Hacker News Reader

Comment by roel_v | Hacker News Reader

Worth to note that it's not about 10000 hours, it's about 10000 hours of deliberate practice. The amount of people who do that is far smaller.

View on HN

The other caveat is that you need that much practice to become an "expert". It's not clear to me exactly what "expert" means, but it can't be relative to others because others could just as easily put in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

So at the end of all this, he could end up a magnificent golfer, but still not win any PGA tours because the other golfers there are also magnificent players. I still have high hopes for him, though, and can't wait to see how it ends up!

From my understanding the level that you supposedly reach at 10,000 hours is virtuoso.

Even if it wasn't he still has one important thing under his belt: a conscious decision to go on for the 10000 hours, made before he even started practicing. This is, as far as I know, rather unique.

It's unique now, but people are cost/benefits calculators. Right now, most people do not think that they could become among the best at something through a definite and discrete amount and type of training. If someone succeeds in a highly public way, it will adjust many more peoples' cost/benefits calculations.

This is why the "10,000 hours" thing is stupid. It's unfalsifiable. If this guy fails people will just make various excuses like "his practice wasn't 'deliberate'."

No, it's pretty clear (if you've been following this story) that this guy is being about as deliberate as anyone can be within reason. If he fails, the "10,000 hours" claim will indeed be in serious jeopardy. One data point, sure, but if the first data point is hard-won and correlates to "theory==wrong", few will take it seriously enough to make the second data point happen.

Is a rule of thumb, not a hard rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com