Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

81–90 of 124 posts

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

#81

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…

>but rather that they have the potential to become those things if they want to, by practicing enough.

We live at a strange time where capitalism lets us try our hands at almost anything. Want to be x, then go to school for it and try to get a job at it or start a company with those skills. Or get a job and practice x in your spare time. There's no local communist officials who say 'put this person to work here doing this.' If there's a finance path to doing x work, then you're good. In other words, we more or less choose our destinies, within reason.

But we are have a lot of cargo-cult science and pop-social sentiment of being able to excel at all things via a strnge protestant work ethic argument of 'just trying harder.' We skirt around determinism of the brain, personality types, what we call natural talent, focus endurance, whether we're primarily fast or slow thinkers, etc. Schools also don't do a good job assessing what a student would excel in and I imagine some parents don't want to hear their kid won't be a math genius or creative superstar, so they're dis-incentivized to perform this kind of testing.

So we live in this weird middle ground and feed each other little myths that are actually untrue, but emotionally pleasing. We remind each other Bill Gates dropped out of college, thus the college drop out could be the next Bill Gates, but we forget that he did only because running MS made a lot more sense than staying in school. We play up Steve Jobs as this wonderful grown-up hippie-type personality shepherding us into the future, but he was cruel and hated man who left behind a string of failures as much as success. Or that if we only could get those 10,000 hours then we'd be great too.

No one wants to admit they are mediocre talent or have no talent in some field they desire to be successful at. It took me a long time to realize how mediocre I am in general and only have the possibility of excelling at certain things. I think this is a classic case of ego vs reality. Our egos want to believe we're these universal machines that can excel at anything if needed. Reality suggests otherwise.

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

#82

I haven't read Outliers, but I've always understood the "10,000 hour rule" as a means of expressing the fact that all meaningful skills take years practice to truly become an expert. It's _necessary_, but not necessarily sufficient. Did Gladwell actually assert that 10,000 hours is sufficient for anyone to become an expert at any skill in Outliers? Or is that just a convenient way to misinterpret the book and the rul…

Having read Outliers, I understood the "10,000 hour rule" as a rule of thumb for what it takes to go from zero to meaningfully better than most people on pretty much any given subject (aka: an expert).

Subsequent to reading the book, I do notice that the rule is also widely used as a convenient way to deliberately misinterpret the book & rule and write snarky articles. Somehow people think it's clever & fair to take a single phrase out of a multi-hundred-page context and ridicule it for not inherently being encyclopedic in depth and peer-reviewed.

Undiscussed is that the "outliers" the book investigates are people who started with "10,000 hours", having achieved that level of practice when most competitors (themselves forming a tiny segment of the general population) are just beginning their 10KH. Also, they tend to do so when the rest of the field is just beginning to form. Bill Gates had his 10,000 hours in before starting college - and did so just as the "personal computer" was starting to emerge. The Beatles had their 10,000 hours in before leaving high school - and were ready when mass-distribution music + rock & roll were emerging as the norm. To wit: it takes 10,000 hours practice (that's working on the hard stuff, not the familiar/easy) to become an expert; it takes having done that before that expert's peers to become an outlier.

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

#83
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…

Not only that, but even though you might not become a world-famous pianist, trying to learn the instrument might lead you to different places, such as building or tuning pianos, for example.

In other words, there are so many more tasks and abilities in the world than just those we hear about, and paths expand into a lot more skills than you could possibly consider to exist. Everyone could be a specialist in a very niche area (or many), but they need to know those exist in the first place.

So, try things. As many as you can, because you'll never know where that will lead you.

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

#84
post #53

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 think the most part of the talent is that your brain likes doing given thing. You enjoy it. That is, unless somebody is forced to, she's unlikely to spend 10K hours on something she doesn't like. "Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." - Bob Ross But it doesn't mean that anybody can achieve anything. Just that one can become a master in a field in which he's happy to pu…

[deleted]

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

#86
post #38

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…

at the same time, it is immensely frustrating to practice a long time to become mediocre, then some kid walks up and just does it, effortlessly.

i like riding motorcycle, been riding for 10+ years. but i don't have the talent, the motor skills to really let if fly. but i know a guy who just has it, put him into/on any vehicle and he is fast.

talent is the best example of how unfair life is :)

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

#87
post #66

Could people stop just reading one thing and then living their lives by it? Whether it's Myer's Briggs, or 10,000 hour rule, or some other self-help book with a reasonable premise -- I feel like most of the time it's just some reasonable premise taken to an extreme. Yes, if you want to be good at something, you'll have to practice a lot. Yes, practicing mindfully is better than just putting in hours. Yes, there are d…

The quickest path to success is having rich relatives and friends. Everyone should just pursue that. All joking aside, even if they are placebos (and Myer's Briggs certainly is), whatever it takes to motivate people towards excellence to me would be a positive.

Ten thousand hours of deliberate practice is hardly a placebo.

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

#88
My tongue-in-cheek response to the headline, in the context of guitar, make me chuckle quite a bit:

"Exactly! 10,000 hours is far too few! More like 30,000 if you really want to start covering all the different styles and techniques with competence!"

It's not always "What" a person practices, but also "How" a person does so. Attention to detail, trying new things, learning from mistakes, reflection when away from the hobby/interest. Far too many variables for any one-size-fits-all perspective on Talent and Achievement, but in looking for correlatives and "causation approximate" techniques, Practice certainly shows up time and again.

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

#89
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Feynman told a story about his "one extra trick". He ascribed a certain amount of his mathematical prowess to simply knowing an uncommon integration trick that most of his colleagues did not. So when they failed to solve an integral, they would bring it to him, and some of the time, using his one extra trick, he would solve it, dazzling everyone. Which is not to say that his one extra trick was particularly powerful,…

This is a good story, and it's worth noting that Feynman reiterated the idea of building a repertoire of techniques or problems in several different ways.

Here are two:

The way to excel in physics, according to Feynman, was to have several unsolved problems in the back of your mind, waiting for new information to spark an insight.

Feynman reports that fraternity kids at the university he attended would be taught slick answers to classic questions like "why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down" -- a kind of repertoire of responses that was part of their initiation.

Creativity doesn't come out of nowhere, it's a cumulative thing.

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

#90

What does it mean to practice programming vs just programming?

Probably doing things for which you have little experience, or are bad at, instead of just doing the day job. For example, I can write templates without much thought, keep my functions small and well-named, etc. Extra practice isn't going to get me very far in that regime. Reading about and designing scaleable systems, or implementing efficient data structures, or practicing problem solving in a recursive way will be much more fruitful for me personally.
Post reply on HN