Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

pgbovine.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

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

#51

Post by kamaal »

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #22

Given 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…

>>this is the best argument for basic income

You only feel the need for a basic income because you are currently strapped for time and you crave for more time to work on something far more creative.

Once time comes in abundant supply you will now be faced with a situation where you will have a lot of time and won't really understand the reason why you would want to work hard(Your basic needs are met) or spend time doing , since you now have unlimited time to delay those projects.

People generally think they can pull of miracles if they get time. Instead what happens is most people wake up late, sleep late, waste time doing pointless stuff.

As a general rule you will only consider things in short supply as precious. Which is why being busy is probably a good idea, because that way you will value the most important thing in your life-- time and opportunities.

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

#52

Post by kamaal »

marcosdumay wrote: post #41
DanielStraight wrote: post #27

Earlier 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…

> We should be looking at ways to maximize the use of very small chunks of time. I'm not sure it can be done. The best way to maximize the use of small chuncks of time is to join them into rarer big chuncks of time.

Agreed, there is a term in the Perl community for it called 'tuits'.

Its called a unit of time where you can get some meaningful work done.

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

#53

Post by silverbax88 »

onion2k wrote: post #3

Slightly tangential, but the latest You Are Not So Smart podcast is about practise and how it changes your brain, particularly with regard to the 10,000 hour 'rule'. It's well worth a listen (and so are all the previous episodes if you've not heard it before). http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss-podcast-030-how...

Thanks for posting that. One of the best things I've ever listened to.

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

#54

Post by silverbax88 »

Freeboots wrote: post #23

How about 20 hours? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY The 10k hours thing is based on how long it took athletes to become the very top of their field. The very top of their highly specific, highly competitive field. It doesnt even mean becoming an 'expert' (whatever that means), let alone just being good at it. Anyway, check the TED Talk above, 20 hours to proficiency.

Actually, Gladwell has specifically said it does not really apply to sports.

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

#55

Post by simoncarter »

hammock wrote: post #35
DanielStraight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pareto principle is that 80% of result comes from 20% of the effort. So 80% of the 10k hours worth of skill (8k) comes from 20% of the actual time (2k). If you continue multiplying the hours worth of skill by 0.8 and the actual hours involved by 0.2, you get 5120 hours worth of skill in 80 actual hours of practice. Of course, if you keep going, you get the first 800 hours worth of skill in less than a second (and…

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker The question is WHICH of those 80 hours account for 51.2% of the value of 10K hours of practice. It's not necessarily the FIRST 80 hours. It's very possible you could get 8% of your skill in less than a second; it just might come at a lightning-strike eureka or moment of epiphany during hour 8,679.

I think people also forget that the point of the 10k hours is not just the time, but also the fact that experts actively spend time figuring our their weaknesses, and focus on that, while making sure their strengths don't start to wilt. Planning rather than just doing, are also important.

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

#56

Post by tbrownaw »

DanielStraight wrote: post #27
zxcvvcxz wrote: post #22

Given 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…

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…

We should be looking at ways to maximize the use of very small chunks of time. I may not be able to commit even a single hour of dedicated time per day... but I can certainly do something for a few minutes here and there throughout the day which adds up to an hour. How can we make that kind of practice more effective?

I saw some article go past a while ago, claiming that intensive practice works far better than the same amount of scattered practice.

Maybe use those scattered minutes to keep up on small tasks that would otherwise pile up, so you can set aside a full day every few weeks? Or use those few minutes to relax and do nothing, so you'll be more clear-headed (and presumably perform better) for whatever you do next...

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

#57

Post by 001sky »

noahl wrote: post #6
TeMPOraL wrote: 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…

If we combine your rules of thumb with the original essay and the 10,000 hour rule, we get a rough order-of-magnitude scale of work and levels of ability: * 10 hours: familiar * 100 hours: proficient * 1000 hours: good * 10000 hours: expert Not perfect, of course, but it's sort of intriguing in its simplicity.

Ha. The marketing/consultant's version.

1 hour = familiar (heard of it) 10 hours = proficient (1 day) 100 Hours = "good" (2 weeks) 1000 Hours = "expert" (6 months)

Although a general rule of thumb (that is true) is 3 months of full time work on a topic makes you "conversant"--good enough to pass yourself off as an expert to the unsuspecting. OF course, YMMV.

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

#58

Post by NDizzle »

tannerj wrote: post #44
NDizzle wrote: 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…

I don't know about softball, but I played baseball from the time I was 4 until I was 19 and the biggest change in youth baseball has been monitoring pitch counts for youth pitchers. If I remember correctly, Softball pitchers usually have trouble with their knees while baseball pitchers have arm trouble. I still have arm trouble and I had parents who put my safety first and did the best they could to take care of my a…

Yeah, I cut back significantly after talking to a cousin of mine who played college ball.

At first I was a bit frustrated because she was really interested in pitching, as was roughly half of her team. So when you play 3 games a week for a 4 month season, if you spread it around (like you should at a young age - give everyone a chance) you have each kid throwing about 2 innings a week. (6 inning games, ~8 kids who want to pitch on a 14 player team)

What's your thoughts on the right amount? Maybe a game a week and really concentrate on form and technique? (No fancy pitches, just straight with accuracy.)

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

#59

Post by llllllllllll »

berkes wrote: post #39
zxcvvcxz wrote: post #22

Given 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've always planned and managed to take two to four months per year off: between jobs, or simply blocking my freelance-agenda for a few (slower) months. During these months, I take on a personal project with a certain focus. I don't force myself to release anything: though shipping is nice. I don't set any hard goal. Just two, three or even four months of playing around and learning. A new Database-concept. Geocoding…

I did that basically, but I saved up enough to move to and live comfortably in SE Asia for at least 3 or 4 years.

I spend less then $400 a month, so maybe this lifestyle is not for everyone, and it's certainly not feasible with a family, but the move has totally changed my life. Before, I felt stuck and directionless. Now though, after a little less than a year of total freedom, I've finished two big projects that I'm proud of. I have a much wider range of skills and I'd be confident walking into an interview at a tech company. I hope I never have to though!

I would absolutely recommend a similar path for anyone struggling with the full-time work grind.

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

#60

Post by Mvandenbergh »

thedufer wrote: post #34
systematical wrote: post #25

10,000 hour rule is a bit strange. I've been programming for 8 years doing so at work and at home. Working full time there are roughly 2,080 work hours in a year. 2,080 * 8 = 16,640 hours of programming. Now there is also all of that time spent programming in classes, on homework, on hobbies, and doing freelance work. That easily brings the amount of hours spent programming to 18,000. To account for all the time spen…

The 10,000 hour rule is often taken out of context. In Outliers, it is made clear that Gladwell means 10,000 hours of focused practice with the intent to improve. A small percentage of day-to-day programming fits that criteria (unless you're a researcher, or something along those lines). So you may have 16,000 hours of programming, but still be significantly short of the 10,000 hour rule.

If you're a CS researcher who actually codes as part of their research, much of the time you'll be banging out barely functional proof of concept code to get some results you can take to conference.

I'm not sure there's any group that actually does focused practice coding for a significant number of hours on a regular basis.

Post reply on HN