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

11–20 of 66 posts

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

#11

Post by mr_mitm »

jsiepkes wrote: post #2

> The 10,000-hour rule perpetuates the exhausting idea that we all can, and therefore should, be great at anything we put our minds to. That was people their take away from it? My only take away was that it will take time to become good at something. I never took it that literal. That's also why I never bought in to the "polyglot developer" hype...

So many people conflate necessary and sufficient conditions. If you look at the world's best and notice that they all practiced for at least 10k hours, that doesn't mean that practicing for 10k hours will make you one of the best.

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

#12

Post by pizza234 »

shzhdbi09gv8ioi wrote: post #4
bovermyer wrote: post #3

The article seems to be conflating "you need to practice 10,000 hours to be an expert" (which is debunked, per the study) with "you need to be an expert to enjoy something." That's a little odd to me. You shouldn't feel compelled to become an expert at something just because you enjoy doing it.

On the flip side, doing what you enjoy seem to make you an expert out of it eventually.

Hard disagree.

As expertise increases, so does the requirement for deliberate practice. On the two ends of the spectrum, there are those who commit to it, and those who don't. Ultimately, individuals who will reach expertise are those who lean towards a high(er) level of commitment.

One can easily observe this in any organized activity. There will be a huge variance in expertise (= skills) among people who have a long experience.

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

#13

Post by werzum »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #6

"And it can blind us to the joy that can be found in mediocrity." Is this a joke,

I think this can actually be a very good idea - this is a thing often discussed in rock climbing, where for most people, no matter how hard and long you train, there will simply always be someone (most likely a 13yr old child) that is just incomprehensibly better than you. So I am glad that I find profound joy in my climbing and trying the hardest I can, while still knowing that globally I will probably always be mediocre at best.

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

#14

Post by lm28469 »

smeej wrote: post #8
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #6

"And it can blind us to the joy that can be found in mediocrity." Is this a joke,

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

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

#15

Post by readthenotes1 »

cwillu wrote: post #9

Alternate title: “10k-hour rule confirmed though not quite as well as originally hoped” Much better link to the full text of the actual replication study, without the vox-splaining: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190327 From the abstract: “Overall, the size of the effect was substantial, but considerably smaller than the original study's effect size.” Regarding small sample sizes: “ The current s…

"replications with similar sample sizes (since that is all that is feasible) should also be allowed to enter the scientific record rather than be suppressed from publication."

Fake it 'til you make it.

That should be the slogan of the modern scientific process...

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

#17

Post by eviks »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #7

Ofc it's still true, as long as you don't take it too literally ... Essentially it means it's gonna take a whole lot of practice and repetition for your brain to build the necessary neural links and reinforce them by forming a proper amount of socalled Myelin [0] so that they fire faster, more effectively and more efficiently than ever before. And it doesn't matter what kind of skill you are talking about - be it phy…

> this [1] is what 10000 hours of practice gets you there for example (the guy has been the World #1 for a good while now).

This is false since it misses that tiny part called "ability", so there are plenty of people that can invest as much time and never get as good, but then I guess that's also taking it too literally. Though the solution to the latter part is not to create fake rules with such literal numbers to make an otherwise obvious point

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

#20

Post by AdamN »

eviks wrote: post #17
jdthedisciple wrote: post #7

Ofc it's still true, as long as you don't take it too literally ... Essentially it means it's gonna take a whole lot of practice and repetition for your brain to build the necessary neural links and reinforce them by forming a proper amount of socalled Myelin [0] so that they fire faster, more effectively and more efficiently than ever before. And it doesn't matter what kind of skill you are talking about - be it phy…

> this [1] is what 10000 hours of practice gets you there for example (the guy has been the World #1 for a good while now). This is false since it misses that tiny part called "ability", so there are plenty of people that can invest as much time and never get as good, but then I guess that's also taking it too literally. Though the solution to the latter part is not to create fake rules with such literal numbers to m…

This is very true which is why athletes with certain body types will simply never win in certain roles. With that said, I'm pretty confident that a swimmer with the wrong build could, with lots of practice, get within a small margin of a gold medal olympic swimmer that has the right build to win. Without that practice they would be laps behind.
Post reply on HN