Scientists have long argued over the relative contributions of practice and native talent to the development of elite performance. This debate swings back and forth every century, it seems, but a paper in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science illustrates where the discussion now stands and hints—more tantalizingly, for people who just want to do their best—at where the research will go next. The value-of-practice debate has reached a stalemate. In a landmark 1993 study of musicians, a research team led by K. Anders Ericsson found that practice time explained almost all the difference (about 80 percent) between elite performers and committed amateurs. The finding rippled quickly through the popular culture, perhaps most visibly as the apparent inspiration for the "10,000-hour rule" in Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling "Outliers" —a rough average of the amount of practice time required for expert performance. The new paper, the most comprehensive review of relevant research to date, comes to a different conclusion. Compiling results from 88 studies across a wide range of skills, it estimates that practice time explains about 20 percent to 25 percent of the difference in performance in music, sports and games like chess. In academics, the number is much lower—4 percent—in part because it's hard to assess the effect of previous knowledge, the authors wrote. One of those people, Dr. Ericsson, had by last week already written his critique of the new review. He points out that the paper uses a definition of practice that includes a variety of related activities, including playing music or sports for fun or playing in a group. But his own studies focused on what he calls deliberate practice: one-on-one lessons in which an instructor pushes a student continually, gives immediate feedback and focuses on weak spots. "If you throw all these kinds of practice into one big soup, of course you are going to reduce the effect of deliberate practice," he said in a telephone interview. Zach Hambrick, a co-author of the paper of the journal Psychological Science, said that using Dr. Ericsson' s definition of practice would not change the results much, if at all, and partisans on both sides have staked out positions. Like most branches of the nature-nurture debate, this one has produced multiple camps, whose estimates of the effects of practice vary by as much as 50 percentage points.

单选题 The paper published in Psychological Science introduces______.

单选题 According to Paragraph 2, which of the following is true?

单选题 The practice time accounts for lower percent in academical performance partly because______.

单选题 In his critique of the new review, Dr. Ericsson notes that______.

单选题 What is the author' s attitude towards the practice-nature debate?