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

41–50 of 66 posts

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

#41

Post by maximus-decimus »

AdamN wrote: post #20
eviks wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If that were true, women would be "within a small margin" of beating Mike Tyson in a boxing match.

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

#42

Post by arpyzo »

What about the quality of practice? I'm using quality very broadly here to include things like: the content of the practice, good spaced repetition, focus, etc. Perhaps 10k hours of mediocre practice doesn't get you far, but 5k hours of high quality practice does?

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

#44

Post by kashunstva »

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

> Nobody wants to be mediocre

I do. At least in some areas of my life. Maybe the issue is in the loaded word “mediocre.” It has a very judgemental connotation, whereas “good enough” is an assessment of satisfaction with one’s level of attainment. Professionally, I’ll never be satisfied with a given level of knowledge and ability; but in other realms, mediocre (good enough) is perfectly fine. In the kitchen, I’m mediocre. And I don’t try. I can’t imagine a life where every pursuit had to be pursued with equal striving toward expert status.

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

#45

Post by kashunstva »

Malcolm Gladwell is mostly to blame for the misinterpretation of Ericsson’s original publication. The effect size of deliberate practice can be refined through tighter study methodology; that’s fine, it’s how science works. But the 10k hour heuristic was just wrong from the beginning; and Gladwell and Ericsson had a very public disagreement about this. Gladwell is a great storyteller but he’s no scientist.

Part of my professional activities involve coaching young chamber music groups and this idea of “10k hours of practice is all you need” is rampant in the music education community. There is just something qualitatively different about the great soloists that most can’t acquire even with 20k hours of deliberate practice. And that’s ok. I tell these teens that there’s no limit to “better.” And if your goal today, the next day and the day after that is “better” you are already on a track to attain more than the vast majority of humans.

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

#46

Post by unzadunza »

TrackerFF wrote: post #33

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 instr…

I've been practicing guitar pretty hard for 4 years. Certainly not 8 hours a day since I have a job and wife, but at least 1 or 2 every day. I feel like maybe I'm not practicing the right things.

When you were playing guitar 8 hours a day, do you remember what you were doing for those 8 hours? Learning new songs? Practicing scales? Transcribing songs? I know all those things are important, but I'm still trying to figure out what I should really be spending my practice time doing.

I think my goal is just to be able to play with friends for fun, no gigs or anything like that, and sound decent, rhythm or lead. And maybe write a few songs.

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

#47

Post by TrackerFF »

unzadunza wrote: post #46
TrackerFF wrote: post #33

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 instr…

I've been practicing guitar pretty hard for 4 years. Certainly not 8 hours a day since I have a job and wife, but at least 1 or 2 every day. I feel like maybe I'm not practicing the right things. When you were playing guitar 8 hours a day, do you remember what you were doing for those 8 hours? Learning new songs? Practicing scales? Transcribing songs? I know all those things are important, but I'm still trying to fig…

At my height of playing, I was between ages 14 - 20, so basically from Jr. HS to college. I had all the time in the world, and was really obsessed with the instrument.

I played in multiple bands, so a ton of my spare time would go toward that. Writing and playing songs, basically living in the rehearsal space. When it came to practice it was mostly learning/playing scales, modes, chords, rhythm, etc. - and of course trying to play more and more difficult (cover) songs, as well as trying to write stuff. I spent a huge amount of time just writing stuff in guitar pro (software), and later composing stuff via MIDI in DAWs (Cubase at the time).

My main tips would be to use a metronome at all times, learn as much music theory as you can, learn to sight read, and just have fun by challenging yourself with music. Finding someone to play with is, IMO, priceless.

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

#48

Post by 303uru »

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...

People didn't just invent that idea. The likes of Bill Gates and Malcolm Gladwell have pushed it as the separator between the haves and have-nots for years.

It's a PR friendly way to sell "We're not billionaires because of luck, early access to computers, or a complete lack of empathy! We're billionaires because you don't work hard enough."

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

#49

Post by smeej »

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…

> Again, nobody in the entire world prays for a mediocre life, a mediocre health, a mediocre salary, a mediocre partner.

There are plenty of people for whom mediocrity would be a big step up. If you have terrible health, having mediocre health sounds delightful. If your partner is abusive, having a mediocre one looks like a grace.

Your sample selection for "the entire world" seems to be leaving a lot of people out.

Nobody's saying you ought to hope for mediocrity. But plenty of people do.

In fact, for most things that aren't important to me, mediocrity is the level I hope to attain. Sure, I could probably achieve higher, but if it's something I don't value, putting in that additional effort would be at the cost of something I value more. If my achievement drops below mediocre, it's usually bad enough to cause problems, so mediocrity is my "not very good, but not bad enough to be a problem" level goal for things that don't matter to me.

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

#50

Post by vcg3rd »

The most naturally gifted pianist who ever lived may have never seen a piano. One doesn't need any study to confirm practice, rightly done [1] improves performance, only to attempt to quantify it.[2] The better adage is one I first heard from a Little League coach: "Practice like you play."

[1] Practicing incorrectly can lead to bad muscle memory that can hinder performance. E.g. learning to touch type after years of 4 finger hunting and pecking v learning how to touch type the first time you start using a keyboard.

[2] Sitting in a waiting room years ago I read an article in a science digest of some sort extolling how physicists explained why the air smells differently after rain. They used time-laspe photography, zoom, and optical spectography (???) Or something to capture spores being released into the air. I was baffled. Once you know of the actual existence of molecules, spores, and the like why would you need to prove to your eyes what your nose already tells you. If you think it's a bad example I am not knowledgeable enough to say you're wrong, but I do belive humans in general have a disposition to more readily accept evidence received by the eye than we are any other sense except touch.

Post reply on HN