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

The Myth of 10,000 hours

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#41

Post by jartelt »

The book doesn't simply say that practicing something for 10,000 hours will make you a master. The point is that people who are masters at something (or known as brilliant or experts in their field) didn't just magically get to that point by having a particular talent. They got there by having a particular talent, being born into particular circumstances, AND THEN putting in a ton of work (hence the 10,000 hour reference).

Bill Gates wasn't born a great programmer and businessman. He was born smart and into a situation where he had access to a computer and then he worked his butt off to learn. Similarly, great athletes are both talented and work like crazy to hone their craft.

The point I took from the book is that hard work and many, many hours of study and/or practice is essential in order to get to the top of a field. Doing the hard work will not automatically get you to the top since at some point lack of talent or lack of resources may get in the way. But, you need to do the hard work in order to give yourself a chance to make it to the top.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#42

Post by bluGill »

ohduran wrote: post #22
slowhand09 wrote: post #7

I think the author of the article is missing the point of the book. And assuming everyone else is missing the point of 10,000 hours of intentional practice.

Agreed. So 10'000 hours of practice isn't just doing it, it's actually becoming obsessed with doing it BETTER. I can make sandwiches all day long, but only if I focus on how precise I am in the dose of mayonnaise, how seamless my spreading it over the bread, and how exact is the time the sandwich spends on which part of the refrigerator, then I'll improve. Sorry I'm tremendously eager to eat a sandwich right now. A g…

I know a lot of people who have 6 months of practice, repeated dozens of times. Most drivers for example have about that much, and it shows in how they drive.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#43

Post by ncmncm »

It doesn't matter what the book says about mastery, success, or practice, because Malcolm Gladwell isn't interested in the truth. "I don't write about what is true, I write about what is interesting." Systematic distortion is his stock in trade.

Even if he actually said something nominally true, it would still be wrong. Studying successful people and finding it took them 10,000 hours to get there (which he didn't) would not imply that anyone else could get there in the same 10,000 hours. I could practice basketball for 100,000 hours and never be able to sink a half-court shot, blind.

What does seem true is that people who enjoy practicing a thing are the ones who master it, probably because seeing progress makes practice enjoyable. When you stop seeing improvement, you stop, and move on to something else. People who master a thing are self-selected as those who could, for whatever reason. No one else is counted.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#44

Post by bluGill »

wccrawford wrote: post #36
j45 wrote: post #13

10k hours on anything will likely make you as good as you can be at something. Whether or not that is enough to become success depends on one's own ego and attachment to realizing if they're focusing on the better thing or not.

I'm sure many will argue, but I agree. After 10,000 hours of doing something, I can't see anyone not having tried to improve themselves. I think it's basically impossible to do the same thing for that long without basic human nature taking effect and forcing that person to improve until they can't any more. At least, not organically. I'm sure you could put a gun to their head and force them to improve more, but that'…

I think you are missing a few things. There are a lot of things to learn, someone who spends 10,000 hours on flat pick guitar will not be any good at finger picking guitar without a few thousand more hours practice in a different skill. There are a number of other ways to study guitar, before you branch to base, violin, Piano, drums - that is all playing interments. There is are completely different line of music you can go down: composition, conducting. In short, there is always something more to learn even if you are a master of something.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#45

Post by ncmncm »

Takizawa wrote: post #23

What I think is interesting is how much emotion the 10k hour rule rouses in general. The Freakonomics podcast mentioned the 10k rule as well. They posit that given equally talented individuals, the person who puts in the requisite hours of hard work through deliberate practice would obtain the higher level of mastery.

Trivially. It doesn't take a book to say that.

Gladwell wants us to think that successful people earned it, that Bill Gates deserves his $100B. Everything else bends to that goal. But Gates has $100B not because he worked hard, but because he abused monopoly power, and impoverished the world. The enduring legacy of Microsoft's dominance is that people think computers working badly is both OK and unavoidable.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#46

Post by british_india »

nullandvoid wrote: post #33
mkong1 wrote: post #31

Grit by Angela Duckworth ( https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck... ) goes into deliberate practice quite a bit. She talks about how deliberate practice is almost never enjoyable because you're trying to improve specific things, but it is how you attain mastery. The other side is "flow", when that mastery is display, and she mentions how it can look so effortless for top athletes, when it's alm…

On the same trail of thought https://www.amazon.ca/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05... is a great read. Shows many examples of how deliberate practice on the edge of your current ability is what equals mastery ( whilst also exploring the science behind it )

I read that book and found it tiresome and repetitive. Honestly hated it.

I have read Gladwell's book too and it was more compelling a read.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#47

Post by Syntoniclese »

mkong1 wrote: post #31

Grit by Angela Duckworth ( https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck... ) goes into deliberate practice quite a bit. She talks about how deliberate practice is almost never enjoyable because you're trying to improve specific things, but it is how you attain mastery. The other side is "flow", when that mastery is display, and she mentions how it can look so effortless for top athletes, when it's alm…

For the past several years I've been exploring deliberate practice in a number of different categories of sport, movement and musicality.

I have become convinced that the idea that deliberate practice is not enjoyable is entirely mistaken and results from incorrect framing and insufficient focus on the task. One must discard all notions of the greater goal or sport and design a new game around the simplest aspect which requires improvement.

By practicing meditation and mindfulness, you slowly learn to find skillful movement in all activity. When you can derive pleasure from the mundane - when all movement becomes a dance, you eliminate the distinction between plateaus and play, between practice and performance.

I reject outright the notion that my personality is innately autotelic. It is a skill and a mindset that I've cultivated slowly and intentionally, and it's the difference between sticking with a goal and loving the journey.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#48

Post by tonyedgecombe »

dyarosla wrote: post #18
rasengan wrote: post #16

“Working hard does not guarantee you will be successful, but I guarantee all successful people worked hard.” - Coach Kamogawa of Morikawa’s life novel, Ippo.

In a similar vein, ‘Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard’

Do you think Trump worked hard? Yet he is at the top of the tree right now.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#49

Post by zantana »

jartelt wrote: post #41

The book doesn't simply say that practicing something for 10,000 hours will make you a master. The point is that people who are masters at something (or known as brilliant or experts in their field) didn't just magically get to that point by having a particular talent. They got there by having a particular talent, being born into particular circumstances, AND THEN putting in a ton of work (hence the 10,000 hour refer…

I agree. The whole point of the book was that there were outliers which gave people certain edges which made their success more likely than one would think.

The examples I recall were hockey players who were born at certain times so during their formative years they were essentially a year older than the other players which gave them a leg up during their formative years making them better candidates to succeed later on. Looking around that appears to be equally controversial.

While I often don't agree with Gladwell's conclusions I do think he, as well as Michal Lewis, bring enough new information and insights that they are worth reading.

Re: The Myth of 10,000 hours

#50

Post by BerislavLopac »

hirundo wrote: post #2

I haven't read the book, but what I heard about it second hand is that 10k hours is about mastery, not success. You can be a master without being successful and visa versa. But mastery sure improves your odds of success. Of course 10k hours doesn't guarantee mastery either. I've put in that much on the golf course and still suck at it.

> Of course 10k hours doesn't guarantee mastery either. I've put in that much on the golf course, and I still suck at it.

You might have put that much time into the skill of walking around a golf course, which is not a part of the mastery of the game. I don't know if 10k hour of striking a ball would provide mastery, but I would be ready to assume that it would help your skill.

Post reply on HN