16 ms·

The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Not Real

68 points by pif 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fchollet 12y ago
The 10,000 hour rule is a cultural meme that has spread and found believers not because it is grounded in reality but because it is cognitively seductive. In the first place it should seem highly suspect that something as poorly-defined and multidimensional as "mastering" (how do you measure mastery?) a "field" (as if every field had the same complexity and breadth) could always be done by anyone (independently of the obvious issue of individual variations in intelligence and talent) under a constant, conveniently round figure of 10,000 hours of practice. As a cultural meme it works in a similar way to the myth that "humans are only using 10% of their brains". I expect it to die a slow death over the next 50 years.
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  I think its popular because 10,000 hours seems nicely out of reach for most people, so it lets you off the hook for not being good at stuff. It's not my fault I can't play the piano: my lifestyle precludes it. If only I didn't have a job/kids/whatever, then people could see how creative I really am. Gladwell allows one to continue doing nothing while still imagining oneself as a thwarted hero. A great deal for just $16.99.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  I'd always understood it as figurative for "a whole lot of time." I think it works as both an encouragement and a warning: if you think you can become a master in a few weeks, think again. But if you've been practicing for a year and you feel like you're never going to get there, keep at it! You're making real progress even if it doesn't seem like it.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Malcolm Gladwell is a tool, but the idea makes sense on some level because he borrowed it from other areas. If you've been focused exclusively and passionately on a specific field of study for the equivalent of 5 full time years, you will be an expert/master at that thing. The scope or meaning of that mastery is going to depend on what it is. If you're a plumber, you're going to be adept at using your tools and be an expert in the codes for plumbing systems and maybe some specific sub-domain (like industrial cooling). I use a blue collar example here because there is an actual process to be designated a "master" in a trade. Usually it requires a minimum of 5 years of practicing your craft at the journeyman level. (Along with training and alot of study) Assuming a 2,000 hour work year... that's pretty much your magical 10,000 hour benchmark.
aaronbasssett 12y ago
I observed Escher. I love Basquiat. I watched Keith Haring, you see I study art. The greats weren't great because at birth they could paint, the greats were great cause they paint a lot.
- pif 12y ago
  Doing a lot is not enough. Being critical towards yourself, striving to do better, understand what is better, looking for and listening to feedback, those are as necessary.
  - simoncarter 12y ago
    In what appears to be the original paper on the 10,000 hour rule (The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/D...), even the Authors state: "It is important to note that our study shows only that the amount and distribution of practice is related to the level of performance of adult musicians. In fact, many additional factors consistent with the skill-acquisition framework could attenuate the differences among our three groups. Sosniak (1985) found that international-level pianists had spent considerable efforts to seek out the very best musical teachers during their musical development. Furthermore, it is likely that an analysis of the detailed activities during practice alone would reveal qualitative differences between violinists at different advanced levels of performance (Gruson, 1988; Miklaszewski, 1989)." But more recent research has demonstrated (though I don't know to what degree, nor how many other papers have validated the following findings) that "individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice accounted for about one-third of the reliable variance in performance in chess and music, leaving the majority of the reliable variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors". From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614..., sorry for the paywall. In the end, I think it's important to spend time searching and finding something you will be happy to do for the majority of your life. If you want to progress at your chosen field, thought out and well planned studying/practise is necessary, and will make you better, whether or not you end up becoming the accepted world best. And if you enjoy it, it won't matter how high you go.
weddpros 12y ago
The conclusion, imho, remains the same: "put more work in what you love and someday, it will pay". As I see it, the 10000h rule is about patience and dedication. The "10 times rule" is also interesting: it will take 10x more efforts than you think...
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > The "10 times rule" is also interesting: it will take 10x more efforts than you think... You see this one all over the place: 90-90 law: the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the development time. The last 10% of the project takes the other 90% of the development time. Hofstadter's law: It always takes longer than you expect, even after accounting for Hofstadter's law.
  - ozim 12y ago
    First time I see 90-90 law, looks like someone made it up from Pareto principle which is 80% - 20%. Besides I don't see application in this topic for it.
    - weddpros 12y ago
      If I'm correct, there's more humour in the 90-90 law than in the Pareto principle! The 90-90 law predicts a 180% work load...
- cge 12y ago
  Why is that the conclusion? As much as I am skeptical of meta-analyses and the scientific soundness of most psychological research, the paper really does suggest that dedication has relatively little to do with performance. Patience and dedication toward something one isn't talented in may well not pay. Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, I also figure skated very diligently, far more so than studying, and spent thousands of hours diligently and efficiently practicing with excellent coaches, which was probably significantly more time than I spent studying. I graduated with accolades and admission to an excellent university for my graduate work, while unable to reliably do even a single axel.
dqdo 12y ago
The reason that the 10,000 hour does not exist are: (1) different fields require different amount of training and dedication, (2) it is difficult to measure what "mastery" is because it is so hard to quantify, (3) some fields are more competitive than others and therefore requires more practice to get really good, (4) the way that one learns and practice can have a significant effect on one's skill level, (5) at the highest level there is always a factor of talent and luck. Overall, the 10,000 hour rule just means that it takes a really really long time and dedication to be a world class at something. For some it may take only 1,000 hours while others will not reach it no matter how much they try. I think that this meme has gotten out of control and perhaps people have focused more on the long hours than the joy of improving or understanding what improvement means. It is not always better to spend more time on something and in some sense the feeling that we should be working all the time has lead people to become less productive.
- abraxasz 12y ago
  I think the problem is more (6) deliberate practice is hard to define. Some people believe that just sitting and doing problem sets is deliberate practice. Some people believe that hacking on a side project is deliberate practice of programming skills. I don't think that any of those two examples would qualify as deliberate practice.
  - k__ 12y ago
    THIS. I know many people who do stuff for ages now, but they aren't someone you would ask for advice, because they're so bad at it. I know two photographs, one is mediocre and does this stuff for over 6 years now (professionally for money) and one is superb and does it for 2 years (for fun). Most people who get involved with a specific thing never get to the practice part. They just read a bunch of stuff, do a bit of it and think they know everything...
  - oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
    How would you define deliberate practice, then? I would agree that deliberate practice may be hard to define across all skills, but it could be defined for a specific skill. For example in programing, I would consider problem sets and side projects with functions and goals that are aligned but still outside of one's normal scope of work to be deliberate practice. Working on Project Euler problem sets could be considered deliberate practice. They are problems that can be done in most any programming language, are known to be great for learning a new one, but generally fall outside the usual work of handling data, transforming content, etc. I would consider Project Euler to be akin to practicing scales on a musical instrument: playing scales is not necessarily music in a "having popular appeal" sense, but it does enable new skills and depth of knowledge of the instrument.
lutusp 12y ago
This is just another example of psychologists trying to sound like scientists. Scientists quantify their claims, put forth physical rules and associated mathematics, after which measurements confirm or refute the quantified predictions. Psychologists express opinions, most of which don't lead to empirical or quantifiable predictions, but occasionally a psychologist, jealous of real scientists, will try to quantify an opinion, as in this case where 10,000 hours was attached to someone's viewpoint. Then, later, inevitably, other psychologists will argue against the earlier opinion, as thought the refutation was anything more than another opinion. What psychologists don't do is try to offer explanations, craft testable theories, about their observations, then subject the theories to empirical test. That would actually be science. > The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Not Real On the contrary! It is exactly as real as psychology is.
- sirwitti 12y ago
  You talk about quantifying claims and at the same time separate all psychologists from scientists. Maybe read again what you just posted...
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > You talk about quantifying claims and at the same time separate all psychologists from scientists. Think about your argument. If I separate all psychologists from scientists, I'm not quantifying. If instead I say 50% of psychologists don't meet minimal scientific standards, that would be a quantification. Also, surely you realize what I'm saying is now the majority view on this topic, yes? Even with the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
    - anbende 12y ago
      Are you aware that psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing? Are you aware that the practice of psychology and psychological research are likewise not the same thing and that "practicing" psychologists and "research" psychologists are two very different professions? The primary claim levelled by the NIMH was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the mountain of psychological research that has been conducted in the last 20 years. This was done for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with a lack of scientific research or evidence on the various conditions elucidated in the DSM (reasons like: "preserving continuity", "insurance concerns" and "ease of use"). The modern DSM is absolutely a problem, but it's not a problem because the science is crap. It's a problem, because the people in charge of the DSM (and yes there were a few psychologists there) didn't prioritize sound science.
sirwitti 12y ago
I just returned from a jazz workshop where we talked a lot about practising. The drum teacher said that it's not necessarily the amount of hours you put into it, but also the frequency and how focussed you work on it.
- ivanche 12y ago
  I remember reading once that best musicians actually worked less than the average ones. But, the difference was that the best had 2 highly focused 1.5-2hrs practice sessions per day (deliberate practice) and rest for the remaining of the day, while average had several shorter practice sessions throughout the day.
mkl 12y ago
There's a really interesting episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast that delves into this in some depth, particularly relating to sports, where the idea has really taken off, and where there is good evidence the specialisation it encourages actively harms performance: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...
- agumonkey 12y ago
  Nice talk, I wish to see more advanced idea on the same topic.
onion2k 12y ago
The latest episode of the awesome You Are Not So Smart podcast is all about exceptions to the 10,000 hour rule; http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...
yungchin 12y ago
Does this really contradict that 10000-hour rule? (Well, apart from the fact that 10000 hours may well be an arbitrary number, and not as magical as Gladwell made it out to be) From what I remember from reading Outliers, the claim about the 10000 hours was formulated more precisely than is posed here: it only said that above a certain level of innate talent (IIRC the particular level wasn't made a big deal of), differences in talent were less significant than differences in practice hours. That's a much weaker claim, but a more credible one: if you're already blessed with eg a high IQ, then it pays off to work hard on your homework, and you can overtake the super-brilliant slacker in your class. But if you didn't have a very high IQ to begin with, the rule doesn't promise you anything. The data in the article just says there's a lot of other stuff that determines the variance in performance - probably that includes "talent". It doesn't try to find if such a "talent threshold" above which talent is less important exists.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Does this really contradict that 10000-hour rule? No, it contradicts the premise that there could be such a number with the meaning attached to it. It's not about the value the number has, the issue is the number itself -- the idea that the thing under discussion could be assigned a specific value. But the deeper problem is that it assigns a quantity to something no one understands well enough to quantify. Scientists avoid attaching a number to something until there's an explanation, a theory, that makes the number both compelling and testable (i.e. falsifiable).
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >Scientists avoid attaching a number to something until there's an explanation, a theory, that makes the number both compelling and testable (i.e. falsifiable). // Hubble seemingly ignored the outliers and drew a straight line through his data to create his eponymous "constant". Making a mark to work from isn't really unscientific it's just loose hypothesising - http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html. Surely the fact that this meta-analysis has falsified the former claim [hypothesis] shows that it was scientific [at least under a Popperian formulation].
wellboy 12y ago
The article states that only 12% of success is determined by practice, thus the hypothesis of it taking 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill is false. Somehow that doesn't make any sense. >D The author should maybe have read up more on the 10,000 hour rule, because the rule means that if someone is extremely talented in a certain skill already, it still takes them 10,000 hours to master that skill, such as Beethoven, Gates etc.
everettForth 12y ago
This is the only person I know who is testing it empirically: http://thedanplan.com/ http://thedanplan.com/
- yungchin 12y ago
  Not sure if that's a properly thought through n=1 study :)
minikites 12y ago
Turns out, Malcolm Gladwell is wrong about pretty much everything he writes about.
- bshimmin 12y ago
  I wonder how many hours he's spent practising, too!
cge 12y ago
I'd speculate that the 10,000 hour rule is a product of an American obsession with the idea of hard work being the most important factor in success, with the idea that everyone's abilities are reasonably equal, and determination and diligence is what differentiates them. This satisfies a certain sense of fairness and justice in life. I also think it's just not true, more the product of wishful thinking than any evidence. People have differing levels of talent in different areas, and this does have significant effects on success and ability. There are "super-brilliant slackers," and there are very hard working failures. Talent, too, does not necessarily correspond with interest and enjoyment. None of this is fair, but life is not inherently fair. The important thing here, more than practice, is figuring out what one is good at doing, and what one enjoys doing, and coming up with things that are in both sets.
- qwerta 12y ago
  10K hours is about 3 years of training.
  - swimfar 12y ago
    That would be 9 hours per day, every single day of those three years. How many people have even had just one day where they spent nine hours on the same thing? That's not including breaks, and periods where you mind wanders or you're not focused.
    - seren 12y ago
      And it is supposed to be 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice", if I remember correctly, i.e. exercises and trials focusing on harder point, with an immediate feedback. I don't think it is possible to keep that kind of focus 9 hours a day for 3 years in a row.
    - qwerta 12y ago
      Most people I know did it in college
      - 12y ago
picsiak 12y ago
If you enjoy something, I would still suggest trying to put 10.000+ hours into it.
jaimebuelta 12y ago
A few weeks ago, the You Are Not So Smart podcast talked about this. I really recommend it to anyone interested in this 10K hour thing http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...
avz 12y ago
I'm skeptical about a specific number of 10,000 hours claimed to be valid across multitude of skills and domains, but I think the spirit of the rule makes a lot of sense. I think the value of innate talents compared to training and exercise is highly overstated given that almost all skills (hunting and archery possibly being exceptions) are so new in evolutionary time scale that there could not possibly have been any selection for them and so they must lack any specific support in our hardware. Somehow, nobody doubts the importance of exercise in physical fitness. Not sure why mental fitness should be different.
- yungchin 12y ago
  ... given that almost all skills (hunting and archery possibly being exceptions) are so new in evolutionary time scale that there could not possibly have been any selection for them ... Couldn't you turn that evolutionary argument around, and say that exactly because there hasn't been any selection until recently, you'd expect a larger population variance in those innate talents?
skywhopper 12y ago
IIRC, the 10,000 hour rule is for becoming "expert" at a skill, not for becoming an Outlier, or for gaining "success". Those "best musicians" with an average of 10,000 hours by age 20 are, by any reasonable definition, experts at their craft.
- lostcolony 12y ago
  But not those chumps who only have 9999 hours! They're not experts ~yet~! Even if you redefine it not as 'mastery' but as 'expert(ise)', it's still absurd.
analog31 12y ago
I propose a new study: The half-life of the 10000 hour rule, i.e., how many years before belief in the 10000 rule among the general population (or among certain specialized populations) is reduced to half of its present level.
huangc10 12y ago
Sure it might not be real. I believe, though, if you spend 10,000 hrs on something, you'll have a higher chance of being better than someone who has only spent 1000 hrs on that thing. Is this not a correct assumption or belief?
- Broken_Hippo 12y ago
  I think such things depend on what exactly you are practicing. Chances are if you deliberately practice a language that long, you'll likely be overly fluent. That said, if your body is such that you cannot physically pronounce that 'r' correctly, you'll never speak without some sort of lisp or accent. Art and music are just as much luck as they are talent: Talent can very easily overtake practice. People that practice art learn techniques, but after some time, tend to become very good at emulating. Some people just get art, though, and intuitively know where to place things, where to shadow, what marks to leave out. When the talented practice, they create and manipulate and take whatever they've learned and they become more awesome. Alternatively, formal and deliberate practice in art actually kills some natural talent with overt rules. I've seen all things. Who actually makes it and is regarded as an expert by society? Whoever gets lucky. Music is similar: Some practice and become experts in a symphony, some practice and create symphonies, and others yet, regardless of practice, still struggle to keep on beat. In any case, though, I do think any person spending so many deliberate (or even not so deliberate) hours on one subject winds up with a pretty amazing knowledge base and probably knowledge of quite a few branches of knowledge. Even if the original goal wasn't actually mastered, still worth it for knowledge.
jimbokun 12y ago
"So greatness is within virtually any person's grasp, so long as they can put in the time to master their skill of choice." Gladwell did not say that. It is an over simplification of his argument. He concedes innate talent plays a role. "For almost a generation, psychologists around the world have been engaged in a spirited debate over a question that most of us would consider to have been settled years ago. The question is this: is there such a thing as innate talent? The obvious answer is yes. Not every hockey player born in January ends up playing at the professional level. Only some do—the innately talented ones." http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/what-did-malcolm-gladwell-actually-say-about-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/what-did-malcolm-gla...
Padding 12y ago
So it's necessary but not sufficent? Or neither necessary nor sufficent?
lazyant 12y ago
For anyone interested in the innate talent vs practice in sports I recommend the book 'The Sports Gene' (spoiler: genes play a huge role).
xname 12y ago
This is silly attack. The 10,000 Hour Rule says you need 10,000 Hour practice to master a field. It does not say 10,000 Hour practice is the only/most important factor in performance. It has nothing to do with explanation of variances in performance. It does not say 10,000 Hour practice will guarantee your success. It does not say gene is irrelevant to learning. It only says, as a normal person (not genius, not mentally disabled), you need 10,000 Hour practice to master a field. Straw-man attack.

68 points by pif 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fchollet 12y ago

The 10,000 hour rule is a cultural meme that has spread and found believers not because it is grounded in reality but because it is cognitively seductive. In the first place it should seem highly suspect that something as poorly-defined and multidimensional as "mastering" (how do you measure mastery?) a "field" (as if every field had the same complexity and breadth) could always be done by anyone (independently of the obvious issue of individual variations in intelligence and talent) under a constant, conveniently round figure of 10,000 hours of practice. As a cultural meme it works in a similar way to the myth that "humans are only using 10% of their brains". I expect it to die a slow death over the next 50 years.

JonnieCache 12y ago
I think its popular because 10,000 hours seems nicely out of reach for most people, so it lets you off the hook for not being good at stuff. It's not my fault I can't play the piano: my lifestyle precludes it. If only I didn't have a job/kids/whatever, then people could see how creative I really am. Gladwell allows one to continue doing nothing while still imagining oneself as a thwarted hero. A great deal for just $16.99.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
I'd always understood it as figurative for "a whole lot of time." I think it works as both an encouragement and a warning: if you think you can become a master in a few weeks, think again. But if you've been practicing for a year and you feel like you're never going to get there, keep at it! You're making real progress even if it doesn't seem like it.
Spooky23 12y ago
Malcolm Gladwell is a tool, but the idea makes sense on some level because he borrowed it from other areas. If you've been focused exclusively and passionately on a specific field of study for the equivalent of 5 full time years, you will be an expert/master at that thing. The scope or meaning of that mastery is going to depend on what it is. If you're a plumber, you're going to be adept at using your tools and be an expert in the codes for plumbing systems and maybe some specific sub-domain (like industrial cooling). I use a blue collar example here because there is an actual process to be designated a "master" in a trade. Usually it requires a minimum of 5 years of practicing your craft at the journeyman level. (Along with training and alot of study) Assuming a 2,000 hour work year... that's pretty much your magical 10,000 hour benchmark.

aaronbasssett 12y ago

I observed Escher. I love Basquiat. I watched Keith Haring, you see I study art. The greats weren't great because at birth they could paint, the greats were great cause they paint a lot.

pif 12y ago
Doing a lot is not enough. Being critical towards yourself, striving to do better, understand what is better, looking for and listening to feedback, those are as necessary.
- simoncarter 12y ago
  In what appears to be the original paper on the 10,000 hour rule (The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/D...), even the Authors state: "It is important to note that our study shows only that the amount and distribution of practice is related to the level of performance of adult musicians. In fact, many additional factors consistent with the skill-acquisition framework could attenuate the differences among our three groups. Sosniak (1985) found that international-level pianists had spent considerable efforts to seek out the very best musical teachers during their musical development. Furthermore, it is likely that an analysis of the detailed activities during practice alone would reveal qualitative differences between violinists at different advanced levels of performance (Gruson, 1988; Miklaszewski, 1989)." But more recent research has demonstrated (though I don't know to what degree, nor how many other papers have validated the following findings) that "individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice accounted for about one-third of the reliable variance in performance in chess and music, leaving the majority of the reliable variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors". From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614..., sorry for the paywall. In the end, I think it's important to spend time searching and finding something you will be happy to do for the majority of your life. If you want to progress at your chosen field, thought out and well planned studying/practise is necessary, and will make you better, whether or not you end up becoming the accepted world best. And if you enjoy it, it won't matter how high you go.

weddpros 12y ago

The conclusion, imho, remains the same: "put more work in what you love and someday, it will pay". As I see it, the 10000h rule is about patience and dedication. The "10 times rule" is also interesting: it will take 10x more efforts than you think...

thaumasiotes 12y ago
> The "10 times rule" is also interesting: it will take 10x more efforts than you think... You see this one all over the place: 90-90 law: the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the development time. The last 10% of the project takes the other 90% of the development time. Hofstadter's law: It always takes longer than you expect, even after accounting for Hofstadter's law.
- ozim 12y ago
  First time I see 90-90 law, looks like someone made it up from Pareto principle which is 80% - 20%. Besides I don't see application in this topic for it.
  - weddpros 12y ago
    If I'm correct, there's more humour in the 90-90 law than in the Pareto principle! The 90-90 law predicts a 180% work load...
cge 12y ago
Why is that the conclusion? As much as I am skeptical of meta-analyses and the scientific soundness of most psychological research, the paper really does suggest that dedication has relatively little to do with performance. Patience and dedication toward something one isn't talented in may well not pay. Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, I also figure skated very diligently, far more so than studying, and spent thousands of hours diligently and efficiently practicing with excellent coaches, which was probably significantly more time than I spent studying. I graduated with accolades and admission to an excellent university for my graduate work, while unable to reliably do even a single axel.

dqdo 12y ago

The reason that the 10,000 hour does not exist are: (1) different fields require different amount of training and dedication, (2) it is difficult to measure what "mastery" is because it is so hard to quantify, (3) some fields are more competitive than others and therefore requires more practice to get really good, (4) the way that one learns and practice can have a significant effect on one's skill level, (5) at the highest level there is always a factor of talent and luck. Overall, the 10,000 hour rule just means that it takes a really really long time and dedication to be a world class at something. For some it may take only 1,000 hours while others will not reach it no matter how much they try. I think that this meme has gotten out of control and perhaps people have focused more on the long hours than the joy of improving or understanding what improvement means. It is not always better to spend more time on something and in some sense the feeling that we should be working all the time has lead people to become less productive.

abraxasz 12y ago
I think the problem is more (6) deliberate practice is hard to define. Some people believe that just sitting and doing problem sets is deliberate practice. Some people believe that hacking on a side project is deliberate practice of programming skills. I don't think that any of those two examples would qualify as deliberate practice.
- k__ 12y ago
  THIS. I know many people who do stuff for ages now, but they aren't someone you would ask for advice, because they're so bad at it. I know two photographs, one is mediocre and does this stuff for over 6 years now (professionally for money) and one is superb and does it for 2 years (for fun). Most people who get involved with a specific thing never get to the practice part. They just read a bunch of stuff, do a bit of it and think they know everything...
- oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
  How would you define deliberate practice, then? I would agree that deliberate practice may be hard to define across all skills, but it could be defined for a specific skill. For example in programing, I would consider problem sets and side projects with functions and goals that are aligned but still outside of one's normal scope of work to be deliberate practice. Working on Project Euler problem sets could be considered deliberate practice. They are problems that can be done in most any programming language, are known to be great for learning a new one, but generally fall outside the usual work of handling data, transforming content, etc. I would consider Project Euler to be akin to practicing scales on a musical instrument: playing scales is not necessarily music in a "having popular appeal" sense, but it does enable new skills and depth of knowledge of the instrument.

lutusp 12y ago

This is just another example of psychologists trying to sound like scientists. Scientists quantify their claims, put forth physical rules and associated mathematics, after which measurements confirm or refute the quantified predictions. Psychologists express opinions, most of which don't lead to empirical or quantifiable predictions, but occasionally a psychologist, jealous of real scientists, will try to quantify an opinion, as in this case where 10,000 hours was attached to someone's viewpoint. Then, later, inevitably, other psychologists will argue against the earlier opinion, as thought the refutation was anything more than another opinion. What psychologists don't do is try to offer explanations, craft testable theories, about their observations, then subject the theories to empirical test. That would actually be science. > The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Not Real On the contrary! It is exactly as real as psychology is.

sirwitti 12y ago
You talk about quantifying claims and at the same time separate all psychologists from scientists. Maybe read again what you just posted...
- lutusp 12y ago
  > You talk about quantifying claims and at the same time separate all psychologists from scientists. Think about your argument. If I separate all psychologists from scientists, I'm not quantifying. If instead I say 50% of psychologists don't meet minimal scientific standards, that would be a quantification. Also, surely you realize what I'm saying is now the majority view on this topic, yes? Even with the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
  - anbende 12y ago
    Are you aware that psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing? Are you aware that the practice of psychology and psychological research are likewise not the same thing and that "practicing" psychologists and "research" psychologists are two very different professions? The primary claim levelled by the NIMH was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the mountain of psychological research that has been conducted in the last 20 years. This was done for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with a lack of scientific research or evidence on the various conditions elucidated in the DSM (reasons like: "preserving continuity", "insurance concerns" and "ease of use"). The modern DSM is absolutely a problem, but it's not a problem because the science is crap. It's a problem, because the people in charge of the DSM (and yes there were a few psychologists there) didn't prioritize sound science.

sirwitti 12y ago

I just returned from a jazz workshop where we talked a lot about practising. The drum teacher said that it's not necessarily the amount of hours you put into it, but also the frequency and how focussed you work on it.

ivanche 12y ago
I remember reading once that best musicians actually worked less than the average ones. But, the difference was that the best had 2 highly focused 1.5-2hrs practice sessions per day (deliberate practice) and rest for the remaining of the day, while average had several shorter practice sessions throughout the day.

mkl 12y ago

There's a really interesting episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast that delves into this in some depth, particularly relating to sports, where the idea has really taken off, and where there is good evidence the specialisation it encourages actively harms performance: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...

agumonkey 12y ago
Nice talk, I wish to see more advanced idea on the same topic.

onion2k 12y ago

The latest episode of the awesome You Are Not So Smart podcast is all about exceptions to the 10,000 hour rule; http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...

yungchin 12y ago

Does this really contradict that 10000-hour rule? (Well, apart from the fact that 10000 hours may well be an arbitrary number, and not as magical as Gladwell made it out to be) From what I remember from reading Outliers, the claim about the 10000 hours was formulated more precisely than is posed here: it only said that above a certain level of innate talent (IIRC the particular level wasn't made a big deal of), differences in talent were less significant than differences in practice hours. That's a much weaker claim, but a more credible one: if you're already blessed with eg a high IQ, then it pays off to work hard on your homework, and you can overtake the super-brilliant slacker in your class. But if you didn't have a very high IQ to begin with, the rule doesn't promise you anything. The data in the article just says there's a lot of other stuff that determines the variance in performance - probably that includes "talent". It doesn't try to find if such a "talent threshold" above which talent is less important exists.

lutusp 12y ago
> Does this really contradict that 10000-hour rule? No, it contradicts the premise that there could be such a number with the meaning attached to it. It's not about the value the number has, the issue is the number itself -- the idea that the thing under discussion could be assigned a specific value. But the deeper problem is that it assigns a quantity to something no one understands well enough to quantify. Scientists avoid attaching a number to something until there's an explanation, a theory, that makes the number both compelling and testable (i.e. falsifiable).
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >Scientists avoid attaching a number to something until there's an explanation, a theory, that makes the number both compelling and testable (i.e. falsifiable). // Hubble seemingly ignored the outliers and drew a straight line through his data to create his eponymous "constant". Making a mark to work from isn't really unscientific it's just loose hypothesising - http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html. Surely the fact that this meta-analysis has falsified the former claim [hypothesis] shows that it was scientific [at least under a Popperian formulation].

wellboy 12y ago

The article states that only 12% of success is determined by practice, thus the hypothesis of it taking 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill is false. Somehow that doesn't make any sense. >D The author should maybe have read up more on the 10,000 hour rule, because the rule means that if someone is extremely talented in a certain skill already, it still takes them 10,000 hours to master that skill, such as Beethoven, Gates etc.

everettForth 12y ago

This is the only person I know who is testing it empirically: http://thedanplan.com/ http://thedanplan.com/

yungchin 12y ago
Not sure if that's a properly thought through n=1 study :)

minikites 12y ago

Turns out, Malcolm Gladwell is wrong about pretty much everything he writes about.

bshimmin 12y ago
I wonder how many hours he's spent practising, too!

cge 12y ago

I'd speculate that the 10,000 hour rule is a product of an American obsession with the idea of hard work being the most important factor in success, with the idea that everyone's abilities are reasonably equal, and determination and diligence is what differentiates them. This satisfies a certain sense of fairness and justice in life. I also think it's just not true, more the product of wishful thinking than any evidence. People have differing levels of talent in different areas, and this does have significant effects on success and ability. There are "super-brilliant slackers," and there are very hard working failures. Talent, too, does not necessarily correspond with interest and enjoyment. None of this is fair, but life is not inherently fair. The important thing here, more than practice, is figuring out what one is good at doing, and what one enjoys doing, and coming up with things that are in both sets.

qwerta 12y ago
10K hours is about 3 years of training.
- swimfar 12y ago
  That would be 9 hours per day, every single day of those three years. How many people have even had just one day where they spent nine hours on the same thing? That's not including breaks, and periods where you mind wanders or you're not focused.
  - seren 12y ago
    And it is supposed to be 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice", if I remember correctly, i.e. exercises and trials focusing on harder point, with an immediate feedback. I don't think it is possible to keep that kind of focus 9 hours a day for 3 years in a row.
  - qwerta 12y ago
    Most people I know did it in college
    - 12y ago

picsiak 12y ago

If you enjoy something, I would still suggest trying to put 10.000+ hours into it.

jaimebuelta 12y ago

A few weeks ago, the You Are Not So Smart podcast talked about this. I really recommend it to anyone interested in this 10K hour thing http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...

avz 12y ago

I'm skeptical about a specific number of 10,000 hours claimed to be valid across multitude of skills and domains, but I think the spirit of the rule makes a lot of sense. I think the value of innate talents compared to training and exercise is highly overstated given that almost all skills (hunting and archery possibly being exceptions) are so new in evolutionary time scale that there could not possibly have been any selection for them and so they must lack any specific support in our hardware. Somehow, nobody doubts the importance of exercise in physical fitness. Not sure why mental fitness should be different.

yungchin 12y ago
... given that almost all skills (hunting and archery possibly being exceptions) are so new in evolutionary time scale that there could not possibly have been any selection for them ... Couldn't you turn that evolutionary argument around, and say that exactly because there hasn't been any selection until recently, you'd expect a larger population variance in those innate talents?

skywhopper 12y ago

IIRC, the 10,000 hour rule is for becoming "expert" at a skill, not for becoming an Outlier, or for gaining "success". Those "best musicians" with an average of 10,000 hours by age 20 are, by any reasonable definition, experts at their craft.

lostcolony 12y ago
But not those chumps who only have 9999 hours! They're not experts ~yet~! Even if you redefine it not as 'mastery' but as 'expert(ise)', it's still absurd.

analog31 12y ago

I propose a new study: The half-life of the 10000 hour rule, i.e., how many years before belief in the 10000 rule among the general population (or among certain specialized populations) is reduced to half of its present level.

huangc10 12y ago

Sure it might not be real. I believe, though, if you spend 10,000 hrs on something, you'll have a higher chance of being better than someone who has only spent 1000 hrs on that thing. Is this not a correct assumption or belief?

Broken_Hippo 12y ago
I think such things depend on what exactly you are practicing. Chances are if you deliberately practice a language that long, you'll likely be overly fluent. That said, if your body is such that you cannot physically pronounce that 'r' correctly, you'll never speak without some sort of lisp or accent. Art and music are just as much luck as they are talent: Talent can very easily overtake practice. People that practice art learn techniques, but after some time, tend to become very good at emulating. Some people just get art, though, and intuitively know where to place things, where to shadow, what marks to leave out. When the talented practice, they create and manipulate and take whatever they've learned and they become more awesome. Alternatively, formal and deliberate practice in art actually kills some natural talent with overt rules. I've seen all things. Who actually makes it and is regarded as an expert by society? Whoever gets lucky. Music is similar: Some practice and become experts in a symphony, some practice and create symphonies, and others yet, regardless of practice, still struggle to keep on beat. In any case, though, I do think any person spending so many deliberate (or even not so deliberate) hours on one subject winds up with a pretty amazing knowledge base and probably knowledge of quite a few branches of knowledge. Even if the original goal wasn't actually mastered, still worth it for knowledge.

jimbokun 12y ago

"So greatness is within virtually any person's grasp, so long as they can put in the time to master their skill of choice." Gladwell did not say that. It is an over simplification of his argument. He concedes innate talent plays a role. "For almost a generation, psychologists around the world have been engaged in a spirited debate over a question that most of us would consider to have been settled years ago. The question is this: is there such a thing as innate talent? The obvious answer is yes. Not every hockey player born in January ends up playing at the professional level. Only some do—the innately talented ones." http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/what-did-malcolm-gladwell-actually-say-about-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/what-did-malcolm-gla...

Padding 12y ago

So it's necessary but not sufficent? Or neither necessary nor sufficent?

lazyant 12y ago

For anyone interested in the innate talent vs practice in sports I recommend the book 'The Sports Gene' (spoiler: genes play a huge role).

xname 12y ago

This is silly attack. The 10,000 Hour Rule says you need 10,000 Hour practice to master a field. It does not say 10,000 Hour practice is the only/most important factor in performance. It has nothing to do with explanation of variances in performance. It does not say 10,000 Hour practice will guarantee your success. It does not say gene is irrelevant to learning. It only says, as a normal person (not genius, not mentally disabled), you need 10,000 Hour practice to master a field. Straw-man attack.