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

71–80 of 124 posts

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

#71

Post by sametmax »

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…

> everyone starts on even ground

No everyone doesn't. Some people are born sick, some have better cardio, some take more weight easily, some people are born twice as big, some grow very little...

And it's the same with mind abilities. Your mind have various qualities, and you are not born equals to others. Some can concentrate better, some can abstract less, some more creative, some are shy.

Add all the differences, and yes, you have people that will have an easier time than others. Bolt and Tyson have been trained, but they started with a nice base to work on.

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

#72

Post by CoVar »

I think there is some nuance that is missed when performing studies that compares hours practiced to mastery. I'm currently reading a book called A Mind for Numbers (the companion book for the popular MOOC on Coursera called Learning How to Learn) and what I am realizing is that not everyone practices or studies the most optimal way.

"For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" status (a very high level of skill) ranged from 728 hours to 16,120 hours. This means that one player needed 22 times more deliberate practice than another player to become a master."

Maybe those 728 hours were more efficient and effective deliberate practice than the 16,120 hours.

Edit: the book is called "A Mind for Numbers", not "A Mind for Math"

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

#73

Post by spdionis »

CoVar wrote: post #72

I think there is some nuance that is missed when performing studies that compares hours practiced to mastery. I'm currently reading a book called A Mind for Numbers (the companion book for the popular MOOC on Coursera called Learning How to Learn) and what I am realizing is that not everyone practices or studies the most optimal way. "For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" sta…

So we can accept this as probably true but we are not willing to accept that 10x programmers exist?

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

#74

Post by jannington »

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…

>But if you want psychological tips that really work, don't go anywhere near his books.

Just curious, what would you recommend in terms of psychological tips/books that do work?

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

#76

Post by abiox »

xyzzy4 wrote: post #70
Lxr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm yet to meet a great coder who wouldn't enjoy coding. Maybe great coders like it so much because they are good at it. It would be reasonable from an evolutionary point of view to focus on what we are better than others at. At university I have seen people get into a field on the basis of an unexpected excellent grade and conclude they love it, and reject whole fields as stupid and uninteresting after failing - w…

I've thought I was good at coding since middle school. Of course my code actually sucked back then, but at the time I thought I was really good. So I kept doing it on and off throughout my life.

was it good for a middle schooler?

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

#77

Post by veritas3241 »

I'm pretty sure that Malcolm Gladwell clarified his position on the 10,000 hour rule during Tim Ferris' podcast [0]. He was saying that the 10,000 hour rule was meant to clearly indicate that becoming successful requires a large support system.

Which seems to make it easier to understand why kids who start really early can become successful: they don't have to worry about all the things adults have to. Conversely, it explains a little bit why being an adult makes it harder to become world-class at something.

[0] http://tim.blog/2016/06/21/malcolm-gladwell/

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

#78

Post by Eridrus »

spdionis wrote: post #73
CoVar wrote: post #72

I think there is some nuance that is missed when performing studies that compares hours practiced to mastery. I'm currently reading a book called A Mind for Numbers (the companion book for the popular MOOC on Coursera called Learning How to Learn) and what I am realizing is that not everyone practices or studies the most optimal way. "For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" sta…

So we can accept this as probably true but we are not willing to accept that 10x programmers exist?

Even if someone is 10X better in the abstract, real world problems may not show much of a difference. It doesn't matter who is 10X better if you're playing football against toddlers. And most programming falls into this category.

It sort of shows through all the complaints about interviews, most programming work is just not difficult enough to separate people, so anything that does needs to be scorned.

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

#79

Post by sitkack »

danblick wrote: post #17
sitkack wrote: post #4

I aim to be "ok" in about 20 hrs of deliberate practice. Hell the FAA says you can fly plane in 40.

In this context "deliberate practice" means more than just "practicing on purpose". The description here looks okay: http://expertenough.com/1423/deliberate-practice However in Ericsson's book he puts more emphasis on guidance by an expert teacher (who can help identify specific challenges appropriate to the learner).

> Analyzing a set of studies can reveal an average correlation between two variables that is statistically more precise than the result of any individual study.

I don't know what talent is. And just being good at something isn't it. If you have the opportunity to sit and watch a lot of different folks "get something", absolutely do it. Then talk to them about what just occurred. I have this hunch that talent is having the mental model and the physical world be sync such that any error in the mental model is instantly repaired. That the person undergoing talent, is literally doing multiple experiments in the moment with result times on the order of subsecond to minutes. They aren't pushing skills in as much as playing. Skills build on skills, dancers, athletes, musicians. We have all seen someone good in one thing instantly pickup another and decry, "oh they are so talented!" They applied 100% of what they already knew and added 1%. What they needed was already in their skill-dna.

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

#80

Post by joshuaheard »

vidarh wrote: post #40
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…

My sons violin teacher made the point to him after observing him practice (paraphrased): "What you are doing is playing, not practice. When you play through a piece like that, you spend most of your time on the bits you already know, and just a little time on the parts you find difficult, and you end up not repeating the hard parts very often. To practice, you should stop when you find something difficult, and repeat…

That's very insightful. It's not the time you spend on something, it's the time you take working through the hard parts that determines success. I read before that they believe character determines success more than talent, with perseverance being the most desirable character trait. Your idea aligns nicely with this.
Post reply on HN