> Maybe it becomes a little more agreeable if you flip it around: consider as "basic" whatever level people would reach after 100 hours of quality learning. Ye

> Maybe it becomes a little more agreeable if you flip it around: consider as "basic" whatever level people would reach after 100 hours of quality learning. Yeah, I know what you mean. You certainly could do that. But I think that's less useful. If you use a specific number of hours as the benchmark you lose most of your relationship to useful levels of competence. I think each domain has natural levels of competence that have meaning, and it's probably better to keep the discussion oriented around that. For a ukelele or guitar player, knowing enough to play the majority of pop songs is probably significant. For a piano or violin player maybe the bar for basic competence is a bit higher. For partner dancing it seems like the level you need to be to safely dance on a crowded public dance floor and make most partners feel comfortable is probably a pretty important level of skill to talk about. These levels are also personal. Maybe one budding pianist is happy with pop songs, but you're not going to be happy until you can play a full piano concerto. Perhaps your goal is just to be able to write a few computer programs, but a company hiring wants people who understand more about what it takes to maintain larger projects over a longer period of time. When it comes down to how decisions are made in the real world nobody cares about how many hours you've practiced. It's all about what you can do.