10,000 Hours of Practice Won’t Make You an Expert

Did he really try for 10k hours? I bet he would have gotten a bit further.

This article really bothers me in its defeatism. It doesn't do talented people "a disservice" to say that anyone can become an expert with 10k hours of practice. No one will be offended by praising their hard work, and no one is best served by believing that their talent is god-given and they are naturally better than everyone else. Outside of certain high-profile athletics there simply isn't enough competition to declare oneself abnormally talented in any endeavor.

The talent component of success can't be scientifically determined anyway. The concept of talent itself is amorphous, there is no falsifiable hypothesis to be formulated. It's not that talent doesn't exist or that hard work is infallible, it's just that a belief in hard work will always result in better outcomes for the believer.

First, it conflates being successful with being an expert. I can be successful at something without being an expert. I can also be an expert and die penniless and unknown.

"My brain simply doesn’t work in a way that allows me to write code." There may be some disability that causes this but to counter an anecdote with another one, I think we all know people on the autism spectrum who are excellent programmers. And the fact that a particular person's disability prevents them from doing something says nothing about the rest of the population.

These types of articles really bother me because it's a well-known name, in a big "forward thinking" magazine, basically saying if you believe yourself to be "naturally ungifted" it's okay not to try. You have reasons. As someone constantly on the lookout for new things to learn and a brain on the autism spectrum, I can't abide that.

The Grandin book looks interesting, but this excerpt just seems lazy.

There is also the recent research on grit by Angela Duckworth who is demonstrating that success depends on perseverance. That observation probably seems pretty intuitive, but she's demonstrating it with research. The "I was hopeless" reaction to something hard is just a failure of grit. The author has no idea how they would do if the ground it out through the really tough parts.

I also find that when I talk to people about this they are often very resistant to this model of essentially talent-free skill development. It makes a lot people uncomfortable, and just seems wrong to them. I think maybe the notion that it's all innate talent absolves them of the need to work hard to develop advanced skill. Instead nature capriciously doles out talent and that's the story of why I'm not ...

I am a musician (singer, mostly) and when it comes to sight reading as a singer I would estimate that I'm in the 95th percentile or so. But I've tinkered with the piano recreationally for basically my whole life, at times more seriously than others, and yet I still cannot sight read on the piano for my life. There's just too much information for my brain to process in real-time. I've played some pretty difficult music on the organ, but I have to basically memorize the piece to get to that level.

I strongly believe that no amount of time at the piano will make me a good sight reader. I believe I could get marginally better, but I will never reach the level of even an average pianist.

Now one could be tempted to say: "you've spent far more time sight reading as a singer, which explains why you're better at it." And while this is somewhat true, it gets the causation backwards. It was obvious to me from a very early age that I was better at sight reading as a singer, so I spent more time doing it.

I sometimes wonder if this is where the 10,000 hour rule comes from: no one could stand spending 10,000 hours doing something they truly suck at. But on the other hand, I know plenty of amateur musicians who love what they do and have spent their entire lives making music, but will never reach a professional level (which is totally fine, but contradicts the 10,000 hour thesis).

From that book I also highly recommend "The Early Progress of Able Young Musicians" which discusses the importance of a progression of increasingly competent teachers in successful musicians lives.

There's even a study there that talks directly to her point "Expertise and Mental Disabilities"

I think the idea is that if I spend 10000 hours coding, I would most likely be an expert coder. It does not mean I will be rich like Bill Gates :(

  a) bad teeny-movies
  b) a demotivating school system

  I) be easy
  II) suddenly make sense.

for me the concept of "talent" is just thought-cancer, it might be valid in some edge cases but overall it's just harmfull (not only for teens).

Cry me a river. How are "naturally gifted" persons disserved by thorough research on human performance?

This article seems to illustrate the adage that "the adjective is the enemy of the noun," because not once in this excerpt from a longer book is the word "deliberate" used, and yet K. Anders Ericsson (an eminent researcher on the development of expertise)

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

has long taken care to put the adjective "deliberate" in front of the word "practice" as he writes about how expertise develops. (The article kindly submitted here correctly says, "New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell didn’t invent the rule, but he did popularize it through his best-selling book Outliers.") The 10,000-hour rule, originally formulated as a ten-year rule in studies of musicology a few decades ago, has mostly been researched by Ericsson and other researchers influenced by Ericsson's publications. Ericsson carefully distinguishes "deliberate practice," which ordinarily requires a coach who can monitor the learner's performance, from "playful engagement," which doesn't focus the learner's attention on improved performance in the same way. Many critics of Ericsson's work seem to miss this distinction.

I wonder, as an observer of young people learning programming, how much a dumb computer's literal interpretation of programs input into the computer provides relentless deliberate practice in better programming, even for people who are mostly messing around playfully. Perhaps in learning programming, the inanimate computer can serve as a coach for many learners. I would NOT expect someone devoting 10,000 hours to writing essays for fun, if the essays are never read by any critical readers, to improve as much as a writer as someone devoting 10,000 hours to writing programs (if the learner of programmer pays attention to whether the programs compile and run) would improve as a programmer. People who engage in deliberate practice to improve sports performance routinely have coaches, and also participate routinely in competitions that put their assimilation of the sports skills to the test.

In general, a lot of people misread the tenor of Ericsson's research, which is the subject of an interesting new book, The Complexity of Greatness, edited by Scott Barry Kaufman.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Complexity-Greatness-Beyond-Practi...

Ericsson is sure that raw talent (whatever that is) alone is NOT sufficient to be an "expert," properly so called, but rather has research-based reasons to believe that deliberate practice is strictly necessary for expert performance in all domains. He thinks it is an open question whether or not something like preexisting talent is even necessary for expertise, or whether sustained deliberate practice by itself might be sufficient to make into an expert someone who initially appeared not to have "talent" for a particular domain. That is an ongoing program of research, as Ericsson's publications

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

make clear.

And of course Paul Graham had something to say about this issue in his essay "What You'll Wish You'd Known" (January 2005).

http://paulgraham.com/hs.html

"Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.

"Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.

"I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."

For instance to be a great NHL hockey player, you should have a birthday in Jan or Feb. Because youth hockey leagues group you by age. And when you're the biggest and most coordinated in your group ....

Likewise Gates' situation in high school was extraordinary, and exceptional parents.

So, (1) yeah the 10,000 hours, and (2) yes the genetics/wiring, and also (3) the luck. At least to be a true "outlier". One can be an "expert", and very successful and fulfilled, without being a Bill Gates or Wayne Gretzky.

Given that, I have a real hard time caring about the nature vs. nurture argument - it's only relevant if you're in one of those narrow fields where only the top 0.01% of people can be successful and happy, and that certainly doesn't include programming or entrepreneurship or any of the other stuff we usually talk about around here.

We can't settle this debate because we just don't know enough about how the mind works and how genetics play a role.

My question is, what's the actionable piece of advice? If you try programming and don't get it, you'll never be a good programmer? At what point do you give up and say that you just aren't talented enough?

It seems to me that the only people asking the nature vs. nurture questions are the ones that want an excuse to give up.

This article is a phenomenal example of an intelligent and successful person lacking any rational and logical basis for their core thesis.

There are countless individuals who have become experts in their respective field, yet lack any formal training in logic, argumentation or critical thinking. They naturally believe that because people listen to them in a particular field, their skills of reasoning and grasp of logic must be superior. Often they tend to equally believe that their 'gifts' are 'in-born' because they don't ever remember feeling any different; they have been intelligent their entire life.

There are so many logical fumbles in this short piece, whether it be an excerpt or not, that it could be used as an philosophical exercise in pointing out faulty lines of reasoning. Example => So, how does Warren Buffet disprove the 10,000 hour rule? Author's response: "Because he was involved in business affairs from a young age." I assume that her line of reasoning is as follows: 'Warren was incredibly young when he had successfully started his first business. At that age he could not have possibly invested 10,000 hours in the study of business. Thus, he must have been born with business talent.'

Interestingly enough, Warren Buffet's case may be worth looking into in order to better refine the 10,000 hour rule. That being said, the above line of reasoning is hugely problematic. Nowhere is Warren Buffet's 'expertise' at a young age commented upon or evidence given in support of it. The 10,000 hour rule says that you will become an expert with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice/training at ever increasing levels of complexity. The rule does not come to say that you can't be successful without 10,000 hours of practice. (Look at Mark Zuckerber!) The author has both misunderstood and misapplied the correlation between these concepts and what could be meant by the word 'success'. Beyond a couple of other problems, the second major issue is that invalidating one proposition does not inherently validate an opposing proposition. Thus, just because the 10,000 hour rule may be invalidated by Warren Buffet's experience, we cannot make the logical leap to declare that he, therefore, has in-born/genetic attributes that we would consider 'talent'. These are 2 entirely separate arguments that may be related but are not directly tied to one another. I could go on and on with the problems in this article.

The short of it: Paul Graham was being overly optimistic in thinking that writing helps everyone form better arguments and think more carefully. Somebody should introduce Temple Grandin to a philosophy class on critical thinking and basic reasoning.

It is more enlightened however to understand that if you have enough desire to be something, you can truly become as great as you want to be at any field in this world...

Its wise to be able to admit that you're not great at x, because you don't have enough motivation or desire to put in the work required to master it.

In my first year at university, my brain was exactly like yours. My brain simply didn't work in a way that allows me to write code.

In December 2012 when I wanted to start a tech company and realised I needed to be able to "build" myself...

... MY BRAIN CHANGED

suddenly it became the kind of brain that was able to code and make simple games in ruby and python?

Why? because in December, I acquired a DESIRE to learn code so I could build my company...

Its not clear to me that we can ascertain the validity or not of this conjecture with simple experiments though.

This I realize when I am teaching chess to younger kids, some kids just get it and some do not(just like Ostap Bender said in his famous lecture) The ones who do not get it, they can probably become expert players if they got the resources provided by Polgars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r), but that would be the upper limit.

So I am starting to lean towards the fact that all three Polgar sisters were gifted to some extent.

There needs to be a wider experiment to apply the 10k rule, like maybe 50 kids having the ultimate chess (or math or violin or something else) resource and actually putting in 10k hours of deliberate practice (rememember most kids in special schools do not finish the 10k hours as they simply gravitate to other pursuits, and of course that is natural).

Let's not get started on the 10k hour myth for older people. I am of firm belief that after age of 25 or so, even a gifted one will not be able to get by with 10k hours. At age 40 it is pretty much hopeless, decent expert is all you can hope for.

Nope.

Correct practice makes perfect?

Close.

Supervised correct practice makes perfect?

Yup.

10,000 of practice makes expert?

Nope.

10,000 hours of supervised correct practice makes expert?

Nope.

10,000 hours of progressively more difficult supervised correct practice makes expert?

You got it!

Supervised doesn't mean having a teacher standing behind you watching your work. I think it does mean having some degree of feedback on what you are doing and how you are doing it.

In the case of coding that could mean having your code critiqued in open-source projects (either explicitly or as a side effect of the process).

Then there's the question of what "expert" means in a contextual practical sense. To use a personal example, I was not trained as a machinist. I trained in electronics and software. Yet, I had a need to manufacture parts using various CNC machines, so I learned. Am I an expert? No way. I do, however know I can fabricate nearly any part and, more importantly, in the process developed a great understanding of design for manufacturability.

In my own context yes, I am an expert. This did not take 10,000 hours. If I had to guess I'd say less than 1,000 spread over a number of years with an intense focus during a period if approximately six months.

An autistic person is usually good at X at the expense of being bad at Y (or the other way around if you wish). So for an autistic mind X would require 10,000 / k hours while Y would require 10,000 * k hours to become an expert in.

Unfortunately, 10000 hours yadah yadah is not a "new finding" beyond putting a nice round number on a phenomenon that I'm sure your mommies and daddies told you when you were a kid - PRACTICE. Deliberate practice? Does "try doing the harder stuff" sound familiar? The fact that if you practice areas that you're not very strong at you will get stronger has been known for centuries. "Naturally gifted" people aren't those who are experts, neither are they those who have the best technique. 10000 hours on the piano will not make you Beethoven, neither will 100000 hours. Beethoven was Beethoven for many reasons - well known as a prodigy, highly regarded by the culture of his time, etc - merely playing the piano well didn't make him remarkable. For a less ancient example, take Jimmy Page. Anyone who plays guitar will acknowledge that Page's playing was quite sloppy. It's not technique that I would teach to someone. But he's Jimmy freakin' Page. The genius of Zeppelin was in the innovation. They brought a new sound, at the time - and they were really cool too, but don't tell anyone.

So, to wrap up, practice makes perfect, but perfect isn't genius. Which isn't to disparage anyone, but to see such pettiness automatically raise its head whenever someone brings up this 10000 hours crap as if it's something new - one guy goes boo-hoo people won't think I'm a genius anymore, the other guy goes, yeah I could be a genius too if only I practiced it - is just sad. No one cares about what you could be. I could be a freakin' Navy Seal if I just enlisted and worked hard and blah blah blah; I'm not a Navy Seal, so all that's irrelevant. All that matters is what you are, so if we're reveling in the fact that we could be better at something if we practiced, rather than actually practicing, well that says more about the human ego rather than human talent.

I find that all too often lack of aptitude is used as an excuse. He didn't put the time in, he doesn't know if he could be a successful computer programmer or not. The only way to know is to try. Everyone who starts something is awful in the beginning. Only through concentrated effort and interest does your potential emerge. Your potential cannot be seen in the first hour, or even ten hours you spend doing something.

Gladwell wasn't trying to say that everyone could become an expect by putting in 10,000 hours, but rather he could explain the "Outliers" in our society because of the intense amount of work (hours) and favorable situations. Bill Gates enjoyed coding yes, but he had an opportunity to code much earlier than others. You look at Gates, Steve Jobs, and Bill Joy, all born in the mid 1950's with the opportunity to capatailze on a new industry. All with their 10,000 hours when they became of age and enough entrepreneurship take advantage of the newly developed market (or in some ways create the market).

When I first discovered what programming was, I was obsessed from that moment on. It was all I wanted to do. Did I have a brain that was naturally talented in the kind of abstract reasoning that makes it easy to program? Probably. Did that make it more natural for me to become an expert? Maybe. But to me, what's more important is that I had a disposition that all but guaranteed that I was going to sink 10,000 hours into the practice of programming in record time.

So yes, my nature made it easier, but perhaps not in the way that most people think.

Further, it's not merely 10,000 hours of "practice". It is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Your mind has to be on the practice as you are practicing. If you're simply going through the motions, and your mind is checked out, you're not actually getting anything out of it.

And yes, I know "10,000" is a nice round number. Five to seven years, two to three hours of intense, deliberate practice a day is about right.

First thing is don't take the 10,000 hour practice rule too seriously. At best its a metaphor.

In the real world you are likely to see success if you start working of hard problems for 10,000 hours than put 10,000 hours of practice and then start solving problems.

Actually, what the data shows is that becoming a world-class expert requires 10k hours of practice. Not that said practice will magically make you world-class. It's a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

The 10k hour figure is probably inflated, based on self-reports of total practice time.

In truth, I put in more hours for homework and exam revision than anyone else. By a large margin.

After that, it's a matter of enjoying to improve. And then doing that every day.

I don't think you can correct someone without producing any actual evidence, or at least trying to.

For you personally, don't worry about this shit and do whatever you want to do. If you're not good at it, and don't enjoy it you'll know... You will quit on your own and find something else to do.