8 ms·

Practicing 2000 hrs (The Dan Plan: a 10,000 hr deliberate practice experiment)

111 points by losvedir 15y ago

losvedir 15y ago
Briefly, Dan is testing the hypothesis that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what it takes to become an expert (in this case, at golf). I've been following his blog with interest, and he's now crossed the 20% mark. Honestly, I'm pretty impressed with where he is, given so much time to go. Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438300 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438300
- aik 15y ago
  Interesting top response in the previous discussion. I disagree almost completely with him. A majority of people who play a sport (or learn any skill for that matter) are specifically not deliberate about their practice, and hence never surpass mediocrity. Within the first 50 hours or so (varies greatly depending on complexity of the skill), many of the actions required for a majority of the skill become automatic and learning slows significantly as a result. People highly skilled in something naturally (or consciously) never fully sink down in comfort and automatism, and remain deliberate and conscious about becoming better at every sub-skill within the greater. The guy attempting the 10,000 hours (supposedly, I haven't been following him to determine if it's true) is specifically talking about this latter form of practice. The person commenting may not fully understand how much more can be accomplished with heightened focus, determination, discernment, and deliberation.
  - losvedir 15y ago
    The guy attempting the 10,000 hours (supposedly, I haven't been following him to determine if it's true) is specifically talking about this latter form of practice. Yes, he's very deliberate about it. IIRC, he has a top coach guiding all of his training, and the plan has been careful working away from the hole. So the first couple hundred hours (!) were all putting and then some chipping, doing careful drill after drill. Finally he can play most of the hole, albeit with only shorter distance clubs so far.
    - aik 15y ago
      Interesting. What I would love to understand is where exactly he was mentally prior to starting this challenge. Is he naturally a person who strives to grow even when tasks become automatic, or has the change of mindset been part of his training, and if so how did he make the mindshift change.
    - kerryfalk 15y ago
      That is a very interesting approach. I wish I had done that when I started playing. I have been playing the game for 20 years. My father was a semi-pro tournament player and I picked up a lot from watching him. I quickly became a "natural" (I really don't like that term, I just had a good base line to start learning from). For years I just went out and played and did fairly good. Better than average. This year I decided to really focus on practicing so I can get to scratch and the gains I've seen in the last two months are huge. This year I have gone from hitting a 5 iron about 170 yards to 200+, consistently. Starting to learn the game from the hole backwards is a great idea. When my game dropped off for a few years I stopped hitting anything longer than a 5 iron. I hope he succeeds. I haven't read a real passion for the game in the posts I've read, though. Does he love it? I believe talent = passion + time spent.
- greenail 15y ago
  Golf may be a terrible example for trying to prove out this rule. There are many folks with near perfect golf swings who never make it in the sport. Golf is largely a mental battle, and if you can't hold up under pressure you are not going to be able to compete. I'm not sure how he is practicing, but I'm guessing he has no where near the pressure you get in competition, and unless you have the experience he would likely crack in a competitive situation. In a tour event a single bad judgment or mental lapse can ruin 4 days of hard work. That's if you caused the issue, golf is not a fair game and a bad bounce could also ruin your day. It is a very tough game mentally, and most recreational golfers are not prepared consistent performance required for competitive golf. The other thing most people don't realize is how much exponentially better the different levels are. A club champ is not much compared with a mini tour player. Mini tour players are no where near the nationwide tour guys, and the PGA players who can win, or finish top 10 consistently are really really good. If you look at the difference between the #1 world ranked Luke Donald vs John Daly currently ranked #652 there is a very small difference in key stats. Lukes scoring average is 69.47, Daly's is 72. Greens in regulation has Luke at 67.04% and Daly at 61.36%. One big event in your personal life could totally shake up your ability to compete at these highest levels. Sergio Garcia had to take a year off after being dumped by Natalie Gulbis, and look at the downward spiral of Tiger. He may never gain the confidence to compete again. I wish him luck but I would bet he couldn't break par on a reasonably tough course from a respectable tee after his 10k hours.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
    I'm not sure I'm following your argument. Are you suggesting it is highly unlikely Dan won't be comparable to a player ranked #652? That is, you are saying, on average, his key stats won't be comparable? I don't think Dan is planning on becoming a top-10 contender on the PGA, I think he would just like to play a competitive game with them. I would suggest that anyone who is ranked on the PGA, #652 on up, could be considered an expert in golf.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > The other thing most people don't realize is how much exponentially better the different levels are. I hate that people so abuse the term exponential, but putting that aside, you're looking at this wrong. The skill gap between levels is smaller as you progress. The effort to hit the next level may grow drastically, but the acquired skills diminish. Think about someone who's never played teeing off against a casual golfer. How horribly will they lose, while they struggle with the basics? Now the casual golfer against the serious amateur. How will the casual golfer fare? Now serious amateur vs club pro. And so on. At each stage, the more advanced person has a major advantage, but that advantage decreases as the levels advance. As someone progresses through the learning process, they go from learning the basics, through competence, and eventually to mastery. During this they initially learn gross skills and finally learn the most delicate refinements. It's this way with every skill. If you had to wager on the underdog in a casual golfer vs club pro face-off or a club pro vs a national pro face-off, who would you pick?
the_cat_kittles 15y ago
This is a fantastic idea, and I have enjoyed following it. I just hope Dan knows that there are lots of people who put in 10,000 hours and don't make it to the highest level (sports, music, math, art, anything...), despite becoming veritable masters. Its always a suprise how many people are amazingly good at something, without being the best or among the best. In my experience, there are such things as innate gifts. But hey, maybe I'm wrong! I hope so :) Makes this project that much more interesting.
- roel_v 15y ago
  Worth to note that it's not about 10000 hours, it's about 10000 hours of deliberate practice. The amount of people who do that is far smaller.
  - praptak 15y ago
    Even if it wasn't he still has one important thing under his belt: a conscious decision to go on for the 10000 hours, made before he even started practicing. This is, as far as I know, rather unique.
    - ellyagg 15y ago
      It's unique now, but people are cost/benefits calculators. Right now, most people do not think that they could become among the best at something through a definite and discrete amount and type of training. If someone succeeds in a highly public way, it will adjust many more peoples' cost/benefits calculations.
  - losvedir 15y ago
    The other caveat is that you need that much practice to become an "expert". It's not clear to me exactly what "expert" means, but it can't be relative to others because others could just as easily put in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. So at the end of all this, he could end up a magnificent golfer, but still not win any PGA tours because the other golfers there are also magnificent players. I still have high hopes for him, though, and can't wait to see how it ends up!
arkitaip 15y ago
Such a inspiring initiative. This could really become a seminal experiment in learning.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hvs 15y ago
  Unfortunately, no matter how successful he is, this is still just a single data point.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - arkitaip 15y ago
    True, but the entire self help industry and large portions of the business literature is based on single or very few data points, and they are thriving.
    - hvs 15y ago
      Which should be very depressing. That said, I'm not trying to downplay what he is doing, I think it's pretty amazing.
  - ellyagg 15y ago
    If a random guy with no prior training became a PGA Tour golfer with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and it was not considered highly persuasive because it was "just a single data point" then I'd suggest our methods need revisiting.
grantbachman 15y ago
This is amazing. It's hard to believe someone is capable of being that dedicated to something they've never really done before. I could understand how an amateur golfer who is in love with the game might set this lofty goal, but it seems Dan really had no feelings toward the game either way. More or less, he's doing it just to see if he can do it. And he's willing to dedicate 5 years of his life to this!
- nimblegorilla 15y ago
  If his experiment works out moderately well I could see a great consulting business in training and self-improvement. If it works out really well he is now a professional athlete which seems pretty cool too. I really wonder how being an amateur golfer would change the 10,000 hours - would it be a head start or would it hold someone back?
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    In theory, it might be a detriment. The brain is fairly plastic (i.e., can be reshaped and rewired constantly), but reinforced behaviors get pretty firmly hardwired. This is why "old habits die hard," and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Quite literally, the neural pathways we use most frequently and automatically become the hardest to rewire. Ergo, if you've learned the game up to a certain skill level -- and then coasted at that skill level for decades -- you're going to need to rewire significantly engrained neural pathways in order to relearn the game and break through your plateau. It also helps to be able to start young. Not only do you have more time on your hands when you're younger, but you learn more quickly. Your brain is much more plastic in childhood. Interestingly, in most of the "10,000 hours" case studies I've seen, the subject started practicing as a young kid. It's entirely possible that the learning curve is steepened or elongated for people who start as adults. A child might be able to go from beginner to master in 10,000 hours, but an adult might need many times that number of hours.
  - eru 15y ago
    And even if it doesn't work out, he can probably still write a book and become a consultant.
kitsune_ 15y ago
I should try this, I'm stuck in Platinum @ StarCraft II.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  At the higher levels of play, StarCraft II is both skill and strategy. If your skill is what's holding you back, then yes, all you need is more practice. If it's your strategy, you could grind for a lifetime without improvement.
  - shadowfox 15y ago
    Couldn't strategic skill be improved? (Serious question. Don't know much about Starcraft. But for a game like chess, it was considered very possible to improve your skill in strategy)
- rexf 15y ago
  I'm stuck in plat as well, but I really don't put that much time into best practices. Somehow my PvT has gotten better while my other two matches have gone down the drain. It's too easy to watch top KR GM's stream and the hours just pass by.
bradfa 15y ago
Another neat side of this is that as he gets better, the people he will be competing with will be able to dedicate more of their lives to practice. For example, I'd imagine PGA pros practice at the same level (time and dedication) as Dan is, but they've been doing it for years already and have a big head start on him. Beating his competitors will get exponentially harder as he gets better even with the amazing work ethic he seems to be putting in. That's cool. Also, now I'm slightly inspired to work harder at getting better at things I care about by using deliberate practice. Granted, I won't stick with it even for 1000 hours. I'm very impressed with what he is doing.
pheaduch 15y ago
I'm doing something similar with trying to learn how to program. I call it Brute Force Learning which is not exactly deliberate practice but more akin to just doing it and hoping it sticks. The reason is because I've always wanted to learn how to program, going back to wanting to build my own BBS door back in the day which gives you a reference of how long I've been around computers without learning to program. I know the reason was never an issue of mental capacity but just a question of will, which is why I'm now carefully keeping track of my learning time log. I just started the experiment and do not have much online but if you're interested you can follow at http://theoutliers.com http://theoutliers.com
ckuehne 15y ago
Interesting experiment. But the 10,000 hours rule is a myth [1]. The variance in deliberate practice needed is huge: some top performers need 3,000 hours while others need 24,000 hours. Some never get to the top no matter how much they practice. Success is probably due to many different factors. Just focusing on the deliberate practice is neither necessary nor sufficient. [1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-...
- 0x12 15y ago
  That is exactly what makes this interesting. He is going to be one fairly accurately measured datapoint.
GreenNight 15y ago
Kudos to him. Only 1 year and 5 months to reach 2000 hours! I'm impressed. I began dancing Lindy Hop on 31st August 2009 and have been counting my hours (swing classes and dancing, not just lindy but also related styles) and I am not yet at the 1000 hour (almost there). I'm one of the most active dancers in the local scene and at 2nd or 3rd tier of the local dancers, the first being really good, so I have still lots of room to improve (not counting that I also go abroad). He does about 4 hours a day of practice, that's 28 a week. Only in the most intensive workshops I have made those hours, and that wasn't deliberate practice. I'll have to follow him just to motivate myself a bit more :D

111 points by losvedir 15y ago

Briefly, Dan is testing the hypothesis that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what it takes to become an expert (in this case, at golf). I've been following his blog with interest, and he's now crossed the 20% mark. Honestly, I'm pretty impressed with where he is, given so much time to go. Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438300 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438300

aik 15y ago
Interesting top response in the previous discussion. I disagree almost completely with him. A majority of people who play a sport (or learn any skill for that matter) are specifically not deliberate about their practice, and hence never surpass mediocrity. Within the first 50 hours or so (varies greatly depending on complexity of the skill), many of the actions required for a majority of the skill become automatic and learning slows significantly as a result. People highly skilled in something naturally (or consciously) never fully sink down in comfort and automatism, and remain deliberate and conscious about becoming better at every sub-skill within the greater. The guy attempting the 10,000 hours (supposedly, I haven't been following him to determine if it's true) is specifically talking about this latter form of practice. The person commenting may not fully understand how much more can be accomplished with heightened focus, determination, discernment, and deliberation.
- losvedir 15y ago
  The guy attempting the 10,000 hours (supposedly, I haven't been following him to determine if it's true) is specifically talking about this latter form of practice. Yes, he's very deliberate about it. IIRC, he has a top coach guiding all of his training, and the plan has been careful working away from the hole. So the first couple hundred hours (!) were all putting and then some chipping, doing careful drill after drill. Finally he can play most of the hole, albeit with only shorter distance clubs so far.
  - aik 15y ago
    Interesting. What I would love to understand is where exactly he was mentally prior to starting this challenge. Is he naturally a person who strives to grow even when tasks become automatic, or has the change of mindset been part of his training, and if so how did he make the mindshift change.
  - kerryfalk 15y ago
    That is a very interesting approach. I wish I had done that when I started playing. I have been playing the game for 20 years. My father was a semi-pro tournament player and I picked up a lot from watching him. I quickly became a "natural" (I really don't like that term, I just had a good base line to start learning from). For years I just went out and played and did fairly good. Better than average. This year I decided to really focus on practicing so I can get to scratch and the gains I've seen in the last two months are huge. This year I have gone from hitting a 5 iron about 170 yards to 200+, consistently. Starting to learn the game from the hole backwards is a great idea. When my game dropped off for a few years I stopped hitting anything longer than a 5 iron. I hope he succeeds. I haven't read a real passion for the game in the posts I've read, though. Does he love it? I believe talent = passion + time spent.
greenail 15y ago
Golf may be a terrible example for trying to prove out this rule. There are many folks with near perfect golf swings who never make it in the sport. Golf is largely a mental battle, and if you can't hold up under pressure you are not going to be able to compete. I'm not sure how he is practicing, but I'm guessing he has no where near the pressure you get in competition, and unless you have the experience he would likely crack in a competitive situation. In a tour event a single bad judgment or mental lapse can ruin 4 days of hard work. That's if you caused the issue, golf is not a fair game and a bad bounce could also ruin your day. It is a very tough game mentally, and most recreational golfers are not prepared consistent performance required for competitive golf. The other thing most people don't realize is how much exponentially better the different levels are. A club champ is not much compared with a mini tour player. Mini tour players are no where near the nationwide tour guys, and the PGA players who can win, or finish top 10 consistently are really really good. If you look at the difference between the #1 world ranked Luke Donald vs John Daly currently ranked #652 there is a very small difference in key stats. Lukes scoring average is 69.47, Daly's is 72. Greens in regulation has Luke at 67.04% and Daly at 61.36%. One big event in your personal life could totally shake up your ability to compete at these highest levels. Sergio Garcia had to take a year off after being dumped by Natalie Gulbis, and look at the downward spiral of Tiger. He may never gain the confidence to compete again. I wish him luck but I would bet he couldn't break par on a reasonably tough course from a respectable tee after his 10k hours.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  I'm not sure I'm following your argument. Are you suggesting it is highly unlikely Dan won't be comparable to a player ranked #652? That is, you are saying, on average, his key stats won't be comparable? I don't think Dan is planning on becoming a top-10 contender on the PGA, I think he would just like to play a competitive game with them. I would suggest that anyone who is ranked on the PGA, #652 on up, could be considered an expert in golf.
- dpark 15y ago
  > The other thing most people don't realize is how much exponentially better the different levels are. I hate that people so abuse the term exponential, but putting that aside, you're looking at this wrong. The skill gap between levels is smaller as you progress. The effort to hit the next level may grow drastically, but the acquired skills diminish. Think about someone who's never played teeing off against a casual golfer. How horribly will they lose, while they struggle with the basics? Now the casual golfer against the serious amateur. How will the casual golfer fare? Now serious amateur vs club pro. And so on. At each stage, the more advanced person has a major advantage, but that advantage decreases as the levels advance. As someone progresses through the learning process, they go from learning the basics, through competence, and eventually to mastery. During this they initially learn gross skills and finally learn the most delicate refinements. It's this way with every skill. If you had to wager on the underdog in a casual golfer vs club pro face-off or a club pro vs a national pro face-off, who would you pick?

the_cat_kittles 15y ago

This is a fantastic idea, and I have enjoyed following it. I just hope Dan knows that there are lots of people who put in 10,000 hours and don't make it to the highest level (sports, music, math, art, anything...), despite becoming veritable masters. Its always a suprise how many people are amazingly good at something, without being the best or among the best. In my experience, there are such things as innate gifts. But hey, maybe I'm wrong! I hope so :) Makes this project that much more interesting.

roel_v 15y ago
Worth to note that it's not about 10000 hours, it's about 10000 hours of deliberate practice. The amount of people who do that is far smaller.
- praptak 15y ago
  Even if it wasn't he still has one important thing under his belt: a conscious decision to go on for the 10000 hours, made before he even started practicing. This is, as far as I know, rather unique.
  - ellyagg 15y ago
    It's unique now, but people are cost/benefits calculators. Right now, most people do not think that they could become among the best at something through a definite and discrete amount and type of training. If someone succeeds in a highly public way, it will adjust many more peoples' cost/benefits calculations.
- losvedir 15y ago
  The other caveat is that you need that much practice to become an "expert". It's not clear to me exactly what "expert" means, but it can't be relative to others because others could just as easily put in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. So at the end of all this, he could end up a magnificent golfer, but still not win any PGA tours because the other golfers there are also magnificent players. I still have high hopes for him, though, and can't wait to see how it ends up!

arkitaip 15y ago

Such a inspiring initiative. This could really become a seminal experiment in learning.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hvs 15y ago
Unfortunately, no matter how successful he is, this is still just a single data point.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- arkitaip 15y ago
  True, but the entire self help industry and large portions of the business literature is based on single or very few data points, and they are thriving.
  - hvs 15y ago
    Which should be very depressing. That said, I'm not trying to downplay what he is doing, I think it's pretty amazing.
- ellyagg 15y ago
  If a random guy with no prior training became a PGA Tour golfer with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and it was not considered highly persuasive because it was "just a single data point" then I'd suggest our methods need revisiting.

grantbachman 15y ago

This is amazing. It's hard to believe someone is capable of being that dedicated to something they've never really done before. I could understand how an amateur golfer who is in love with the game might set this lofty goal, but it seems Dan really had no feelings toward the game either way. More or less, he's doing it just to see if he can do it. And he's willing to dedicate 5 years of his life to this!

nimblegorilla 15y ago
If his experiment works out moderately well I could see a great consulting business in training and self-improvement. If it works out really well he is now a professional athlete which seems pretty cool too. I really wonder how being an amateur golfer would change the 10,000 hours - would it be a head start or would it hold someone back?
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  In theory, it might be a detriment. The brain is fairly plastic (i.e., can be reshaped and rewired constantly), but reinforced behaviors get pretty firmly hardwired. This is why "old habits die hard," and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Quite literally, the neural pathways we use most frequently and automatically become the hardest to rewire. Ergo, if you've learned the game up to a certain skill level -- and then coasted at that skill level for decades -- you're going to need to rewire significantly engrained neural pathways in order to relearn the game and break through your plateau. It also helps to be able to start young. Not only do you have more time on your hands when you're younger, but you learn more quickly. Your brain is much more plastic in childhood. Interestingly, in most of the "10,000 hours" case studies I've seen, the subject started practicing as a young kid. It's entirely possible that the learning curve is steepened or elongated for people who start as adults. A child might be able to go from beginner to master in 10,000 hours, but an adult might need many times that number of hours.
- eru 15y ago
  And even if it doesn't work out, he can probably still write a book and become a consultant.

kitsune_ 15y ago

I should try this, I'm stuck in Platinum @ StarCraft II.

sliverstorm 15y ago
At the higher levels of play, StarCraft II is both skill and strategy. If your skill is what's holding you back, then yes, all you need is more practice. If it's your strategy, you could grind for a lifetime without improvement.
- shadowfox 15y ago
  Couldn't strategic skill be improved? (Serious question. Don't know much about Starcraft. But for a game like chess, it was considered very possible to improve your skill in strategy)
rexf 15y ago
I'm stuck in plat as well, but I really don't put that much time into best practices. Somehow my PvT has gotten better while my other two matches have gone down the drain. It's too easy to watch top KR GM's stream and the hours just pass by.

bradfa 15y ago

Another neat side of this is that as he gets better, the people he will be competing with will be able to dedicate more of their lives to practice. For example, I'd imagine PGA pros practice at the same level (time and dedication) as Dan is, but they've been doing it for years already and have a big head start on him. Beating his competitors will get exponentially harder as he gets better even with the amazing work ethic he seems to be putting in. That's cool. Also, now I'm slightly inspired to work harder at getting better at things I care about by using deliberate practice. Granted, I won't stick with it even for 1000 hours. I'm very impressed with what he is doing.

pheaduch 15y ago

I'm doing something similar with trying to learn how to program. I call it Brute Force Learning which is not exactly deliberate practice but more akin to just doing it and hoping it sticks. The reason is because I've always wanted to learn how to program, going back to wanting to build my own BBS door back in the day which gives you a reference of how long I've been around computers without learning to program. I know the reason was never an issue of mental capacity but just a question of will, which is why I'm now carefully keeping track of my learning time log. I just started the experiment and do not have much online but if you're interested you can follow at http://theoutliers.com http://theoutliers.com

ckuehne 15y ago

Interesting experiment. But the 10,000 hours rule is a myth [1]. The variance in deliberate practice needed is huge: some top performers need 3,000 hours while others need 24,000 hours. Some never get to the top no matter how much they practice. Success is probably due to many different factors. Just focusing on the deliberate practice is neither necessary nor sufficient. [1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-...

0x12 15y ago
That is exactly what makes this interesting. He is going to be one fairly accurately measured datapoint.

GreenNight 15y ago

Kudos to him. Only 1 year and 5 months to reach 2000 hours! I'm impressed. I began dancing Lindy Hop on 31st August 2009 and have been counting my hours (swing classes and dancing, not just lindy but also related styles) and I am not yet at the 1000 hour (almost there). I'm one of the most active dancers in the local scene and at 2nd or 3rd tier of the local dancers, the first being really good, so I have still lots of room to improve (not counting that I also go abroad). He does about 4 hours a day of practice, that's 28 a week. Only in the most intensive workshops I have made those hours, and that wasn't deliberate practice. I'll have to follow him just to motivate myself a bit more :D