{"id":59930,"date":"2022-02-13T19:01:00","date_gmt":"2022-02-13T23:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=59930"},"modified":"2022-02-25T10:15:19","modified_gmt":"2022-02-25T14:15:19","slug":"10000-hours-of-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/10000-hours-of-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"Is 10,000 Hours of Practice Enough to Master a Skill?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can practice override talent? Is it true that to master a skill<\/a>, you need to put in 10,000 hours of practice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although we tend to think of practice as an equalizer, having the time to practice enough to master a skill is a luxury afforded only to the privileged. In fact, there are studies that show that the most masterful individuals in their fields have practiced their craft for at least 10,000 hours, which averages nearly 20 hours every week for 10 years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s why practice is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to skill mastery<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Opportunity of Time (and Timing)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It may seem obvious that we need to work hard to succeed, but Gladwell argues that, too often, we attribute success solely to talent and forget that the hours we put in matter<\/strong> just as much as, if not significantly more than, the natural gifts we start with. He writes that, after a certain level of natural talent gets your foot in the door in a particular field, practice becomes the determining factor in how successful you are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although we tend to think of practice as an equalizer\u2014that anyone who is a hard worker can succeed\u2014Gladwell points out that having the time to practice enough to master a skill is a luxury afforded only to the privileged.<\/strong> He argues that the opportunity to practice 10,000 hours typically emerges from two external factors: privilege and the timing of your birth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 10,000-Hour Debate<\/strong>

K. Anders Ericsson, the psychologist who led the study from which Gladwell gleaned the 10,000-hour rule, has criticized Gladwell for misrepresenting his research findings. In the study, Ericsson and his fellow researchers asked top-ranked violinists to estimate how many hours they\u2019d spent practicing since picking up the instrument; they found that, on average, elite violinists had dedicated 10,000 hours<\/a> of practice to their craft.
 
Ericsson has argued in papers (including one pointedly titled \u201cThe Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists<\/a>\u201d) and in his book, Peak<\/em>, that Gladwell oversimplified the results<\/a> by making two mistakes:

1. He applied data about violinists to all fields, when it\u2019s unreasonable to assume that all fields require the same amount of practice to achieve mastery<\/a>.

2. He neglected to specify that the type<\/em> of practice is far more important than the amount<\/em> of time spent practicing. Ericsson\u2019s study emphasizes that mastery requires deliberate<\/em> practice, which is an intensely focused and effortful form of practice that constantly pushes the practitioner to stretch their abilities. 

In response, Gladwell has since clarified that he wasn\u2019t suggesting that 10,000 was a universal magic number (even though he writes in Outliers<\/em> that \u201cTen thousand hours is the magic number of greatness,\u201d and he\u2019s the first to dub this concept with the name, the 10,000-Hour Rule<\/em>). Instead, Gladwell seems to use the theory to reinforce the importance of time in achieving success, which sets up his larger point that having that time in the first place is a privilege that not everyone has. 

This may be another case where Gladwell\u2019s popularity inadvertently fuels the criticisms against him: Because Outliers<\/em> was so widely read, he is largely responsible for introducing this concept to the masses. As a result, his popularization<\/em> of the 10,000-hour theory is often conflated with his endorsement <\/em>of it. <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Factor #1: Privilege<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gladwell states that, in order to master a skill by adulthood, carving out 10,000 hours of practice in your childhood requires the support of the adults in your life\u2014and it helps if your family has money. Money buys time, and time is necessary for practice. <\/strong>For instance, you can\u2019t devote yourself to the full-time practice of a craft if you have to work a part-time job to pay for your lessons or simply contribute to family expenses. Additionally, if going to school eats into your practice time, wealthier families can afford to homeschool or arrange for special accommodations that allow for extended practice hours. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Time Poverty Is Often Part of a Vicious Cycle of Poverty<\/a><\/strong>

Research bears out that time poverty often goes hand-in-hand with income poverty<\/a>. For example, if you are income-poor and your car breaks down, you can\u2019t afford the repairs unless you clock extra hours at work\u2014but you can\u2019t put in those extra hours because you have to spend more time commuting by bus until your car is fixed. 

Moreover, time and income poverty compound to create bandwidth poverty<\/a>, when the pressing needs of the moment deplete your mental capacity for the long-term planning and self-control needed to address some of your time and money issues, creating a vicious cycle. To bring this back to Gladwell\u2019s argument, even if you carved out some time to practice your skill, your bandwidth poverty would make it nearly impossible to put forth the intense focus required for meaningful deliberate practice<\/a>. <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Factor #2: The Timing of Your Birth<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Besides privilege, Gladwell posits that\u2014just as your birth month<\/em> affects your success in school or sports\u2014your birth <\/strong>year<\/em><\/strong>, in relation to historical events, may provide unique opportunities <\/strong>to practice that wouldn\u2019t otherwise be available to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As examples of this theory, Gladwell points to an inordinate number of successful computer programmers who were born between 1952 and 1958. These individuals came of age during the dawn of the personal computer in 1975. <\/p>\n\n\n\n