Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#41

Post by JackMorgan »

Ellahn wrote: post #39

Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts…

I've got over a decade of deliberate and intense study and practice in programming. I love it and I love learning new things about it. I've worked in half a dozen professional languages and over a dozen for fun. I give conference talks and have two books out. And yet several people I work with can absolutely run circles around me due to much better long and short term memory. For every hour I put in, they can get farther with ten minutes. I only hold my own in the same league as them with 5x more effort. It's absolutely possible that there is a "wet-ware" component to mastery.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#42

Post by paulpauper »

The second reason we should not pretend we are endowed with the same abilities is that doing so perpetuates the myth that is at the root of much inaction in society — the myth that people can help themselves to the same degree if they just try hard enough.

You're not a heart surgeon? That's your fault for not working hard enough in school! You didn't make it as a concert pianist? You must not have wanted it that badly.

But the problem is, telling someone who aspires to be doctor or some other high-IQ profession that they shouldn't try, because they aren't smart enough, may also seem cruel, so we settle on what we perceive to be lesser of two cruelties.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#43

Post by wvh »

chpmrc wrote: post #18

This assumption that you either excel at something or you should just do something else is as dumb as saying that you either become a billionaire or you might as well live on the streets. Just because marketing the top 1% is easier doesn't mean the rest is crap. Just because you won't be the next Bill Gates doesn't mean you shouldn't start (and enjoy building) your own software company. Even the 10k hours theory does…

I agree, and I'd like to add that what one does with/after those 10000 hours matters too, i.e. the individual factor. There's not just a large range between all-or-nothing, but there are many different "alls" too.

As an example: I am a good guitar player. I've put in probably close to 10000 hours. But lots of guitar players can play and come up with things I never could. And lots of guitar players can't play or come up with some of the things I can.

There simply isn't one sort of top guitar player, or composer, or inventor. There are lots of ideas, shades and colours, different solutions to all sorts of problems. It helps to know your area of expertise, but a truckload of Bill Gates / Bach / Rembrandt clones wouldn't be able to come up with all the novel ideas and creative solutions a more diverse set of people with their own individual quirks could.

Individuals bring things to the table that can't be put that easily into a quantifiable number; most real life problems are more complex in nature than an Olympic race where there's a clear winner and way to win. I think it's at least as important in life to find out in which ways you are unique and can make (some modicum of) a difference.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#44

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Swizec wrote: post #38
paulpauper wrote: post #28

Gladwell did a bait and switch, in his book first ignoring the role of talent, and then when pressed for more details, clarifying that the 10,000 hour rule applies to those who already have talent but then practiced 10,00 hours to hone such talent. http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-bait-and-switc... I think the amended version of '10,000 hours' is closer to being correct, and probably not the one the publ…

I'm sure you can attain mastery in anything by practicing for 10,000 hours. Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. The caveat is that you will not be the best. You might not even be world class. Or even national class. But you are going to be better than somebody who practiced only 1,000 hours no matter how talented they are. What people forget is that at the very high levels of achievement in any fie…

> Difference between 1st, 2nd, and 10th comes down to talent and a bit of luck.

Or maybe a lot of luck.

How many times have you struggled with a problem, but then someone gives you an explanation from a different point of view, or you think of something that makes you think of the problem in a different way? Then everything clicks and after that it's all easy?

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#45

Post by paulpauper »

Ellahn wrote: post #39

Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts…

Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.

Yes, technically, no one is born knowing trig or calculus, but the people with genetic gifts make the transition from 'shitty' to 'good' much faster than those without such endowments, all else being equal. An elementary school environment where all children come from similar backgrounds and are young enough that 1000's of hours of practice is impossible, teachers can readily identify the gifted from the average--the gifted tend to know so much more and learn so much faster than everyone else (in the classroom environment, where parenting cannot be a factor), and it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous. This is because gifted children learn with fewer repetitions (due to superior working memory and or other factors), which is key.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#46

Post by reachtarunhere »

cyberferret wrote: post #19

I am always intrigued by the 10KH argument. Here's my story - I just turned 50 last year. Been programming for nearly 35 years of that time. Not just 10,000 hours here - I think we are talking well over 1,000 individual applications and utilities over that time. Do I consider myself one of the best at my profession?? Not even close. Probably wouldn't even rate myself in the top 1/3rd of the worlds programmers. I've m…

I think you and a lot of other people here are missing one very important point. It is not "10K Hours" that does the magic it is "deliberate practice" for 10K hours. Most in the profession of programming can't do 10K hours of deliberate practice because that would mean planning your career and skills like an Olympic Runner. Realizing what you are bad at and leaving everything to work on it. Say you realize that you are great at algorithms but not good at reading huge pieces of code written by others.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#48

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

sigi45 wrote: post #30
cyberferret wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted, but while things like data structures and relationships come naturally to my mind, I am frustrated by the fact that I have to keep looking up syntax for particular loops or method calls. A large factor in this situation is that I regularly jump between several different languages, but nevertheless, it is frustrating to have to pause my flow and look up things so regularly. Perhaps it is a patience thing with…

It happens to me as well and i decided to do a few things about it: 1. Not switching languages that often anymore. Fullstack? Yeah i could hack around in JS, PHP and whatever but i'm trying to stay in my field java to become really good in it. 2. Not using code comletion much/often. I write often a class file from scratch just to exercise it. I write Classnames out, i sometimes write my own imports. 3. Repeat it: Whe…

Syntax is not programming. Programmers are usually reasonably good at remembering standard software structures, algos, architectures, and problem solving strategies.

But unlike human languages, computer languages have no conventions and they're misleadingly similar-but-different. So it's quite usual to forget Python syntax if you've been using PHP for a while, and vice versa. It's a very common problem.

It's not unlike trying to learn French and German but only practicing one for a few months at a time while ignoring the other.

Repetition and spaced reinforcement are essential for learning. Learning takes consistent, applied, reliable effort, preferably within a timed strategy. Start/stop practice won't do it.

I think Gladwell is an absolutely terrible science writer. He's good at writing books that sell, and good at creating the illusion of psychological insight. But if you want psychological tips that really work, don't go anywhere near his books.

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#49

Post by [deleted] »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #48
sigi45 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happens to me as well and i decided to do a few things about it: 1. Not switching languages that often anymore. Fullstack? Yeah i could hack around in JS, PHP and whatever but i'm trying to stay in my field java to become really good in it. 2. Not using code comletion much/often. I write often a class file from scratch just to exercise it. I write Classnames out, i sometimes write my own imports. 3. Repeat it: Whe…

Syntax is not programming. Programmers are usually reasonably good at remembering standard software structures, algos, architectures, and problem solving strategies. But unlike human languages, computer languages have no conventions and they're misleadingly similar-but-different. So it's quite usual to forget Python syntax if you've been using PHP for a while, and vice versa. It's a very common problem. It's not unli…

[deleted]

Re: The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

#50

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

paulpauper wrote: post #45
Ellahn wrote: post #39

Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts…

Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground. Yes, technically, no one is born knowing trig or calculus, but the people with genetic gifts make the trans…

> it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous

I disagree; parenting during the earliest years makes a huge difference. By the time they get to elementary school, some parents have been reading to their kids and some haven't, some parents gave their kids more educationally incline toys and some didn't, and some kids, whether by parental choice or by chance, have been watching more educational programs on television or less.

Early brain development is fast enough that even a few years of environmental factors can absolutely make a difference.

Post reply on HN