Live data from Hacker News

The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

pgbovine.net

121–124 of 124 posts

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

#121
post #31

This is a pretty solid rule. I've taken a similar approach with my kids, but they're not really old enough to report back any results. I didn't round down to 1k hours or look at 10k seriously. I've been trying to teach them that it's important to take the journey to get actually good at something. You pick up a lot of things on the way to becoming proficient. I let my oldest pick something to get good at this year. S…

My daughter is now 16 and moving away from playing softball. But she has played since she was about 8 years old. So this is recent history for me. Thankfully she didn't pitch, but I got to watch everything, including pitchers (parents of pitchers are usually Prima Donnas), for many years.

There's "little league" and there's serious softball. The pinnacle of little league is winding up in the Little League Softball World Series, played in suburban Portland Oregon. [1] My daughter was able to play in the preliminary rounds because we're local and one local team always gets to go as the "host". It's for 12 year olds, after that age little league pretty much disappears.

But Little League softball teams are usually weak because the competition is weak. They never will get to the World Series unless the kids also play by what goes by a variety of terms. We call it "ASA" here, but "NSA" is also popular in other areas. It's also called "club" softball. ASA and NSA are sanctioning bodies that provide umpires to tournaments that are held practically year round.

As opposed to little league, which is organized by town, ASA teams can draw from an entire metro area or even from across the state. Anybody who wants to can organize a team. Pay an entry fee and your team can play in a tournament.

And teams play and play and play. There are competing tournaments every weekend for much of the spring and summer. After a short break, "fall ball" starts up for preparation for the next spring. Even 10 y/o and 12 y/o girls travel out of state to go to tournaments.

And once you're in a tournament, the play can be very tiresome. Usually they are double-elimination brackets. Lose an early game and you may need to play 4 games on Saturday and 4 more on Sunday in order to win the tournament.

That's right. Weekend tournaments would routinely have 6 or 8 games (as long as you kept winning, of course).

A team might have 2 good pitchers. And a light weekend schedule would be 6 games. So a girl could expect to pitch 3 full games in two days. Probably more than that if the other pitcher(s) aren't pitching well that day.

After little league, the natural progression is high school softball. But every good high school player is also on an ASA team. During grade school there are ASA tournaments all spring, but not usually during high school. Instead, when the high school year ends, ASA begins in earnest. The serious ASA teams travel around the country to "exposure" tournaments, hoping that the kids will will be noticed by college coaches. Just this year my daughter traveled around Oregon and to Colorado, Washington, and California.

Why do parents do it? Some (like me) do it because the girls are having fun. It also occupies the girls' time (keeps them out of trouble!). Teams stay together for years, and the girls become good friends. Other parents are delusional about their child's abilities. They think their precious will get a "full ride" to a "D1" school. But I read recently that only 3% of the girls playing "18 gold" (the top) will get scholarships to D1 schools. Other girls might be offered partial scholarships to smaller schools. Is that worth it? Not to me, because even at smaller schools the sport will require an immense amount of time. Do you want your kids' focus in college to be softball? Not me. IMO that doesn't make sense for 99% of the girls.

YMMV.

[1] http://www.alpenrose.com/little-league-world-series/

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in the same way a good fiction story is. "Wouldn't it be nice if life were so simple as I'm about to describe?" But this doesn't present itself as a fiction, this presents itself as true, when it's clearly the case that the author has no idea if it's true or not, having not done the requisite legwork to verify.

> to become good at something, which I think requires far less time and dedication. > I claim that it takes roughly 1,000 hours of practice It presents itself as neither fiction nor reference. It presents itself as a thought and a claim.

It shouldn't have been written and is mental masturbatory bullshit on the part of the author. He should stick to the content he's educated on.

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

#123
post #70

I think the order of magnitude scale is a good guide for most things you can learn. Obviously these are rules of thumb. "Practice" can vary in quality, prerequisites and starting points matter. YMMV based on a huge number of factors. That said, the order of magnitude scale is usually a greta way of looking at things. 1,000 hours will get you to entry level "professional" level. 1,000 hours is also 20 hours per week (…

It should be noted that in the context of martial arts, especially Chinese ones, that the number 10,000 has special significance because it's a sort of colloquialism for "many" or "infinite".

For instance the phrase commonly attributed to Bruce Lee: "Fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. Fear him who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

In this case you could substitute any large number and the phrase retains its meaning.

Similarly, "The Classics" (an important illustrated text in Tai Chi, also studied in several other Chinese martial arts) and Taoist texts will occasionally mention "the ten thousand things", which should actually be read as "everything in the universe".

So in other words, when a translated Chinese text talks about practising something 10,000 times, it should generally not be interpreted literally as the number 10,000, but rather as "as much as is possible within a lifetime".

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

#124
post #21
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 le…

I've wanted to do this for some time, but don't get summers off unfortunately. How do you divide the time? ~8hrs/day for a couple weeks, or ~2hrs a day for the whole summer?

Thanks for validating the concept!

Post reply on HN