5 ms·

Over 12 years, if you study & practice an extra 2 hours per day you will have studied the equivalent of 365 days for 24 hours per day, or 1095 days at 8 hours p

by illumen 12y ago

Over 12 years, if you study & practice an extra 2 hours per day you will have studied the equivalent of 365 days for 24 hours per day, or 1095 days at 8 hours per day. That's about a whole bachelors degree worth of study. That's not even including normal work study and practice. Now, if you get 10 fresh out of school people who also did not study growing up VS someone who has been doing this for 12 years, and who was also a hacker in their youth I know who I'd bet on!

adekok 12y ago
> Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. A little critical thinking shows there must be innate talent. Most human abilities / behaviors / properties vary around a central mean. Some people are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some... less so. Some are naturally good at something, others are naturally bad at it. As an anecdotal data point, my daughter could stand on my outstretched hand pretty much from the time she could stand. The first time I tried it (over a king sized bed), she did it without any problems or concerns. No other kid I've met could do the same. That's an innate talent. The "10,000 hours" idea is also a myth. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hou... Practice helps, but you soon reach a limit set by your genetics. And some people are likely to have genetics better suited to the problem at hand.
- TillE 12y ago
  I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you. No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him: > “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers. Necessary, not sufficient.
- normloman 12y ago
  That's fine but the article you linked to doesn't support genetic limits. Was there a different article you meant to link to?

by illumen 12y ago

adekok 12y ago

> Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. A little critical thinking shows there must be innate talent. Most human abilities / behaviors / properties vary around a central mean. Some people are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some... less so. Some are naturally good at something, others are naturally bad at it. As an anecdotal data point, my daughter could stand on my outstretched hand pretty much from the time she could stand. The first time I tried it (over a king sized bed), she did it without any problems or concerns. No other kid I've met could do the same. That's an innate talent. The "10,000 hours" idea is also a myth. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hou... Practice helps, but you soon reach a limit set by your genetics. And some people are likely to have genetics better suited to the problem at hand.

TillE 12y ago
I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you. No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him: > “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers. Necessary, not sufficient.
normloman 12y ago
That's fine but the article you linked to doesn't support genetic limits. Was there a different article you meant to link to?