article in which he asserted that deliberate practice may be important in achievement domains such as chess and playing a musical instrument but that it does not work as well for almost any creative domain. His argument is: deliberate practice works well for activities which rely on consistently replicable behaviors that must be repeated over and over again but this is not what creative performance relies on. In a response to Kaufman's article, The deliberate creative, Cal Newport refutes Kaufman's assertion convincingly.
He explains that Kaufman has a bizarre interpretation of creativity and of deliberate practice. I agree. Have a look at what he says: “…scientists can’t keep publishing the same paper over and over again, and writers can’t keep writing the same critically acclaimed novel over and over again and expect the same acclaim…How many times would Lady Gaga have to consistently wear her meat dress without people getting bored?”
If Kaufman's interpretation would be correct chess players do nothing more than endlessly repeating the same things in the same manner and instrumentalists would play the same thing over and over again in the same way. This is obviously not true. Newport is right in saying that Kaufman uses a straw man argument. First he makes a caricature of deliberate practice and then he criticizes this caricature as if it were an accurate description.
Deliberate practice enables us to develop our skills and achieve high competence. This high level of competence enables us to be creative at a high level. Not matter how creative my mindset is, if I am not truly skilled and knowledgeable in music I will not be able to compose a fantastic symphony.
Competences enables creative performance; incompetence constrains it. Creativity at the highest level requires knowledge and skills at an expert level.