I consider myself a expert in .NET/C# development, and it did not take no where NEAR 10,000 hours. 3000 hours is a fair estimate. 4000 to be on the safe side.
I was good after 1000 though, so I'd have to agree with this "rule".
The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
101–110 of 124 posts
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#102I'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?
That's what I thought when I first started innovating
in the mature technical field of petro/chemical analysis.
It would require a lot of self-dedication.
Since I was already a young performance leader, I stuck with it and avoided the institutional path where they only accomplish a few hours of progress a day, take breaks, have useless meetings, etc.
Similar to a musical instrument, industrial instruments are never truly mastered, and proficiency declines once the hands are removed from regular use.
This also worked to my advantage since gifted PhD's with high aptitudes seldom can keep their hands on the gear for even one whole decade before they are needed to fill a place on the corporate ladder.
Now after 30+ years, I do not look at ordinary researchers as loafers, there are some brilliant workers and wonderful experts I can draw upon when needed. Normally you are only allowed to do a limited amount before you run the risk & woe of making co-workers look less productive.
By comparison, I now have "60years" experience compared to what would have only been about half as many accomplishments if I had been employed by an oil or chemical company over the same 3 decades. Plus I own my own technology for decades now.
Not trying to toot my own horn but it is an unfair advantage.
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#103Given 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…
I once heard about an interview with a very dedicated wikipedia volunteer, who spent hours daily on the project. The reporter asked a bit tongue in cheek how he had the time for it, silently implying that he had no life. The volunteer hesitated a second asked the reporter back: "Did you know that the average person watch TV two hours every day. How do they find time for that ?". I've carried this reply with me since…
First expressed, I believe, by Clay Shirky:
[…] She heard this story and she shook her head and said, “Where do people find the time?” That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, “No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you've been masking for 50 years.”
— Gin, Television, and Social Surplus, Clay Shirky, May 2008 (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008009.html)
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Being involved in raising your kids takes a huge amount of time. BUT - the best way to raise kids is to bring them into your life , not leave your life to do kid things, so that huge block of time is not "lost" to your kids at the cost of your own interests. Obviously not all projects are suitable to sharing with a 4-year-old (learning HTML? probably not), but more than you might think (getting exercise? yes. learnin…
When I was a small child my dad taught me how to take apart motorcycle engines, while my mom taught me QBASIC and getting around in DOS.
You'd be surprised at how much children can learn even at a very young age if you don't make it look harder than it is.
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#105Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being involved in raising your kids takes a huge amount of time. BUT - the best way to raise kids is to bring them into your life , not leave your life to do kid things, so that huge block of time is not "lost" to your kids at the cost of your own interests. Obviously not all projects are suitable to sharing with a 4-year-old (learning HTML? probably not), but more than you might think (getting exercise? yes. learnin…
When I was a small child my dad taught me how to take apart motorcycle engines, while my mom taught me QBASIC and getting around in DOS. You'd be surprised at how much children can learn even at a very young age if you don't make it look harder than it is.
Or even simply because you do it. Not making it look harder than it is is a step up from simply having a lack of fear of getting your hands dirty and trying things. Taking your time, having a notebook and/or a digital camera and you can pretty much take anything apart with a reasonable chance that you can put it back together again.
I first got my taste of powertools when I was 12, visited a friend of my moms who didn't bat an eye at letting me use his big electric drill after showing me how dangerous the thing was. Proper respect for tools is half the battle, after that you'll make sure you hold them well instead of half-assed and have the business end pointed where it can do no harm.
Two days with that guy did more for my sense of shop safety than a few years cumulative after that. The level of trust both increased my abilities and my responsibility. After that it was back home where none of that was allowed.
I let my 11 year old roam the workshop at will after some instruction and I never regretted it.
He built me a custom bike a week ago, so I guess that paid off well :)
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#107Given 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…
I once heard about an interview with a very dedicated wikipedia volunteer, who spent hours daily on the project. The reporter asked a bit tongue in cheek how he had the time for it, silently implying that he had no life. The volunteer hesitated a second asked the reporter back: "Did you know that the average person watch TV two hours every day. How do they find time for that ?". I've carried this reply with me since…
> (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.)
TV-watching is not high-concentration.
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once heard about an interview with a very dedicated wikipedia volunteer, who spent hours daily on the project. The reporter asked a bit tongue in cheek how he had the time for it, silently implying that he had no life. The volunteer hesitated a second asked the reporter back: "Did you know that the average person watch TV two hours every day. How do they find time for that ?". I've carried this reply with me since…
First expressed, I believe, by Clay Shirky: […] She heard this story and she shook her head and said, “Where do people find the time?” That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, “No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you've been masking for 50 years.” — Gin, Television, and Social Surplus, Clay Shirky, May 2008 (…
The wikipedia presentation must have been a couple of years before that. But the idea didn't originate with them. You can find similar musings from the 70s. (Which is funny, because they probably watched a lot less back then.)
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#109Is the 10,000 hour rule even true? I know this was popularized by Gladwell's book 'Outliers' but I had heard the study referred to in the book might not be accurate. Is it that 10,000 of practice is common to experts or that there are no experts without 10,000 hours of practice?
In my interpretation, 10,000 hours is the amount of time most other people are unwilling to spend on a skill, which places you as world-class.
Re: The 1,000-hour rule (2009)
#110A detailed an well argumented framework to be found in
Chapter 1: Five Steps from Novice to Expert
Mind Over Machine by Hubert Dreyfus
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Over-Machine-Hubert-Dreyfus/dp/00...