4 ms·

Why do people reference the ‘10,000 hour’? It instantly reduces your credibility because that number was made up.

• Sakos 3y ago
  > Why do people reference the ‘10,000 hour’? It instantly reduces your credibility because that number was made up. It's just short-hand so we're on the same page and we all know that we're talking about the same thing. Shared knowledge is an important place to start from in order to communicate. As for the exact number? Who cares? The number itself is irrelevant. Whatever the number is or what it might actually be (as if there could ever be one single number for it), it doesn't invalidate the ideas that it's associated with. This tired criticism is tired. The article even addresses the number directly: > Although the backlash against Gladwell’s calculation has arguably been exaggerated, it’s important to stress that research into deliberate practice emphasizes quality of practice, not quantity. It’s all too possible to spend 10,000 hours engaging in a skill without serious improvements. For example, most of us spend hours per day typing, yet we don’t see continuous improvements in speed and quality because we’re not using deliberate practice. > The useful takeaway from the “10,000 hours rule” is simply that it takes a lot of work to become the best. There’s no magic number of practice sessions, and everyone’s path will look different. Just because successful people in a given field have spent around 10,000 hours practicing their key skill, that doesn’t mean every person who practices that skill for 10,000 hours will become successful. But you probably didn't even read it before coming here to complain, did you?
  • garyfirestorm 3y ago
    You’re right! I didn’t read it in entirety.