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

31–40 of 66 posts

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

#31

Post by nottorp »

lm28469 wrote: post #28
nottorp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's ok as long as it's not an excuse to not put in the work. Hmm? I'm perfectly happy with my hiking performance that is usually about 30% slower than the estimated time for the marked trails i do. I see no reason to improve it because I don't make a living out of hiking. Not all parts of your life have to be ultracompetitive.

We probably don't have the same definition of mediocrity then, the way I look at it is that if you go for a hike you're already in the top 25% which puts you way way way out of mediocrity. Most people haven't done anything more straining than walking up a couple of flights of stairs in their last 5 years Again, nobody in the entire world prays for a mediocre life, a mediocre health, a mediocre salary, a mediocre part…

> We probably don't have the same definition of mediocrity then

For a hiker, I'm worse than average :) Since the estimates in our mountain guides are 'for the average person'. Of course I'm better than someone who just walks to/from the car.

As anecdata I'm pretty sure I did a 3 hour estimate hike up a mountain in 1.5 to 2 hours when I was 19, enthusiastic and in top shape. So they really are averages.

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

#32

Post by lm28469 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #25
lm28469 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#33

Post by TrackerFF »

I think the 10k rules can be a decent guideline, not something that's written in stone.

Some very talented individuals can get there much faster, untalented much longer - just like with everything else, there's some distribution involved, and the mean might be somewhere around 10k. You'll still have the tails on both ends...

I'm a musician, and I've seen people get "good" really fast. They've learned 80% of the instrument in as little as 2-3 years, and you couldn't really distinguish them from someone that's been playing for 10 years - prodigies like that pop up from time to time.

But I've neve met a prodigy that just half-assed and got there in that time. Every single one that I've met, have been practicing obsessively during those formative years. At my peak, I could play guitar for 8 hours a day - and every good musician I've ever talked with, have the same stories of playing/practicing long hours for some time.

I like to think that if you're talented, you can turbocharge that time. You don't need to spend as much time as others on certain things, and can progress much faster. A good friend of mine has perfect pitch, and learned every note on the instrument in just a couple of days. On the other hand, I've met people that have played for years, that struggle to find almost any note - just to use one example.

With that said, it is the last 10%-20% that takes time to master. That's where all the nuances come in, and what differentiates a master from a good musician.

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

#34

Post by mc32 »

oersted wrote: post #29
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…

> Practice still mattered: It accounted for 26 percent of the difference between good violinists and the less accomplished students. But the original study claimed that practice accounted for 48 percent of the difference. This is very different from "10k-hour rule confirmed". The study concludes that practice is positive, but it is a small part of being the best, practicing a lot won't make much of a difference to ac…

Aren’t many of these populations self selecting anyway?

It would be something else if the took a random sample of people off the street, got them to use ~10,000 hours to master something and then got positive results.

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

#35

Post by nunez »

Emphasis mine:

> Which isn’t nothing. But it also means that a great many other factors — like genetics, personality, life history, etc. — makes up the majority of the difference. “Almost across the board, practice should improve one’s performance,” Macnamara told me in 2016.

> Practice matters, yes. *But at the same time, it’s unlikely to bridge the gap between natural superstars and your average player.*

Exactly.

Some people are just born to be better at a thing than others. Practice and coaching definitely makes you _better_, but things like the 10,000 hour rule are just cruel ways to make people that don't have "it" feel even more down about themselves.

This is especially the case with physical appearance. It's a real shame that the ripped six-pack (for men) and super slender beach body (for women) are the physiques to aspire to. For many (most?) people, getting there requires brutal levels of restriction and determination that some people that are more genetically predisposed to attain and maintain that physique than others.

That physique isn't even indicative of peak performance! In fact, there are many folks that look "perfect" but have horrible health markers underneath.

It's even worse when those people become influencers and try to tell others that will almost never look like them how to do so. Just cruel stuff.

So, yeah, I'm glad we're finally putting this "advice" to bed.

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

#36

Post by anonreeeeplor »

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 incredibly heritable and enables people to learn complex skills much faster than others.

If you add in ADHD and Aspergers, I would guess I can out learn anyone but only at topics that interest me.

You are not going to beat someone whose brain literally cannot turn off and who ruminates obsessively about complex topics all day. No matter how much you “practice.”

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

#37

Post by nunez »

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

Plenty of people are okay with being fat. It's society constantly telling them "you shouldn't be fat!!!!" that complicates this.

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

#38

Post by skywhopper »

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…

Not sure how you think “IQ” is particularly meaningful to this, though. At best it measures one small contributor to all the aspects of a person. “Working hard” is also required. So is “natural inclination or ability”. Psychological and physical traits also play a role. Practice is also important. IQ alone is no more likely to make someone successful as any other piece of the puzzle.

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

#39

Post by mewpmewp2 »

skywhopper wrote: post #38
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…

Not sure how you think “IQ” is particularly meaningful to this, though. At best it measures one small contributor to all the aspects of a person. “Working hard” is also required. So is “natural inclination or ability”. Psychological and physical traits also play a role. Practice is also important. IQ alone is no more likely to make someone successful as any other piece of the puzzle.

But then there are types of brains which are naturally attuned to wanting to solve certain problems. If the owners of those brains get lucky they get a brain that wants to solve problems that they can get paid very well for. It doesn't feel like hard work then. It's like what your brain was naturally wired or specialised to do.

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

#40

Post by Sakos »

bejd wrote: post #24
casualrandomcom wrote: post #16

The author does not know what it is meant by "deliberate practice" nowadays. Everytime they use it, they should have written "rote practice" or, simply, "practice".

As do most people who quote the 10,000 hours thing. Gladwell greatly simplified K. Anders Ericsson's work [0]. Most people just read Gladwell's catchy headline and miss the point. Doing something over and over != deliberate practice. In Ericsson's words: >Expert performance can, however, be traced to active engagement in deliberate practice (DP), where training (often designed and arranged by their teachers and coach…

I always find it difficult to square away the critical comments on HN or even studies like this with my own experience.

Focused practice on a specific thing I want to get better at or learn has always resulted in rapid improvement in that specific thing versus just trying to wing it or just haphazardly and irregularly repeating the thing as a part of a larger activity.

What might take days or weeks to learn can take hours if I consciously think about what I'm lacking, what I want to learn and what methods to use to bridge that gap, then continuously reevaluating what I do and how effective it is.

I'm not sure that'll ever turn me into a superstar programmer, but I'm fairly convinced it's the most effective and efficient way to become the best programmer that I can be within my own limitations.

I can always strive to be the best version of myself. How that version fares in comparison with others is of little relevance to me.

Post reply on HN