used enough. When I said "tenuous"....

>>18607675
what the fuck are you even talking about? an inanimate object is the same as a person? are you fucking high? you are way WAY too stupid to get away with this kind of bizarre sophistry. you need more practice

>>18607666

So you concede that without knowing the goal, and without judging the practice allegedly pertaining thereto by backward reasoning, you cannot distinguish between "right" and "wrong" practice?

>>18607657
I wish I didn't make the comment and I don't want to pick this fight, but: in philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer science, statistics, and other fields, the term "deductive" is almost universally reserved for arguments that are logically valid (i.e. no possible situation making conclusion false and premises true). The term "inductive" is reserved for arguments that fall short of that standard.

>>18607675
That can not be deduced from their statement in any way whatsoever. You are at best a pretentious hack, and at worst, a schizophrenic with an internet connection.

>>18607694

Yes, practiceoids are Materialists par excellence so let's be Materialist.

>>18607626
This seems to me to be the heart of the issue.

>>18607699
this is fair but your original comment was still deductive.
also if you don't want to fight about it don't reply, no one is forcing you

>>18607696
Obviously you won’t know how to practice if you don’t know what you’re practicing, that’s not a concession you retard. The specifics of how the right and wrong practice is manifested change but the principle that right practice is focused and deliberate doesn’t change. I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about with this “backwards reasoning” crap, this is literally just observed neuroscience.

>>18607696
not the guy you're replying to, but i'm pretty sure the term "practice" necessitates some goal a person "practices" towards, not sure how a person would use the word without that in mind

>>18606919
Breathing is an absurd idea. It is demonstrable that "too much" or "the wrong kind of" breathing has no health effect at best, and can even cause illness. However, no one can demonstrate what "the right amount" or "the right kind" of breathing is, one simply backwardly-reasons that the breathing must have been as such if it yields the desired results and likewise backwardly-reasons it as "too much" or "the wrong kind of" breathing if it does not. The assumption that breathing actually does anything at all being totally unfounded and Empirically untenable. I am familiar with arguments against air in general, whether Inhaled or Exhaled, and request texts specifically about breathing.

>>18606919
ericsson, deliberate practice, 1993

>>18607724

You are distinguishing "right" practice from "wrong" practice by the same criteria touted by cultists and such, i.e. one must "truly believe". Nonsense.

>>18607745

My point exactly!

>>18607750
what. You’re a schizo. Why haven’t the jannies removed this stupid thread yet

>>18607750
please respond to this
>>18607736

>>18606919
Afraid this isn't gonna get you out of the school talent show anon

>>18607736

Possibly? This is more to my point that the alleged different kinds of practice are Empirically indistinguishable and are dependent on self-reporting, i.e. it is impossible to Empirically know whether one has a goal or not.

>>18607792
So you're a skeptic about causation and a skeptic about self-knowledge. Is there anything you aren't a skeptic about?

>>18607801
I'm a skeptic about bedtime too, you forgot

>>18607801

God.

>>18607792
by empirical do you mean someone other than yourself being able to observe it? because i'm able to observe in my self desires which I would call goals

>>18607815

Someone else, yes. But I maintain that one can be wrong in self-knowledge as well.

>>18607807
(pronounced jod)

>>18607832
I am certain that I am observing desires, is it that I am misidentifying certain desires as goals, but what should I be identifying as goals

>>18607626

Are the believes in causality not the true skeptics? Do they not claim that most causes categorically do not pertain to most effects? That the relation between a single cause and a single effect is almost miraculous? That these relations are not even emergent but ordained by an omnipotent intention?

>>18607875
Miracles are wonderful, causality sure sounds lovely

>>18607705

Moreover, since I find true Materialism the most intellectually respectable idea after true Idealism, I want to mention that, per Materialism, "practice" categorically precludes a bicycle from turning into a motorcycle, it can only become one by "anti-practice", regressing to an idleness so thorough that it pervades its inside as well: to literally stop being a bicycle. Dialectically reaching the Christian position of giving up and "falling upward" and such.

>>18607932
what too much Hegel does to lil niggas