Ten Thousand Hours

Bill Spight · **#21**

Amelia wrote:

I think of Lee Sedol who said he would not be a game commentator as he suffers from aphasia, and decided on an alternate retirement plan.

That reminds me of the story of the stammerer who became a salesman. You might think that stammering would be a handicap for selling, because it would be difficult to make a sales pitch. But he said that his customers would often complete his sentences for him, making part of the sales pitch themselves.

Amelia · **#22**

Bill Spight wrote:

That reminds me of the story of the stammerer who became a salesman. You might think that stammering would be a handicap for selling, because it would be difficult to make a sales pitch. But he said that his customers would often complete his sentences for him, making part of the sales pitch themselves.

That's an amazing story

And I'm very sure stammering is a handicap for selling, but this person must have developped excellent compensation strategies to manage such a job.

Boidhre · **#23**

Kirby wrote:

Boidhre wrote:

I didn't expect to see a David Foster Wallace quote on here (my wife liked his books a lot).

Quote:

Last but not least, people are unfair, life is not. Life is the result of your choices and how you like to see things, your perception of things.

Tell that to someone with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Seriously. If you are healthy, intelligent, educated and not in poverty then yeah maybe life isn't particularly unfair and down to your choices and perceptions, but that's kind of the point of the statement "life isn't fair."

I think you're both right to some extent. External circumstances give some people advantages over others. In this sense, "life isn't fair". But I also feel that people rarely live up to their potential, and can achieve much more than they think they can with effort. In that sense, "with enough hard work, you can do whatever you want to do".

Personally, I try to ignore the idea that "life isn't fair", because it's not beneficial. Yes, there may be external "handicaps" that I must face in life, but it is not productive to focus on them if I want to achieve something. I must focus on what is in my control - that which I can do. So I like to cling to the idea that I can do whatever I want to do, because it is not useful to think of the things I cannot control.

To an extent I agree with you. I don't think many people at all come close to their potential, mainly because the commitment needed to do this is beyond the wishes or reasonable possibilities for most people. I do think however you are playing down the obstacles people face too much. I'd agree that someone saying "I can never do X because I have Y condition/disability/whatever" without ever trying is usually unhelpful but equally it'd be fairly absurd for a deaf person to try to become a music critic of performances. Most disabilities put you somewhere in between when they are a problem in an area. It's not impossible for you do something but it's also not true that you'll have anywhere close to the performance/progress/whatever as the identical you minus the disability.

Kirby · **#24**

Amelia wrote:

...
...However your weaknesses will not disappear just because you decide so, even if you work very hard, and you need to accept this, or your life will be full with bitterness and frustration.
...

Hmm, perhaps. That explains a lot, but I will probably continue to live in frustration. Maybe my weakness is not admitting my weakness (or perhaps pretending to admit my weakness in an effort to get others to deny my weakness) ;-P

Ah well, should end someday.

Amelia · **#25**

Well, life isn't that simple right? Often the only way to find your own limit is to try (and break your nose on the wall... or not...).

You have a point in the sense that looking too much at your weakness can make you lose your courage, and that wouldn't be particularly helpful. It's a fine line to walk.
"Try hard" is I think the right philosophy when you want to achieve much.
But to extend it to: "Try hard enough and you'll succeed for sure, because the world will bend around you to reward you for your effort", I don't believe in that. The truth is that you can try very hard and still fail for absurd reasons.

Mef · **#26**

Kirby wrote:

It could very well be true, but I always felt that the "10,000" hour rule was a bit odd.

That's because, personally, I can spend my time with great variance in efficiency. I can study something intensively making my brain feel like it's working hard for 30 minutes, and it can feel like I've learned more than when I spend an hour casually studying.

I wonder if this "10,000" hour rule means 10,000 hours of "efficient, making your brain hurt" study, or something else...

In the studies / books I've read that reference the 10,000 hour rule, they mention that it's 10,000 hours of focused practice, ideally with active feedback on how you can improve. A comparison often given is someone who spends 10 years working a job going through the same motions (hence not improving, or perhaps even getting worse as bad habits accumulate) vs. someone who spends 10 years focused on improving how they do their job, expanding their knowledge of the field, researching new approaches to problems (a person who ends up generally an expert).

EdLee · **#27**

Mef wrote:

In the studies / books I've read that reference the 10,000 hour rule, they mention that it's 10,000 hours of focused practice, ideally with active feedback on how you can improve. A comparison often given is someone who spends 10 years working a job going through the same motions (hence not improving, or perhaps even getting worse as bad habits accumulate) vs. someone who spends 10 years focused on improving how they do their job, expanding their knowledge of the field, researching new approaches to problems (a person who ends up generally an expert).

Exactly. I actually had typed up a similar reply to Kirby a few days ago, but got distracted (taxes!)...
shorter version: somebody who casually spends 10,000 hours watching TV, websurfing, reading, etc. (and gaining bits of trivia here and there)
versus a serious Jeopardy! contestant's 10,000 hours.

Claint · **#28**

gowan wrote:

The so-called 10000 hour rule comes from Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, which is actually about people who are phenomenally good at something, not just expert. And it must be said that this ten thousand hour rule is merely a guideline, ball-park figure, rather like a go proverb, and so should be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, it doesn't directly come from Outliers specifically. The book that I know that approached the subject scientifically is a book called The Road To Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games. It was written 10 years before Outliers. I also suspect that it is has a lot more data graphs than Outliers.

Here are some bulletpoints I remember from that book:

It takes around 10,000 hours to reach master level, but that doesn't imply that everyone who spent 10,000 hours will become a master. Just that all masters had already put in 10,000 hours.
And on average it took 10 years to do so. 10,000 hours in 10 years makes about 3.5 hours practice time per day. That includes the weekends.
Most of the studied people are young people, reaching their level in their early 20s or so.
It is not just "practice". The book makes a good distinction here and calls it "deliberate practice". It is the kind of dedicated and focused practice, which forces you to go outside your comfort zone and limits. It is practice with healthy feedback mechanisms from other expert people (coaches). Some subjects definitely hated it, but they endured it.
There is a logarithmic relation between time spent and improvement. You need to spend a lot more time to improve a bit as you go higher your level.

ez4u · **#29**

Claint wrote:

gowan wrote:

The so-called 10000 hour rule comes from Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, which is actually about people who are phenomenally good at something, not just expert. And it must be said that this ten thousand hour rule is merely a guideline, ball-park figure, rather like a go proverb, and so should be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, it doesn't directly come from Outliers specifically. The book that I know that approached the subject scientifically is a book called The Road To Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games. It was written 10 years before Outliers. I also suspect that it is has a lot more data graphs than Outliers.

Here are some bulletpoints I remember from that book:

It takes around 10,000 hours to reach master level, but that doesn't imply that everyone who spent 10,000 hours will become a master. Just that all masters had already put in 10,000 hours.
And on average it took 10 years to do so. 10,000 hours in 10 years makes about 3.5 hours practice time per day. That includes the weekends.
Most of the studied people are young people, reaching their level in their early 20s or so.
It is not just "practice". The book makes a good distinction here and calls it "deliberate practice". It is the kind of dedicated and focused practice, which forces you to go outside your comfort zone and limits. It is practice with healthy feedback mechanisms from other expert people (coaches). Some subjects definitely hated it, but they endured it.
There is a logarithmic relation between time spent and improvement. You need to spend a lot more time to improve a bit as you go higher your level.

You can read most of the research without the book. Just start typing "k. a" into google. At that point it should offer "k. anders ericsson" as the top choice (it did for me). Search on "k. anders ericsson pdf" and you will find most of the research papers online for free that both predate and postdate the book. Somewhat heavy going though. :blackeye:

Ten Thousand Hours

Who is online