how many hours of practice per day do you think is ideal

>>2881763
shut up

>>2881763
10,000 hours to make it
3 years
roughly 1095 days
so roughly 9.2 hours a day
8 hours a day is a meme, you all need to work for an hour more

>>2881763

3 hours per day minimum for 5 years

Ideally, if possible, you want to add an additional 5 hours for a total of 8. On a bad day, 1 hour.

>>2881763
3 years to make it
1095 days
58,000 minutes
8 hours a day
1000 days
8 months a day
800 weeks
roughly 80 hours a week
8 days
12 years
4 months a minute
so roughly 12.4 moments a day
11 moments a day is a meme, you all need to work for a moment longer

>>2881829
10,000 hours is to become a master, you don't need to be a master to be successful

>>2881835
>5 years
No, you need ten years

File: 1447105679581.jpg (129KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 640x480px

it's amazing how you can tell who won't make it solely based on the type of questions they ask

File: 1370599119139.jpg (73KB, 400x619px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x619px

>>2881829
>>2881843
10k hours to become a master is a meme. There are people who grind like crazy but only improve by small increments while people who put in less hours run laps around them. Hard work and dedicated practice is of course a big part of success but your rate of improvement is based on factors like intelligence, taste and talent.

>>2881879
Assuming we're not meeming here, you get get really good in 5 years with the right resources and direction provided that individual has the discipline.

>>2881829
so why not put in 10hr a day while being intelligent?

>>2881763
who cares?
if you are expecting quick results you will get frustrated pretty fast
draw because you enjoy it or focus on little achivements instead

>>2881829
wow I've done that the past 3 days, I'll have to do it for maybe 5 hours tonight because of work. if
I keep this up I'll be master in 3 quaps

>>2881908
If you believe what you're saying then you're like the king of memes

I don't really care how many hours to be honest. I just want to make sure I draw or paint every single day, without skipping or excuses, so far I've managed to do this since the turn of the year.

And usually when I start drawing I don't check the time at all but afterwards I easily spent an hour or two at the minimum, during the weekends I have more time to spend so that's what I do as I don't have a life besides programming and drawing.

I made drawing a new-years resolution and it's actually working for once.

>>2881907
it's as if there was something called active practice.

Just fucking start working if it is something you want. Put in at least 10 hours a week and you will see drastic improvement over a zero hour beginner.

File: Ericsson.jpg (348KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1800x1200px

>>2881907
>talent

>>2884732
>tfw first read Ericsson's book and thought it was genius
>eventually found out people try to disprove his work by saying his research is bullshit
All hardwork, the brain can be rewired.

>>2884732
This guy is a beast. Not great at speaking, kind of a weird speech impediment so it's hard to sit through his interviews.

But the information is solid and I do agree with all of his findings. FOCUSED practice on your weak spots is the way to improvement.

>>2884732
b-but muh natural talent D:

>>2884903
"In one experiment, Thorndike had adults practice multiplying three-digit numbers by three-digit
numbers in their heads as quickly as they could. He was astounded by their improvement. "The fact
that these mature and competent minds improved in the course of so short a training so much,"
Thorndike wrote, "is worthy of attention." After one hundred practice trials, many of the subjects cut
their mental computation time in half. And every single subject improved. Just as in chess, language,
music, and baseball, as practitioners improve at mental multiplication, they internalize patterns and
systems of breaking problems into pieces that allow for increasingly rapid calculation.
But while Thorndike saw across-the-board improvement, he also noted what sociologists often call
a "Matthew effect." The term derives from a passage in the biblical Gospel of Matthew:
For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an
abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be
taken away.
Thorndike saw that the subjects who did well at the start of the training also improved faster as the
training progressed compared with the subjects who began more slowly. "As a matter of fact,"Thorndike wrote, "in this experiment the larger individual differences increase with equal training,
showing a positive correlation with high initial ability with ability to profit by training." The passage
from the Bible doesn't quite capture Thorndike's results accurately because every subject improved,
but the rich got relatively richer. Everyone learned, but the learning rates were consistently different."

Science isn't going to prop up any delusions about talent or intelligence, yet the only people who tend to be obsessed or fixated on their potential and upset when they're not gods are their own grave diggers (i.e.,every american is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire)