
10,000 hours to greatness - networkjester
http://www.smallshock.com/?p=114
======
donnyg107
I'm not sure this guy is fully grasping the idea that Gladwell was pushing
across. I don't think the point was that 10,000 hours is a magic number to
strive for in order to become an expert (although he does say that
persistently), rather he was emphasizing the direct correlation between work
and ability that we often don't recognize, and that realistically, 10,000
hours will put you far ahead of your friends. I think 10,000 hours is known as
the statistical breaking point because leaders of industry are often there at
their peak, but they would still be experts if they were at 8000 and everyone
else was at 6000. The idea is purely comparative, and the number has no
special counterintuitive quality to it. I spend about an hour a day pissing,
but that doesn't mean that by 27 ill be THE EXPERT. Ill miss and exercise poor
urinal decorum like I always do, and no breaking point will allow the gift of
expertise to show up at my doorstep. The point of this idea is to understand
that anybody can be the beatles if they've worked effectively harder than the
norm, not that they have worked enough to be the beatles. This is still an
important point though, and I think this author should attempted to work above
and beyond the expected norms, but not so he can hit the magic number. He just
needs enough that he's better than everybody else.

~~~
rumblestrut
Hello. I'm "this guy." Totally surprised by my unknown, abandoned blog getting
1,500 visits all of a sudden. The internet is a wonderful place.

1\. Indeed, Gladwell pushes the idea of a 10,000 hour goal quite heavily to
the point he seems to want to make it a mantra. 2\. I understand Gladwell's
point much more so now than when I wrote this piece two years ago (Jan. 6,
2009).

There was a comment last month (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2262619>)
about using an annual calendar to encourage yourself to work on a task (or
whatever). I went out and got one and have been using it as suggested in the
Seinfeld article.

After a month, with most of the days "x'ed" out, I realized the important
correlation between a dedication to routine to get better (or even the best?)
at something. It's not like this is a deep revelation or anything, but the
lesson is clear: do the work, and (likely) get better. And I totally agree
with you're comment: "He just needs enough that he's better than everybody
else."

Heck, even being better than my previous self is good to me.

Thanks for reading. Now I have to restore my database connection ...

------
drx
See also: <http://norvig.com/21-days.html> (Teach Yourself Programming in Ten
Years by Peter Norvig)

~~~
warrenwilkinson
I did some napkin math on the 10,000 hour thing.

10,000 hours is N hours daily for M years

3 hours for 10 years.

4 hours 15 min for 7 years

5 hours for 6 years

6 hours for 5 years

7 hours 30 min for 4 years

10 hours a day for 3 years

15 hours a day for 2 years

Just incase somebody wants to pick up a new skill =).

~~~
da5e
Thanks. And that is "deliberate practice" which is a whole other magnitude of
difficulty from just practice or play.

------
yafujifide
> Perhaps biased, my wife’s pursuit of her undergrad and master’s degrees,
> coupled with her unbridled passion for learning what we need to do to give
> our daughter the best education and upbringing possible is surely close to
> that number. It shows; my daughter has an insatiable curiosity that,
> according to Gladwell, is a direct result of how we’re raising her.

Having recently devoured a bunch of the works of Steven Pinker, I question
this. If their daughter is naturally curious, it could be inherited rather
than learned. In "The Blank Slate" Steven Pinker has an entire chapter on
children. There he says that all studies that try to figure out what styles of
parenting lead to what results, none of them control for heritability. They
simply assume that the child's behavior due to styles of parenting. But what
if curious parents lead to curious children because of their genes, and not
their style of parenting? Pinker goes on to argue that what the evidence shows
is that the style of parenting has absolutely no long-term effect on a
person's behavior. Instead, what matters is genes, culture (in particular the
child's peers), and chance events.

~~~
tokenadult
_In "The Blank Slate" Steven Pinker has an entire chapter on children._

Do you still have the book at hand? I looked it up the last time there was a
big thread about this on HN. Pinker bases most of that chapter on the work of
Eric Turkheimer, as his bibliographic references should show. And Eric
Turkheimer has substantially revised his opinion about what heritability
studies mean after continuing his research and thinking about the data more.
I'll recommend here two articles from Turkheimer's faculty web page

<http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/vita1_turkheimer.htm>

that more readers of Pinker's book ought to know about, to bring their
understanding of human behavioral genetics up to date.

[http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20O...](http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Johnson%20%282009%29.pdf)

[http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20O...](http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Turkheimer%20%282008%29.pdf)

~~~
yafujifide
Yes I have the book at hand, but it's on Kindle, and it's somewhat painful to
look up the references on a Kindle. Thanks for giving me these articles. I
will read them.

------
da5e
The ability to spend 10,000 hours of deliberate practice on something is an
inherited talent.

~~~
tokenadult
[citation needed]

I really mean that. If you have evidence for that belief, please share it
here. The leading world expert on the subject of development of expertise, K.
Anders Ericsson,

<http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html>

is decidedly not of that opinion, after having seen many examples of
introducing systematic deliberate practice into the environments of people who
formerly didn't have opportunities for such practice.

~~~
mynameishere
Even if you examine a "deprived" group (the kind professors are always trying
to make excuses for) such as inner-city kids, you will find stark differences
between talent and drive from one person to another. Why does one boy spend
10,000 hours practicing basketball or music, while the others watch television
all day?

Maybe nobody introduced "systematic deliberate practice" to them? Or, you
know, maybe some people are just lazier than others.

~~~
tokenadult
_Why does one boy spend 10,000 hours practicing basketball or music, while the
others watch television all day?_

Good question. Have you examined any research on the issue? What sources do
you recommend?

------
jlgosse
Just out of curiosity, would working 2000 hours a year for five years make you
a "superstar" too?

