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

The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#51

Post by unzadunza »

TrackerFF wrote: post #47
unzadunza wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been practicing guitar pretty hard for 4 years. Certainly not 8 hours a day since I have a job and wife, but at least 1 or 2 every day. I feel like maybe I'm not practicing the right things. When you were playing guitar 8 hours a day, do you remember what you were doing for those 8 hours? Learning new songs? Practicing scales? Transcribing songs? I know all those things are important, but I'm still trying to fig…

At my height of playing, I was between ages 14 - 20, so basically from Jr. HS to college. I had all the time in the world, and was really obsessed with the instrument. I played in multiple bands, so a ton of my spare time would go toward that. Writing and playing songs, basically living in the rehearsal space. When it came to practice it was mostly learning/playing scales, modes, chords, rhythm, etc. - and of course…

Thanks! You inspired my to order 'Berklee Guitar Theory'. Next up: 'finding someone to play with' (which has proven difficult so far).

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#52

Post by taylodl »

I've never heard it said that after 10,000 hours anyone can be great at anything. I've always heard it said that it takes 10,000 hours to master a field - whether that be a subject, aport, art, or what-have-you. In this context "master" just means you have all the basics, you're competent and people would recognize your competency. That's a looooooong way from being great.

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#53

Post by maximus-decimus »

lm28469 wrote: post #14
smeej wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? Being a mediocre hiker is perfectly adequate for a joyful day out with friends. Being a mediocre cook is sufficient for adding joy to your meals. Being a mediocre singer is enough to be a joyful and contributing member of a church choir. Thinking expertise is required to enjoy things definitely can blind you to the joy that can be found in mediocrity.

It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. It's very often used as an excuse to not even try. Nobody wants to be mediocre, just like nobody wants to be fat, but plenty of people will tell you they're perfectly happy in both of these scenarios. It's like most things in life, people don't care if you're mediocre or an expert, just don't brag about either

> Nobody wants to be mediocre

Wanting to be mediocre and enjoying being mediocre are different. League of Legend players want to be amazing. I don't think it makes them enjoy the game.

I feel like wanting to enjoying yourself and wanting to win competitions are two completely different drives that are even antagonistic.

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#54

Post by smeej »

lm28469 wrote: post #32
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work After a point, it isn't about 'putting in the work'. If you are a mediocre cook, that's good enough. No need to put in any more work than that. You'll enjoy your food well enough and be able to feed yourself and your family healthy meals. There is a lot to be said about something being good enough and not put any more effort in. This does include things lik…

Good enough isn't mediocre though, mediocre is lower than that. Mediocre is, by definition, insufficient, unsatisfactory, &c. Mediocre is what you use when something is about average but you expected better, you cannot simultaneously expect better and be content.

Mediocre is "just good enough not to be so bad it causes problems." And for the many, many things in my life that are not important to me, "bad, but not so bad it causes problems" is, in fact, "good enough."

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#55

Post by tptacek »

anonreeeeplor wrote: post #36

My observation is society will bend over backward. Do literally anything. Rather than actively embrace what is known about IQ as being true. Any book offering something along the lines of “just work harder and you will get there!” stands a good chance about being widely adopted and celebrated. Because it offers a pseudoscience and publicly acceptable theory that is in opposition or replaces IQ. High intelligence is i…

Every time someone here mentions the heritability of IQ, I wonder what they think that term means, because it clearly does not mean what most people intuitively think it does.

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#56

Post by deafpolygon »

adynaton wrote: post #23
deafpolygon wrote: post #21

"Which is why I find these debunkings of the 10,000-hour rule to be a complete relief." Actually, I find the debunking to be the opposite. It basically means, if you aren't already blessed - no amount of practice or training will get you very far anyways.

The Lex Luthor Tragedy

Care to explain?

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#58

Post by seec »

anonreeeeplor wrote: post #36

My observation is society will bend over backward. Do literally anything. Rather than actively embrace what is known about IQ as being true. Any book offering something along the lines of “just work harder and you will get there!” stands a good chance about being widely adopted and celebrated. Because it offers a pseudoscience and publicly acceptable theory that is in opposition or replaces IQ. High intelligence is i…

I agree, but you have to realize that very often people call it some other names, like "talent" even though it actually means the exact same thing, it is much more politically correct.

And it is indeed what it is. IQ is very heritable and also predicts performance for a lot of stuff, I would say almost any activity; even for the one that do not necessarily interest the high IQ in person.

But society would rather ignore that because it fears if we agree to this truth something like eugenics will gain power. Society doesn't want to think about the fact that reproduction is not exactly a right but more of a privilege on a finite planet with finite ressource. In fact, most of our current problems, even concerning the climate, can be traced back to having too many people consuming too many ressources. And people want to reproduce, they don't want to be told that they can't because they don't pass the threshold.

So, we have this giant travesty, that culminates on top of massive hypocrisy that runs everywhere.

And yes, for most people even if they practice hard for over 10K hours in any activity, they are not going anywhere without the "talent" (in other words, IQ high enough for the relevant activity plus some other variables).

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#59

Post by tptacek »

seec wrote: post #58
anonreeeeplor wrote: post #36

My observation is society will bend over backward. Do literally anything. Rather than actively embrace what is known about IQ as being true. Any book offering something along the lines of “just work harder and you will get there!” stands a good chance about being widely adopted and celebrated. Because it offers a pseudoscience and publicly acceptable theory that is in opposition or replaces IQ. High intelligence is i…

I agree, but you have to realize that very often people call it some other names, like "talent" even though it actually means the exact same thing, it is much more politically correct. And it is indeed what it is. IQ is very heritable and also predicts performance for a lot of stuff, I would say almost any activity; even for the one that do not necessarily interest the high IQ in person. But society would rather igno…

People use the word "heritable" as if it meant "genetically determined" or "immutable", neither of which is true.

Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again

#60

Post by seec »

tptacek wrote: post #59
seec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but you have to realize that very often people call it some other names, like "talent" even though it actually means the exact same thing, it is much more politically correct. And it is indeed what it is. IQ is very heritable and also predicts performance for a lot of stuff, I would say almost any activity; even for the one that do not necessarily interest the high IQ in person. But society would rather igno…

People use the word "heritable" as if it meant "genetically determined" or "immutable", neither of which is true.

You seem to believe that we don't know that, demonstrating precisely what we are talking about.

Nobody ever said that this is a guaranteed thing, and that's completely beside the point. Most things in life are not 100% certain, but we work with "highly probable" or "lots more chance" all the time. Using high quality ingredients doesn't guarantee a good cake, but if you don't start there, your chances of having a good cake are much lower.

You keep repeating that as if you know something special that others don't, but how it looks to me is that you are the one lacking the depth to understand the original argument.

Post reply on HN