Here is a TEDx talk right about this topic.
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/The-First-20-Hours-How-to-Lea...
In short it says that you just need 20 hours to become "proficient" (not master) at something, anything. It's really worth watching.
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/The-First-20-Hours-How-to-Lea...
In short it says that you just need 20 hours to become "proficient" (not master) at something, anything. It's really worth watching.
For most of us, we are balancing jobs and real world responsibilities, and can't afford to put in 40 hours a week for 5 years on the long-shot hopes that we would one day be playing our instrument of choice in front of sell out crowds in Carnegie Hall. Realistically, I could afford maybe 1 hour/day of practice (and even that would be a bit of a stretch, probably closer to 3-4 hours/week) which would mean Carnegie Hall wouldn't happen for another 27 years. I think more than anything, the proliferation of the '10,000 hour rule' was very depressing for me, as a small part of the enjoyment of practicing my various hobbies comes from dreaming about the possibilities, and when you break down the numbers, those dreams become highly improbable (i.e. impossible).
I think a better 'rule' would be as follows, largely from my own anecdotal experience and observations with a number of instruments, sports, programming, and other hobbies:
10's of hours = functional; 100's of hours = proficient; 1000's of hours = professional level; 10000's of hours = world class;
As is noted elsewhere in this thread, these numbers are highly variable and dependent on genetics, previous experience, and practice strategies. But I think this is a better way to frame skill acquisition, its a bit more friendly and realistic. I would like to think that after a couple hundred hours of practicing a new instrument, I would be good enough to jam out in front of a small crowd in a shitty bar. And from my previous experience, that has generally been the case.