The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#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...
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#3The article seems to be conflating "you need to practice 10,000 hours to be an expert" (which is debunked, per the study) with "you need to be an expert to enjoy something."
That's a little odd to me.
You shouldn't feel compelled to become an expert at something just because you enjoy doing it.
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#4The article seems to be conflating "you need to practice 10,000 hours to be an expert" (which is debunked, per the study) with "you need to be an expert to enjoy something." That's a little odd to me. You shouldn't feel compelled to become an expert at something just because you enjoy doing it.
On the flip side, doing what you enjoy seem to make you an expert out of it eventually.
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#5The article seems to be conflating "you need to practice 10,000 hours to be an expert" (which is debunked, per the study) with "you need to be an expert to enjoy something." That's a little odd to me. You shouldn't feel compelled to become an expert at something just because you enjoy doing it.
On the flip side, doing what you enjoy seem to make you an expert out of it eventually.
Flipping it again, becoming an expert at something can be quite enjoyable.
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#6"And it can blind us to the joy that can be found in mediocrity."
Is this a joke,
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#7Ofc it's still true, as long as you don't take it too literally ...
Essentially it means it's gonna take a whole lot of practice and repetition for your brain to build the necessary neural links and reinforce them by forming a proper amount of socalled Myelin [0] so that they fire faster, more effectively and more efficiently than ever before.
And it doesn't matter what kind of skill you are talking about - be it physical or mental, eventually it boils down to the neurons in your brain.
If anybody happens to be into the current Age of Empires II scene, 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).
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#8"And it can blind us to the joy that can be found in mediocrity." Is this a joke,
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.
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#9Alternate 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 sample was obtained from over 4 years of recruiting efforts (summer of 2014–autumn of 2018). While our sample size is 33% larger than Ericsson et al.'s, it is still small. Conducting expertise research, by definition, means studying a small subset of the population, thus there are relatively few participants from which to sample, making large-sample replications nearly impossible. However, if replications of expertise studies never enter the scientific record because of small samples, then we probably will never provide additional evidence to support or refute the original studies. This leaves only the original study (with an even smaller sample size) as the only indicator in the scientific record.”
“To be clear, evidence from small samples—in original studies or replications—should be interpreted with caution. However, when the original study (with a small sample) has already entered the scientific record, replications with similar sample sizes (since that is all that is feasible) should also be allowed to enter the scientific record rather than be suppressed from publication. This is probably the best way to accumulate knowledge in this area. ”
Oooo! And they link to actual data they collected in the study! https://osf.io/4595q/
Fun little chart from midway through the paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/bc80eddb-371e-4...
Re: The "10k-hour rule" was debunked again
#10The article seems to be conflating "you need to practice 10,000 hours to be an expert" (which is debunked, per the study) with "you need to be an expert to enjoy something." That's a little odd to me. You shouldn't feel compelled to become an expert at something just because you enjoy doing it.
On the flip side, doing what you enjoy seem to make you an expert out of it eventually.
This article is new evidence that that's not true.