
The “10,000 Hours of Practice” Myth - paulpauper
http://greyenlightenment.com/the-10000-hours-of-practice-myth-practice-makes-better-but-not-perfect/
======
zwischenzug
'Fisher was so smart and gifted at chess, he started at a pro level. His mind
could work so quickly and efficiently at chess, that once he knew the rules,
he could play as well as a pro, much like a computer that plays as well as a
pro after the rules are programmed into it. He was probably initially playing
at a 1,800-2,000 rating, which is considered a master, and practice got him to
2,500-2,900 very quickly, which is a grandmaster rating.'

This is just nonsense. Fischer started playing when very young and it is
highly unlikely he was strong when he started. He studied like crazy before he
played games in public.

~~~
gautamnarula
1800-2000 is also not considered master. The official master title in the US
is achieved at a 2200 rating.

------
padraigf
Bit of a straw-man argument. Ericsson's original research didn't claim that
10,000 hours of practice made you an expert. It was that no-one became an
expert (in his studied domain of violin playing) without about 10,000 hours of
practice.

The 10,000 hours of practice was a _sine-qua-non_ to becoming an expert, but
he never claimed it was necessarily sufficient.

~~~
AznHisoka
Such a nonsense article really. I know _nobody_ that claims that 10,000 hours
= makes you a top expert. Nonsense, just pure nonsense.

~~~
goatlover
Malcom Gladwell pretty much made the claim that talent is a myth and having
the passion to practice enough made you a top expert. He backtracked a bit on
that, but the claim was out there and repeated in the media.

~~~
beatgammit
And there's an important point to it that I've heard from several other
sources along the lines that expert performance happens when you combine
interest and hard work. If you're interested in something, you'll do the type
of work necessary to become an expert at it.

Too many people focus on aptitude/talent, thinking it's some kind of innate
ability to perform better at a given task, but I take it as a tendency to
enjoy a certain type of practice. For example, I really don't like drawing,
but I forced myself to take a class, and I still suck. That's not because I'm
naturally bad at drawing, but because I don't enjoy the process of getting
better.

There's a huge difference between developers who have done programming for 10k
hours but didn't enjoy it and someone who enjoys it. The first is unlikely to
go any deeper than necessary and will always work in a similar role, whereas
the latter will explore a variety of concepts and approaches and become
capable of solving a wider array of problems. I don't think there's a great
divide between good and bad programmers based on "talent", but quality of
practice, which can usually be identified by enjoyment of that practice.

------
jasode
Keep in mind that the word "talent" is used in 2 very different meanings and a
group fixated on one meaning does not acknowledge the other meaning. (My
previous comment about this.[0])

\- definition #1: "talent" doesn't exist or it's achievable by anyone because
it's just a learnable skill. Skills can be improved. This is the meaning
emphasized by M Gladwell (10000 hours), D Coyle (talent doesn't exist), Carol
Dweck "growth mindset", Angela Duckworth "grit", etc.

\- definition #2: "talent" is a ranking. This is the meaning emphasized by
most people who are "looking for the most talented". E.g. sports teams for
athletes, Hollywood for actors, Google/Microsoft for PhDs in mathematics and
machine learning, etc.

If you're unaware of both meanings of "talent", you will always misunderstand
what the other side is talking about. As a result, people will forever be
bikshedding the word "talent" and stay frustrated that they can't convince the
other side to change their mind!

The blog author of this thread also leaves out the meta discussion of "talent"
and is using definition #2. The blog author (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) in my previous
comment uses definition #1.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16812957](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16812957)

~~~
daveguy
\- definition #3: "talent" is an inherent property of ability and maximum
potential. "born with it", "gifted", "a natural" etc. That determines how much
effort it takes to learn a skill for #1 and your maximum possible rank /
whether you should bother trying in #2.

I don't like this definition, but it is definitely one of them. If it is
accurate I think it is in the fact that training / practice from a young age
can give an edge that is difficult to overcome later in life. But this would
only apply to the top of the top.

In sports even physical attributes can determine peak talent.

~~~
abnry
To go on about sports, hasn't there been some research done about slow twitch
and fast twitch muscles and their importance for being a fast sprinter? I
think Usain Bolt has a much higher number of fast-twitch muscle cells than
normal. That could be called talent.

~~~
rizzom5000
The research I've seen appears to suggest that everyone has both fast twitch
and slow twitch muscle fibers and that by doing certain types of exercises you
can increase the strength and size of one type more than the other. I'd guess
there is a genetic component to Usain Bolt's success, but I'd be careful to
claim that it is more important than training.

~~~
goatlover
If you've ever participated in track and field for any length of time, you
realize that the genetic component is more important for the type of events
you can successfully compete in with enough practice.

Sprinters definitely have a fast twitch advantage that you can't get with any
amount of training if you're not born with it. Sure, you can improve your own
sprint times up to a point, but you can't really make up the gap. You just
choose an event that's better suited for your body type, such as longer
distance or throwing, etc. And sprinters can't compete with distance runners
either.

Assuming similar amounts of training. If there's a huge difference in
training, one might be able to overcome the differences. Particularly if
you're more middle distance with decent speed and endurance.

------
mikestew
I realize it is not what has been touted, but I always took the "10K hours"
thing to mean, "it takes 10K hours to reach your potential". That is still a
_way_ too convenient round number, but good enough for a rough estimate.

But it has a flip side: "after 10K hours, that's about as good as you're ever
going to get". I've easily got 10K hours on the guitar, but I'm no Jimmy Page,
nor will I ever be. 10K hours of running? 40 years, carry the one...yeah,
probably. Look through my comments, see anything about the Olympics? A few
wins at some regional-level races is all I'm ever going to get.

On the other other hand, if you put the time in, you might not become Jimmy
Page/Bobby Fischer/Usain Bolt, but I am convinced you'll get competent at
whatever you pursue. No musical talent? Bah, sit down for a half hour a day of
real practice for a month, tell me how little "talent" you have.

~~~
egypturnash
10k hours of practice - including a lot of “directed” practice, where you have
some advice on what to work on, and no small amount of thoughtful critique -
will generally get you to “hireable in your craft”. There’s still a lot to
learn. I passed that point in my art skills around 2000, and can crank out a
much better drawing with a lot less thought than 2000 me could.

10k hours of fiddling around by yourself will get you somewhere, to be sure.

(Quick math: 10k/5 = 2000, divide that by 365 and you have about five and a
half years of spending 5h on your craft every day. Which sounds a lot like
“majoring in your craft at a four-year college, then learning how it _really_
works on your first job” to me.)

------
landont
Seems like a miss to try and discredit the 10k hours and not mention Anders
Ericsson. His work detailing deliberate practice is what spawned these 10k
hours notions.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/anders-...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/anders-
ericsson-how-to-become-an-expert-at-anything-2016-6)

------
czr
Practice makes performance at a given task faster, smoother, more automatic,
and more robust. The "practice makes permanent" quote elsewhere in the
comments is correct in this respect. Practice does _not_ guarantee that
anything useful will be learned–this requires some way to measure progress,
some measure of deliberate reflection regarding past failures and their causes
(which will allow you to propose new behaviors to practice), and, for
intellectual tasks, some deeper analysis of the underlying principles (which
will allow you to propose better principles to guide future behavior, even in
out-of-distribution cases which you have never practiced for).

The article appears to be attributing the difference to genetics alone, which
is neither accurate nor a useful line of inquiry. And the article is
attempting to argue against a Gladwellized strawman of Ericcson's work, rather
than the actual research, which feels intellectually dishonest. Not a fan of
this post.

------
nannePOPI
I wish I knew this 10 years ago, when I decided to study math and get a CS
degree. Sadly, while I'm good at programming (at least to the extent that
nobody ever complained and projects got shipped), I'm really uncapable at
math. I don't know what it is exactly, I just can't do it, no matter how much
books, video lessons and tutoring I throw at it. I always understand theory
but I cannot solve most exercises and problems despite a lot of practice.

Anyway, I wasted my 20s trying to get good enough at math, when I could've
pushed on my talents instead. I really thought it was all about hard work and
that I wasn't working hard enough, or maybe that I should've approached the
problem from some other angle. Big mistake. Wasted opportunities.

The article says that China is doing good and the US is not doing well in this
regard. I think they're both wrong. It's really stupid, and offensive and
immoral, to put individuals into boxes. We don't know how the talents of
individuals can express themselves to serve the needs of other people. That's
why there should always be complete freedom of studying and working, instead
of universities and States deciding who can do what job and on what terms.

Eventually I know programming will become a closed profession and I won't have
access to it because of my inability to do math despite my ability to ship
software. I can't even imagine how much we have lost in other closed fields in
terms of productivity due to this belief that you just have to put in the
work. I hope I'll manage to get out of programming before it's too late. Clock
is ticking.

~~~
lelima
I've heard Jordan Peterson saying that, which makes sense but, It makes me sad
as well, about 1/10 people are just not able to learn skilled tasks.

I wonder if we evolve kind of similar to ants, which some are just explorers,
some hard workers, other just defend the nest.

I think genes are the code that render us inside of the matrix :)

------
blackSnake
Quantity is important, but quality is important as well. If I practice my
karate 1,000 hours and another man in Alaska practices 1,000 hours of karate
as well BUT he has received higher quality instruction, he might be practicing
effectively twice as much (measured in quality, which is hard to
quantify..haha)

10,000 hours of practice seems like a reasonable gauge of mastery. Its also
how you define mastery. Mastery is defined by the people who came before who
set the standard. If athletes' top running speed reached 3MPH and I came along
and broke the record at 5MPH, I would seem like a master.

------
Hernanpm
The article confuses practice with deliberate practice.

------
sifoobar
No one wants to hear that there are no short cuts, especially in today's
messed up world where everything is fake and for sale.

But THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS.

------
sigi45
Always had it in my mind that 10k is mastery of a topic and not as stated in
that text that it makes perfect.

------
matchagaucho
The ugliest moments in history started with a "genetics matter"stance. Not
worth repeating.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I get that eugenics is ugly, and shouldn't be accepted, but are you telling me
those 4'8" basketball players aren't in the NBA because they just don't want
it enough?

~~~
diminoten
There are a handful of truly short players who've demonstrated it's possible
to play in the league without being tall. Is there a material difference
between 4'8" and 5'3" when your opponents are 6'11"+?

At that point, probably not.

Assuming a person is healthy, there's nothing that makes playing in the NBA
literally impossible.

~~~
goatlover
It's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely. Muggsy Bogues is the extreme
outlier. Most NBA players in the history of the game are above average height,
despite tons of shorter people having similar access to playing the sport.

~~~
diminoten
It's predictive, just not enough to make decisions on. You're not saying we
don't let anyone under 6' play basketball, are you?

~~~
goatlover
Of course not. I'm saying that being taller than average is an important
physical attribute to playing in the NBA. Of course you have to practice/play
enough to have the necessary skill level, and there are other factors that
matter. If you're under 6', then those other factors need to make up for the
height disadvantage.

~~~
diminoten
Sure, and I'm saying that those other factors aren't genetic.

------
sasasassy
Don't the Polgár sisters contradict the author?

~~~
lolc
I guess the author would argue that they obviously must have inherited a
talent for chess from their parents. Not that I agree.

------
feluso
Cannot take this article seriously, I think we understand certain features we
have can make certain things easier for us and harder for other people, but
simplifying it saying it's an IQ thing and stretching implying it's something
that only happens at early ages?

Too much factors to understand why someone is successful or not, and there is
a lot to practice and how you approach it to become an expert to it... acting
like skill has a cap is not really gonna help you at all anyway

------
m3kw9
Depends what percentage of that 10k is quality practice. But that would mean
10k a useless number to go by.

------
dagoat
Sometimes you can practice the wrong things, so I prefer:

Practice makes permanent.

------
amvalo
This blogger is not very credible... have a sample of some of his other posts

[http://greyenlightenment.com/2017/12/](http://greyenlightenment.com/2017/12/)

~~~
lj3
Please don't commit the genetic fallacy here of all places.

~~~
claudiawerner
Dismissing the complaint that the author might be inaccurate or not as
trustworthy as otherwise as simply the genetic fallacy is an instance of the
fallacy fallacy, isn't it? Consider a poor news source such as the Daily Mail
- I'd say it's justified to at least be more skeptical of the claims presented
in any given Daily Mail article based on their history.

~~~
raxxorrax
I think it was a joke. I dismiss the author by the choice of URLs. I don't
mind lacking the talent to find more elaborate reasons.

