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

91–100 of 124 posts

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

#91

Post by disputin »

applecore wrote: post #82
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…

Your "passionate society" is appealing in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. In a market economy, someone offers you a price for your labor. You decide whether or not to accept it. If you're passionate about something nobody wants to pay for, why should you still be paid?

Citizen's income is no fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

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

#92

Post by xorcist »

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 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 then.

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

#93

Post by bstpierre »

jtheory wrote: post #47
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…

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…

Amen to this!

One or both of my kids, depending on the activity, will beg to do stuff that my wife and/or I are doing: gardening, learning about electronics, home repair, sports, music, cooking, crafts, animal care/husbandry, forestry (I DIY all of our firewood for winter heat), small engine maintenance and repair, hiking, biking, workout videos, etc etc.

I still think it's important to expose them to other things and respect and encourage the interests that they develop, which may be outside the sphere of things that you enjoy. E.g. neither I nor my wife have much musical skill/talent, but one kid likes making music so we encourage it where we can (e.g. I've learned a bit about drumming just so I can help him figure some things out).

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

#94

Post by general_failure »

xorcist wrote: post #92
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 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…

Sadly, watching tv is considered having a 'life'

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

#95

Post by adfgadfsg »

superuser2 wrote: post #90
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…

Having kids is optional. That's a voluntary sacrifice in a way that having a job is very much not. They don't really belong in the same breath.

At a societal level, having kids is not optional is it?

On an individual level, why do you feel a job is mandatory? It's only necessary if you want certain things - lots of homeless manage somehow.

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

#97

Post by adfgadfsg »

disputin wrote: post #91
applecore wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "passionate society" is appealing in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. In a market economy, someone offers you a price for your labor. You decide whether or not to accept it. If you're passionate about something nobody wants to pay for, why should you still be paid?

Citizen's income is no fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

What is the difference between these proposals and fantasy at this point? As this article points out, the idea has been around a long time, yet has not been implemented on any wide scale, why will this ever change?

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

#98

Post by snoman »

superuser2 wrote: post #90
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…

Having kids is optional. That's a voluntary sacrifice in a way that having a job is very much not. They don't really belong in the same breath.

> Having kids is optional.

Choosing not to participate in a fundamental experience of the human condition is no more a choice than choosing not to have a job.

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

#99

Post by whiddershins »

NDizzle wrote: post #58
tannerj wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

In general, much of sports injuries have to do with improper recovery cycles. So, although most skills-based practice (such as music) benefit from daily practice due to the way the brain adapts, this has to be somehow balanced against the body's need for recovery. So practicing language is great every day or several times a day, while power lifting starts with 4 recovery days per week and more recovery tends to be added as the person nears their genetic potential.

How to apply this precisely to martial arts and sports which have such intense mental and physical training/adaptation requirements, and adjusting for age and other individual considerations is way beyond what I can speak knowledgably about. I would recommend Thomas Kurtz's "The Science of Sports Training" but I found most of it impractical and incomprehensible. But what I think is the most important takeaway from his work is:

- recovery is everything

- sometimes a different, light activity, speeds recovery more than full rest

- so athletes' workloads should by cycled, they shouldn't do the same thing day after day, and it should also vary by season

- but really, recovery is everything, never underestimate how important recovery is

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

#100

Post by kensai »

IvyMike wrote: post #24

I'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?

I had the same Master in mind. He is probably one of the few that matches or surpasses these needed hours. ;)
Post reply on HN