9 ms·

Beyond the 10,000 Hour Rule: Richard Hamming and the Messy Art of Becoming Great

92 points by bumbledraven 16y ago

tome 16y ago
It's curious to see someone who describes himself as "over a decade into my training as a professional scientist" commit the most basic of logical fallacies: Gladwell: When we look at any kind of cognitively complex field ... you are unlikely to master it unless you have practiced for 10,000 hours. Author: This rule reduces achievement to quantity: the secret to becoming great is to do a great amount of work Err no. Gladwell says that to be great (A), you must have done 10,000 hours (B), i.e. A implies B. The author then restates this as if you've done a great amount of work, you'll become great, i.e. B implies A. This is not a valid deduction!
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Additonally Gladwell is talking about mastery or expertise. Not immortal fame. A kid who becomes good enough to play basketball in the NBA, and maybe make the all star team one year, certainly has developed a level of mastery in the game few ever achieve. But he's the forgotten player, compared to Lebron, Kobe, Magic, Larry, or Michael. There's a difference between being the best among the masters and simply being a master.
- kylemathews 16y ago
  Perhaps Gladwell never said 10,000 hours = mastery but plenty of other people have made that leap of logic so I think we can forgive the OP his mistake. Logical mistake or not, it shouldn't detract from what IMO is a great article with important, little discussed, insights.
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    Gladwell says that people who have mastery all put in at least 10,000 hours to get there, not that everyone who spends 10,000 will be a master.
- alexkiwi 16y ago
  Cal has got some pretty great articles and has written a lot for students. I wonder if he's going to graduate.
- harscoat 16y ago
  "Cunctis Diebus quibus nunc milito expecto donec veniat immutation mea" Job 14:14 - quote that could illustrate (depending on translation interpretation http://www.biblestudytools.com/job/14-14-compare.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/job/14-14-compare.html ) this idea: "work! (at least 10kh) and maybe(!) one day the big change you have been longing for (mastery) will come to you"... this is a "grace" not a necessary consequence
Aaronontheweb 16y ago
"there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder." This rings absolutely true for me - my best work comes when after I've spent a moderate amount of time discussing and sharing the idea(s) with other people, and it's usually far better than things I cook up and develop in total isolation.
- akkartik 16y ago
  The author of Flow found that successful people tend to alternate between periods in 'open' and 'closed' mode.
  - kylemathews 16y ago
    Absolutely. I find it really helpful as a technical founder to alternate between product mode and customer developer mode. Tearing myself from the one context to the other is hard at times but generates a lot of insights.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  I think one of the most powerful images left over from the original Hewlettt Packard organization is the first one on this page: http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/site/comments/trip_to_hp/ http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/site/comments/trip_to... This is how every organization I've ever respected has been run.
  - eitally 16y ago
    I honestly believe that most execs have an open door policy. The issue is that the cultures of most companies don't encourage or develop the comfort of lay employees to waltz in and start a conversation. Even at the director level in a large company, it is exceedingly rare (and refreshing) to find people who will question a position statement or a decision made by someone more than one step above them in the food chain. It takes a lot of effort to counteract this. Generally speaking, open door policies are meaningless at a lot of companies because the people they're intended to benefit are not developed in a way such that they'd actually have a clue what to say/ask if they did take advantage of the policy. This is the same reason I prefer to sit in a cube rather than an office when visiting our global locations.
fmora 16y ago
This supports my thesis that all human population has the potential to be as smart as any phd graduate. All you need is to put the work required to get there. i.e. put thousands of hours into it and you will become a master of your field. For whatever reason a lot of people have been down voting me for saying this. They believe that not everybody can obtain a phd. That only some people are capable of becoming educated to the level of a phd. I wonder if it is because hacker news is filled with elitists. Am I offending egos by saying that a person in a hot dog stand has the same potential to get a phd as a person that currently has a phd? Is it that educated people like to believe that they somehow are special and separate from people that did not go to college? Granted that if you went to college you will be more educated than a person that did not. But that uneducated person can reach the same level of intellect as you if he wants to, as long as he/she decides to invest the amount of work required. We are all stupid monkeys. Pretty much all of us have the same potential to learn. Frankly it completely stomps me that people would think otherwise. I took it as universal knowledge that all humans have almost the same potential to learn. Yes there will be variations but all in all they will be statistically insignificant. Apparently I was wrong in my belief and some people think that only a chosen few can become as highly educated as a phd.
- eitally 16y ago
  fwiw, I agree with you (minus individuals who are mentally handicapped due to congenital problems) and whenever I've posited the same I've been rebuffed, too. I don't know why.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Just so I understand your position before disagreeing with it: you're claiming there are exactly two levels of human intelligence, and if you're not mentally retarded you have exactly the same potential for intellectual achievement as everyone else in that class?
    - jamesbritt 16y ago
      That was my reading of the assertion, and similar claims that everyone, excepting the obviously retarded, can potentially (assuming effort + time) achieve the same level of intellectual mastery. Is it somehow impolite, or demonstrably incorrect, to assert that there are people who are in fact stupid? Or people who are quite functional but not particularly bright? That there are people who, through no fault of their own, could never achieve certain intellectual goals no matter how much time or effort because they are simply not mentally capable? Life experience tells me otherwise.
matrix 16y ago
Sigh. People keep missing he most important aspects of the so-called 10,000 hour rule. It's not 10,000 hours of practice. It's 10,000 hours of a certain type of practice. The practice must be directed, with feedback from coaches. The original paper this came from also mentioned that the experts practiced differently: They often spend a lot of time doing drills and focusing on individual skills. It's a very focused, methodological approach.
- harscoat 16y ago
  "deliberate practice" K Anders Ericsson http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...
agentultra 16y ago
Becoming great is a process. It's different for everyone who's interested in being great. I think that's the driving point behind the article. There is no formula or magic number. You just have to work at it. I keep notebooks for every subject I study. I have a shelf that is practically falling over with notebooks, looseleaf, and sticky notes. My wife hates it. I also keep journals of my overall progress where I can examine my thoughts and feelings on my process and successes. 10 000 hours? I don't know. Minor footnote in the article I think. Maybe certain skills requiring strong dexterity will require this magic number of hours of practice. But then again there's probably some Johnny out there who can do it naturally and with little effort. Personally I don't think greatness can ever be achieved, only struggled for and sought after.

92 points by bumbledraven 16y ago

tome 16y ago

It's curious to see someone who describes himself as "over a decade into my training as a professional scientist" commit the most basic of logical fallacies: Gladwell: When we look at any kind of cognitively complex field ... you are unlikely to master it unless you have practiced for 10,000 hours. Author: This rule reduces achievement to quantity: the secret to becoming great is to do a great amount of work Err no. Gladwell says that to be great (A), you must have done 10,000 hours (B), i.e. A implies B. The author then restates this as if you've done a great amount of work, you'll become great, i.e. B implies A. This is not a valid deduction!

kenjackson 16y ago
Additonally Gladwell is talking about mastery or expertise. Not immortal fame. A kid who becomes good enough to play basketball in the NBA, and maybe make the all star team one year, certainly has developed a level of mastery in the game few ever achieve. But he's the forgotten player, compared to Lebron, Kobe, Magic, Larry, or Michael. There's a difference between being the best among the masters and simply being a master.
kylemathews 16y ago
Perhaps Gladwell never said 10,000 hours = mastery but plenty of other people have made that leap of logic so I think we can forgive the OP his mistake. Logical mistake or not, it shouldn't detract from what IMO is a great article with important, little discussed, insights.
- pchristensen 16y ago
  Gladwell says that people who have mastery all put in at least 10,000 hours to get there, not that everyone who spends 10,000 will be a master.
alexkiwi 16y ago
Cal has got some pretty great articles and has written a lot for students. I wonder if he's going to graduate.
harscoat 16y ago
"Cunctis Diebus quibus nunc milito expecto donec veniat immutation mea" Job 14:14 - quote that could illustrate (depending on translation interpretation http://www.biblestudytools.com/job/14-14-compare.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/job/14-14-compare.html ) this idea: "work! (at least 10kh) and maybe(!) one day the big change you have been longing for (mastery) will come to you"... this is a "grace" not a necessary consequence

Aaronontheweb 16y ago

"there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder." This rings absolutely true for me - my best work comes when after I've spent a moderate amount of time discussing and sharing the idea(s) with other people, and it's usually far better than things I cook up and develop in total isolation.

akkartik 16y ago
The author of Flow found that successful people tend to alternate between periods in 'open' and 'closed' mode.
- kylemathews 16y ago
  Absolutely. I find it really helpful as a technical founder to alternate between product mode and customer developer mode. Tearing myself from the one context to the other is hard at times but generates a lot of insights.
CamperBob 16y ago
I think one of the most powerful images left over from the original Hewlettt Packard organization is the first one on this page: http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/site/comments/trip_to_hp/ http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/site/comments/trip_to... This is how every organization I've ever respected has been run.
- eitally 16y ago
  I honestly believe that most execs have an open door policy. The issue is that the cultures of most companies don't encourage or develop the comfort of lay employees to waltz in and start a conversation. Even at the director level in a large company, it is exceedingly rare (and refreshing) to find people who will question a position statement or a decision made by someone more than one step above them in the food chain. It takes a lot of effort to counteract this. Generally speaking, open door policies are meaningless at a lot of companies because the people they're intended to benefit are not developed in a way such that they'd actually have a clue what to say/ask if they did take advantage of the policy. This is the same reason I prefer to sit in a cube rather than an office when visiting our global locations.

fmora 16y ago

This supports my thesis that all human population has the potential to be as smart as any phd graduate. All you need is to put the work required to get there. i.e. put thousands of hours into it and you will become a master of your field. For whatever reason a lot of people have been down voting me for saying this. They believe that not everybody can obtain a phd. That only some people are capable of becoming educated to the level of a phd. I wonder if it is because hacker news is filled with elitists. Am I offending egos by saying that a person in a hot dog stand has the same potential to get a phd as a person that currently has a phd? Is it that educated people like to believe that they somehow are special and separate from people that did not go to college? Granted that if you went to college you will be more educated than a person that did not. But that uneducated person can reach the same level of intellect as you if he wants to, as long as he/she decides to invest the amount of work required. We are all stupid monkeys. Pretty much all of us have the same potential to learn. Frankly it completely stomps me that people would think otherwise. I took it as universal knowledge that all humans have almost the same potential to learn. Yes there will be variations but all in all they will be statistically insignificant. Apparently I was wrong in my belief and some people think that only a chosen few can become as highly educated as a phd.

eitally 16y ago
fwiw, I agree with you (minus individuals who are mentally handicapped due to congenital problems) and whenever I've posited the same I've been rebuffed, too. I don't know why.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Just so I understand your position before disagreeing with it: you're claiming there are exactly two levels of human intelligence, and if you're not mentally retarded you have exactly the same potential for intellectual achievement as everyone else in that class?
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    That was my reading of the assertion, and similar claims that everyone, excepting the obviously retarded, can potentially (assuming effort + time) achieve the same level of intellectual mastery. Is it somehow impolite, or demonstrably incorrect, to assert that there are people who are in fact stupid? Or people who are quite functional but not particularly bright? That there are people who, through no fault of their own, could never achieve certain intellectual goals no matter how much time or effort because they are simply not mentally capable? Life experience tells me otherwise.

matrix 16y ago

Sigh. People keep missing he most important aspects of the so-called 10,000 hour rule. It's not 10,000 hours of practice. It's 10,000 hours of a certain type of practice. The practice must be directed, with feedback from coaches. The original paper this came from also mentioned that the experts practiced differently: They often spend a lot of time doing drills and focusing on individual skills. It's a very focused, methodological approach.

harscoat 16y ago
"deliberate practice" K Anders Ericsson http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...

agentultra 16y ago

Becoming great is a process. It's different for everyone who's interested in being great. I think that's the driving point behind the article. There is no formula or magic number. You just have to work at it. I keep notebooks for every subject I study. I have a shelf that is practically falling over with notebooks, looseleaf, and sticky notes. My wife hates it. I also keep journals of my overall progress where I can examine my thoughts and feelings on my process and successes. 10 000 hours? I don't know. Minor footnote in the article I think. Maybe certain skills requiring strong dexterity will require this magic number of hours of practice. But then again there's probably some Johnny out there who can do it naturally and with little effort. Personally I don't think greatness can ever be achieved, only struggled for and sought after.