4 ms·

Everyone tries to work a smart as they can. You can't get an advantage over your competitors by working smarter if they're smarter than you are. If you truly b

by ellyagg 17y ago

Everyone tries to work a smart as they can. You can't get an advantage over your competitors by working smarter if they're smarter than you are. If you truly believe that working harder, while still working as smart as you can, doesn't significantly aid your efforts, you're simply deluding yourself, and self-delusion always leads to suboptimal results. The public record is rife with minutely detailed cases of hard work leading to out-sized success. Hard work by people who were already working very smart, as smart as they could. Yes, other people can work really hard, too, and so it can be an unwinnable race. Sadly (perhaps), that's life. That doesn't change the fact that working harder is under your control, being smarter isn't. Yes, some people get burned out. Yes, taking a break can help some people find insights they wouldn't have otherwise. However, some people don't get burned out. If you don't realize this, you're fooling yourself. Bobby Fischer is the only American to be world chess champion. Read about the complete immersion in chess that was required to achieve this. It takes 10,000 hours of directed practice (directed practice means "working smarter") to become an expert at something. No amount of working smarter makes the 10,000 hours go away.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"It takes 10,000 hours of directed practice (directed practice means "working smarter") to become an expert at something." Any links to solid research (i.e., not Malcolm Gladwell) regarding that number?
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  Peter Norvig refers to research showing 10 years of work required to hit expert level in his essay "Teach Yourself Programming in 10 years" (http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html). No references to "10,000hours" other than Gladwell I think.
- ellyagg 17y ago
  I've never read the Gladwell you refer to, although I know who he is. Over the last several years, I believe several studies have come out claiming it takes 10 years to build up expertise. Just a couple years ago there was a survey study that purported to review the literature and found the consensus to be 10 years/10,000 hours, although I can't find it with a cursory search and don't make a habit of tracking citations of things I read. A quick Google search did find published papers referring to this phenomenon, though, e.g.: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000156/abstract http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000156/abstrac... Not being a specialist I'm not qualified to evaluate whether it's "solid" or not. Did Gladwell not cite sources? That seems crazy. Edit: I believe I was thinking of the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.
  - gwern 17y ago
    > I believe I was thinking of the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Yes, you are. That's the canonical source for the 10k hours figure.
- navanit 17y ago
  Yes, Anders Ericsson is the authority on the subject: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html Here's the paper "The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expertise": http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    Thank you!
patio11 17y ago
It takes 10,000 hours of directed practice (directed practice means "working smarter") to become an expert at something. No amount of working smarter makes the 10,000 hours go away. This claim is: 1) unevidenced 2) untestable 3) curiously specific (10,000, but not 9,000, nor 12,000, those being numbers less than and more than required, because the number required is 10,000) 4) claimed to be totally undeniable 5) claimed to accurately cover every field of human endeavor from cooking hamburgers to designing circuits to pole vaulting to understanding the intricacies of canon law
- ellyagg 17y ago
  Yep, I'm pretty sure it's not exactly 10,000 in all cases. Your complaint is a "gotcha", not a real argument. Unevidenced? Did you not read the rest of the comments in this thread? Actually, you're being curiously specific about the strength of the claims. I didn't realize hackernews comments were to be written as peer reviewed journal articles, but I note that your own have not risen to that standard either. Why don't you respond to my other points?

by ellyagg 17y ago

jamesbritt 17y ago

"It takes 10,000 hours of directed practice (directed practice means "working smarter") to become an expert at something." Any links to solid research (i.e., not Malcolm Gladwell) regarding that number?

plinkplonk 17y ago
Peter Norvig refers to research showing 10 years of work required to hit expert level in his essay "Teach Yourself Programming in 10 years" (http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html). No references to "10,000hours" other than Gladwell I think.
ellyagg 17y ago
I've never read the Gladwell you refer to, although I know who he is. Over the last several years, I believe several studies have come out claiming it takes 10 years to build up expertise. Just a couple years ago there was a survey study that purported to review the literature and found the consensus to be 10 years/10,000 hours, although I can't find it with a cursory search and don't make a habit of tracking citations of things I read. A quick Google search did find published papers referring to this phenomenon, though, e.g.: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000156/abstract http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000156/abstrac... Not being a specialist I'm not qualified to evaluate whether it's "solid" or not. Did Gladwell not cite sources? That seems crazy. Edit: I believe I was thinking of the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.
- gwern 17y ago
  > I believe I was thinking of the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Yes, you are. That's the canonical source for the 10k hours figure.
navanit 17y ago
Yes, Anders Ericsson is the authority on the subject: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html Here's the paper "The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expertise": http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Thank you!

patio11 17y ago

It takes 10,000 hours of directed practice (directed practice means "working smarter") to become an expert at something. No amount of working smarter makes the 10,000 hours go away. This claim is: 1) unevidenced 2) untestable 3) curiously specific (10,000, but not 9,000, nor 12,000, those being numbers less than and more than required, because the number required is 10,000) 4) claimed to be totally undeniable 5) claimed to accurately cover every field of human endeavor from cooking hamburgers to designing circuits to pole vaulting to understanding the intricacies of canon law

ellyagg 17y ago
Yep, I'm pretty sure it's not exactly 10,000 in all cases. Your complaint is a "gotcha", not a real argument. Unevidenced? Did you not read the rest of the comments in this thread? Actually, you're being curiously specific about the strength of the claims. I didn't realize hackernews comments were to be written as peer reviewed journal articles, but I note that your own have not risen to that standard either. Why don't you respond to my other points?