geradex:

extradan:

dreambeam:

Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that this image in no way endorses a belief in the “JIF” pronunciation. 

so, what?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/an-honor-for-the-creator-of-the-gif/

See, as a foreigner, my mouth makes the same noise for “jif” and “yiff”. So, in order to make my life easier I’m gonna give Mr. Creator the proverbial finger and opt for the “gift”-like pronunciation.

(via geradex)

jykinturah:

Sometimes I take pictures of myself.

Jyke. What the hell. Your shoulders. They make you look really small.

pon-y:

extradan:

sirphilliam:

datcatwhatcameback:

alisonwonderland1951:

OH MY GOD

BERRY! <3

CARROT

DERPY!

VINYL! 

(via slice-dice-deactivated20130617)

(via lunar-bunnie)

toonboy92484:

Do I win?

—————————-

I am speechless.

Everybody else go home. We have a winner °-°

erthilo:

not-reality:

geneticanomaly:

neurosciencestuff:

Practice makes perfect? Not so much

Turns out, that old “practice makes perfect” adage may be overblown.

New research led by Michigan State University’s Zach Hambrick finds that a copious amount of practice is not enough to explain why people differ in level of skill in two widely studied activities, chess and music.

In other words, it takes more than hard work to become an expert. Hambrick, writing in the research journal Intelligence, said natural talent and other factors likely play a role in mastering a complicated activity.

“Practice is indeed important to reach an elite level of performance, but this paper makes an overwhelming case that it isn’t enough,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology.

The debate over why and how people become experts has existed for more than a century. Many theorists argue that thousands of hours of focused, deliberate practice is sufficient to achieve elite status.

Hambrick disagrees.

“The evidence is quite clear,” he writes, “that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice.”

Hambrick and colleagues analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess.

So what made up the rest of the difference?

Based on existing research, Hambrick said it could be explained by factors such as intelligence or innate ability, and the age at which people start the particular activity. A previous study of Hambrick’s suggested that working memory capacity – which is closely related to general intelligence – may sometimes be the deciding factor between being good and great.

While the conclusion that practice may not make perfect runs counter to the popular view that just about anyone can achieve greatness if they work hard enough, Hambrick said there is a “silver lining” to the research.

“If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities,” he said, “they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice.”

This is important.

Finally an actual study on this. Truth right there.

Yup, I’ll agree on that. I wonder if they’ll ever be able to tell whether we’re going to be great at something before we waste countless hours doing it.

It is my firm belief that you should go read Isaac Asimov’s “Profession”

(via erthilo-deactivated20140916)

superpsyguy:

hang on…

uh… maybe if… no that won’t…

(via superpsyguy-deactivated20140924)

(via lunar-bunnie)