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

The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

pgbovine.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#21

Post by j2kun »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #5

I have my own take on this - if you triple-Pareto the 10k hours rule you end up with 80 hours of work responsible for 51.2% of your skill. I round it up and call 100-hours rule: if you put one hundred hours of actual practice into something it might not make you an expert, but you'll be proficient and/or good enough to impress people around you. I started applying this to random things, and I think one could cut it d…

I tend to take this 100-hour rule in short bursts. I can't often get myself to do something 2 hours a week consistently for a year (not to mention a decade!). So instead I tend to intensely apply myself to one thing for a short while, and then seldom do it after that. For example, I got into the habit of learning a new instrument every Summer for eight years. I tried everything from the guitar to the didgeridoo (I learned how to breathe circularly, too; it only took a week or so), and spent a Summer practicing whatever tickled my fancy. People really do find it impressive despite my insistence that I'm terrible at every instrument I play because I don't stick with it.

Moreover, I've found these minor skills have given me broad applications beyond what I originally intended (leisure). I worked at a day camp and knowing the harmonica and ukulele made campfire stories/skits/songs immeasurably better (I also did a semester of intense practice in performance literature, which helped as well). My forays into design have made me the resident web/design expert in my mathematics department, resulting in some extra cash. Learning to paint has made decorating my apartment way more fun and elevates my perceived sophistication (which I think is hilarious). The list goes on and I don't intend to stop growing it.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#22

Post by zxcvvcxz »

Given the 10,000 hour rule as generally true (at least in spirit), what's very difficult and seldom discussed is just how hard it is to get there at anything worthwhile once you're passed a certain point in life.

Why? Because job.

Having gone through college and taken work terms between years, I saw this first-hand: after you're done 9 to 5 for that paycheck (+food, +commuting, +exercise, +social life), good luck finding 4 hours a day for building your skills at something meaningful - or starting a side project. You have to sacrifice a ton, or say goodbye to full-time work. While a lot of graduate students won't outright admit it, I get the feeling this is a big motivator for a lot of people "delaying the real world".

(BTW, 4 hours a day means an actual 4 hours of high concentration and high output, which can take a full working day as anyone with a day job will attest.)

And then you get people who look down on you for "delaying the real world", and so many people who do anything other than a 9-5 after basic college feel guilty for doing so. I used to look down on those people too quite frankly (lazy bums, you don't get to learn interesting things while I fix this bullshit Perl script). But now I get it.

To me, this is the best argument for basic income, although I'm still not sold on it. How can we have a passionate society of master craftsmen and artisans when we're busy inventing bullshit jobs for people to fill, so they can support themselves?

A big caveat is if somehow the stars align and your work contributes to mastery at your craft. The odds actually aren't nearly so bad if you're in tech. As I alluded to above, they didn't work out so great for me, at least initially. Web and app development, I found out, isn't my thing.

As some final anecdotal data, it's fairly well-known that the Dutch have a disproportionately high amount of world-class DJs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_DJs). In examining this anomaly, one finds out that the Dutch offer disproportionately more grants and funding for music and the arts. So people can take those years they would have otherwise spent in typical 9-5's and instead focus on DJ-ing.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#23

Post by Freeboots »

How about 20 hours? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY

The 10k hours thing is based on how long it took athletes to become the very top of their field. The very top of their highly specific, highly competitive field. It doesnt even mean becoming an 'expert' (whatever that means), let alone just being good at it. Anyway, check the TED Talk above, 20 hours to proficiency.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#24

Post by IvyMike »

I've been wondering if there's another level to be reached after another factor of 10--in other words, is there a "100,000 hour" rule?

Which at 8 hours per day would take over 30 years, so there's not going to be a lot of them.

Maybe Jiro from Jiro Dreams of Sushi?

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#25

Post by systematical »

10,000 hour rule is a bit strange. I've been programming for 8 years doing so at work and at home. Working full time there are roughly 2,080 work hours in a year. 2,080 * 8 = 16,640 hours of programming. Now there is also all of that time spent programming in classes, on homework, on hobbies, and doing freelance work. That easily brings the amount of hours spent programming to 18,000. To account for all the time spent on hacker news, reddit, etc... instead of actually programming I'll drop that number to 16,000 total hours programming.

By all accounts I should be an expert. I'd imaging there are many on here with a similar hours, many with more. I don't feel like an expert though. Do you?

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#26

Post by TeMPOraL »

DanielStraight wrote: post #20
danielweber wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain "triple-Pareto"? (I might be messing up by parsing it as an economic term.)

The Pareto principle is that 80% of result comes from 20% of the effort. So 80% of the 10k hours worth of skill (8k) comes from 20% of the actual time (2k). If you continue multiplying the hours worth of skill by 0.8 and the actual hours involved by 0.2, you get 5120 hours worth of skill in 80 actual hours of practice. Of course, if you keep going, you get the first 800 hours worth of skill in less than a second (and…

> so I'm not sure the repeated application is justified

Probably not. I don't think that whoever came up with 80/20 had this in mind, but that's the fun with mathy-sounding rules of thumb - you get to mix them and/or fold them on themselves and see what comes out ;).

More seriously, you may try to rescue the rule and such application by noting that it is the right 20% of work required to get 80% of result. Finding that work in the space of all work to be done requires effort on itself. Finding the right 4%, or right 0.8%, requires even more bits of knowledge, thus more meta-work.

Fortunately, we may cheat a little bit, because those who came before us and mastered the skill we want often already did the big part of figuring out which work has most payoff at the beginning.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#27

Post by DanielStraight »

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #22

Given the 10,000 hour rule as generally true (at least in spirit), what's very difficult and seldom discussed is just how hard it is to get there at anything worthwhile once you're passed a certain point in life. Why? Because job. Having gone through college and taken work terms between years, I saw this first-hand: after you're done 9 to 5 for that paycheck (+food, +commuting, +exercise, +social life), good luck fin…

It's interesting you didn't mention family at all. Having kids is a huge commitment of time.

I think a good take-away from your rant (plus the consideration of family) is that we need to be talking more about making time for things. Too often we talk a great deal about what can be done in a few hours a day, but when it comes to making that time, we just say, "If it's important to you, you'll make the time."

We should be looking at ways to maximize the use of very small chunks of time. I may not be able to commit even a single hour of dedicated time per day... but I can certainly do something for a few minutes here and there throughout the day which adds up to an hour. How can we make that kind of practice more effective?

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#28

Post by jacquesm »

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #22

Given the 10,000 hour rule as generally true (at least in spirit), what's very difficult and seldom discussed is just how hard it is to get there at anything worthwhile once you're passed a certain point in life. Why? Because job. Having gone through college and taken work terms between years, I saw this first-hand: after you're done 9 to 5 for that paycheck (+food, +commuting, +exercise, +social life), good luck fin…

There are ways around the 'because job' problem. I've been reading a lot on this guys blog: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ and he's got some pretty interesting ideas on getting off the treadmill, with both actionable advice and the lead character eating his own dogfood.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#29

Post by induscreep »

On a tangent: could you consider centering the content on your site? Right now I have to turn my head left by about 30 degrees to read your blog, on a widescreen monitor.

margin-left in of 25% makes it much better to read.

Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

#30

Post by systematical »

Freeboots wrote: post #23

How about 20 hours? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY The 10k hours thing is based on how long it took athletes to become the very top of their field. The very top of their highly specific, highly competitive field. It doesnt even mean becoming an 'expert' (whatever that means), let alone just being good at it. Anyway, check the TED Talk above, 20 hours to proficiency.

I first heard of it from Malcolm Gladwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
Post reply on HN