5 ms·

The author got the 10,000 hours-rule slightly wrong. :) It's not as simple as merely doing something for 10,000 hours and then you magically become an expert.

The author got the 10,000 hours-rule slightly wrong. :) It's not as simple as merely doing something for 10,000 hours and then you magically become an expert. The 10,000 hours-rules refers to the act of performing 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" (or sometimes called "deep practice") in order to become an expert. And that's something very different to simply code 10,000 hours in your day job. When googling for that term, you'll find plenty of studies and other resources. :) If you are interested in this topic, I can recommend the book "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle - yes, the title is cheesy but it's a good book, I've read it in pretty much one sitting. A gentle and entertaining introduction into the whole field of how to become an expert. "Pragmatic Thinking and Learning: Refactor Your Wetware" by Andy Hunt also spends an whole chapter on deliberate practice. It's a very good book, too. EDIT: This blog post by Derek Sivers could be considered as an example of deliberate practice: http://sivers.org/kimo http://sivers.org/kimo Just stumbled about it as a submission to HN, nice coincidence... :D

mattmanser 17y ago
I'm tired of seeing the 10,000 hours everywhere, there are so many counter-examples I have no idea why anyone buys it. It doesn't take 10,000 hours to become a master striker in football, they are all young and the older you get, the worse you get. Does it take 10,000 hours to write master songs? No. Look at virtually any modern band. Not many people go through the same gruelling tours as the Beatles did before success. Also, to pretend the complexity of the task has no bearing on the hours it will take to master it is nonsense. You don't need 10,000 hours in virtually anything to be an expert. 10,000 hours to be a master of tic-tac-toe? No. Does it take 10,000 hours to become an expert coin-flipper? No. An expert dish washer? An expert waiter? I also have take umbrage with the word expert. I think if anything it should be something like virtuoso, an exceptional ability, not just an expert. All of the examples I've seen used are people with exceptional abilities, not mere experts. Ach, I don't know why I get so annoyed at it, it just seems to me that it's trotted out for totally inane lists like this one all the time.
- daleharvey 17y ago
  Most young footballers that becoming professionals have probably played over 10000, certainly the ones around 20 (not so much the 16 year olds)
- bad_user 17y ago
  Wow, a single post where football, the Beatles, coin-flipping, dish-washing, waitering and the implied programming ... appear together. > Look at virtually any modern band If modern bands don't have to practice so much to be famous, that says so much more about their quality and the record labels that promote them. And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
  - mattmanser 17y ago
    Hehe, yeah, pretty impressive :) I think the point I'm trying to make is that they can write high quality songs at the beginning of their career as well as at the end. They didn't need 10,000 hours to come up with a great song, an expert quality song. I bet many had only written 20-30 songs before getting famous, certainly nowhere near 10,000 hours of song writing. You even get bands which then fall into mediocrity after a fantastic debut. I have no doubt they put in hours beforehand, but they've been at school, certainly not playing for 3 hours a day for 10 years. Not only that they have some mastery of the instruments, song writing, stage charisma, all distinct skills. Many great guitarists write crap songs. So where did they get the 30 years to get all 3 skills? I think the Beatles example is bad because they had an extra skill, the ability to morph their music with the times that many other bands don't (Bowie is another example of someone who was able to do this). They are eternal because they constantly changed, put out great albums, which has nothing to do with the 10,000 hours of practice they put in in Germany.
    - breck 17y ago
      I'd agree with you. You can be talented and create a hit early on. I think one of the points of the 10,000 hours thing, is that you have to be really dedicated to a pursuit to become an expert/top percentile in your field. Innate talent is another requirement and will slow you down or speed you up, but I would doubt that you find any experts who are not greatly committed to their field (even if they hadn't dedicated 10,000 hours to it yet, they fully expect to).
breck 17y ago
Ah, "deliberate practice". That's a much better term to describe it. Thanks!

mattmanser 17y ago

I'm tired of seeing the 10,000 hours everywhere, there are so many counter-examples I have no idea why anyone buys it. It doesn't take 10,000 hours to become a master striker in football, they are all young and the older you get, the worse you get. Does it take 10,000 hours to write master songs? No. Look at virtually any modern band. Not many people go through the same gruelling tours as the Beatles did before success. Also, to pretend the complexity of the task has no bearing on the hours it will take to master it is nonsense. You don't need 10,000 hours in virtually anything to be an expert. 10,000 hours to be a master of tic-tac-toe? No. Does it take 10,000 hours to become an expert coin-flipper? No. An expert dish washer? An expert waiter? I also have take umbrage with the word expert. I think if anything it should be something like virtuoso, an exceptional ability, not just an expert. All of the examples I've seen used are people with exceptional abilities, not mere experts. Ach, I don't know why I get so annoyed at it, it just seems to me that it's trotted out for totally inane lists like this one all the time.

daleharvey 17y ago
Most young footballers that becoming professionals have probably played over 10000, certainly the ones around 20 (not so much the 16 year olds)
bad_user 17y ago
Wow, a single post where football, the Beatles, coin-flipping, dish-washing, waitering and the implied programming ... appear together. > Look at virtually any modern band If modern bands don't have to practice so much to be famous, that says so much more about their quality and the record labels that promote them. And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
- mattmanser 17y ago
  Hehe, yeah, pretty impressive :) I think the point I'm trying to make is that they can write high quality songs at the beginning of their career as well as at the end. They didn't need 10,000 hours to come up with a great song, an expert quality song. I bet many had only written 20-30 songs before getting famous, certainly nowhere near 10,000 hours of song writing. You even get bands which then fall into mediocrity after a fantastic debut. I have no doubt they put in hours beforehand, but they've been at school, certainly not playing for 3 hours a day for 10 years. Not only that they have some mastery of the instruments, song writing, stage charisma, all distinct skills. Many great guitarists write crap songs. So where did they get the 30 years to get all 3 skills? I think the Beatles example is bad because they had an extra skill, the ability to morph their music with the times that many other bands don't (Bowie is another example of someone who was able to do this). They are eternal because they constantly changed, put out great albums, which has nothing to do with the 10,000 hours of practice they put in in Germany.
  - breck 17y ago
    I'd agree with you. You can be talented and create a hit early on. I think one of the points of the 10,000 hours thing, is that you have to be really dedicated to a pursuit to become an expert/top percentile in your field. Innate talent is another requirement and will slow you down or speed you up, but I would doubt that you find any experts who are not greatly committed to their field (even if they hadn't dedicated 10,000 hours to it yet, they fully expect to).

breck 17y ago

Ah, "deliberate practice". That's a much better term to describe it. Thanks!