ACEace

There's a longer version of this AP report that includes the below quotes. The fact that there were cases of two people in a room where one heard the sound and the other did not was something I had not seen mentioned before. It was a question I had been curious about and would seem to indicate something different going on - rather than an acoustic weapon unexplained by current science that affects some people but not others.

> U.S. officials told the AP that investigators have now determined:

> — The most frequently reported sound patients heard was a high-pitched chirp or grating metal. Fewer recalled a low-pitched noise, like a hum.

> — Some were asleep and awakened by the sound, even as others sleeping in the same bed or room heard nothing.

> — Vibrations sometimes accompanied the sound. Victims told investigators these felt similar to the rapid flutter of air when windows of a car are partially rolled down.

> — Those worst off knew right away something was affecting their bodies. Some developed visual symptoms within 24 hours, including trouble focusing on a computer screen.

Being a "professor at a music conservatory in Russia" does not necessarily say much about how good of a music teacher this person was. Especially in a competitive field like concert piano. There are probably thousands of people who studied piano from a teacher who was a professor at a music conservatory in Russia. They can't all become world-class.

Ericsson's research stresses "deliberate" practice and previous criticisms of his research were based on studies of just practice - but not specifically "deliberate" practice. It's not just 10,000[1] hours of practice... it's 10,000 hours of practice the right way and ideally with an effective teacher. I admit those caveats make it harder to study his claims in a research environment, but it also doesn't mean research based only on total time practicing disprove his research.

[1] And I know it's not really 10,000 hours. Using that metric to make a comparison.