{"id":60638,"date":"2022-02-15T13:53:41","date_gmt":"2022-02-15T17:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=60638"},"modified":"2022-06-13T14:26:25","modified_gmt":"2022-06-13T18:26:25","slug":"ten-thousand-hours","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/ten-thousand-hours\/","title":{"rendered":"Debates Over the Ten-Thousand-Hour Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What is the ten-thousand-hour rule? Who first came up with the rule, and what is the research behind it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ten-thousand-hour rule basically says that you need to practice a skill for at least ten thousand hours<\/a> before you can be considered an expert. After Malcolm Gladwell published these findings in his book Outliers, <\/em>there have been a number of criticisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s why the ten-thousand-hour rule doesn\u2019t hold up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

History of the Ten-Thousand-Hour Rule<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The ten-thousand-hour rule was popularized in Malcolm Gladwell\u2019s 2008 book Outliers.<\/em><\/a> <\/em>Gladwell stated that \u201cten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.\u201d Basically, Gladwell explained that you must practice a skill for ten thousand hours in order to be considered an expert at it. Gladwell cited studies showing 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 or 40 hours every week for 5 years). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since Outliers <\/em>came out, there have been numerous debates as to whether the ten-thousand-hour rule is valid or not.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\r\nTITLE: Outliers
\r\nAUTHOR: Malcolm Gladwell
\r\nTIME: 31
\r\nREADS: 30.5
\r\nIMG_URL: https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/outliers_cover.jpg
\r\nBOOK_SUMMARYURL: outliers-summary-malcolm-gladwell
\r\nAMZN_ID: B001ANYDAO
\r\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. Anders Ericsson\u2019s Research<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

K. Anders Ericsson, the psychologist who led the study from which Gladwell gleaned the ten-thousand-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 deliberate practice<\/a><\/em> to their craft. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  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>.<\/li>
  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.\u00a0<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    \r\nTITLE: Peak
    \r\nAUTHOR: Anders Ericsson
    \r\nTIME: 31
    \r\nREADS: 23
    \r\nIMG_URL: https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/peak-cover.jpg
    \r\nBOOK_SUMMARYURL: peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise-summary-anders-ericsson
    \r\nAMZN_ID: B011H56MKS
    \r\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 ten-thousand-hour theory is often conflated with his endorsement <\/em>of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Is Being a Specialist Even a Good Thing?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    According to David Epstein, the author of Range<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> the traditional path to excellence has been more or less treated as common sense<\/a> for years. Obviously, if you want to get good at something, you have to practice a lot. By this logic, the path to success<\/a> is to start deliberately practicing as early as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \nTITLE: Range
    \nAUTHOR: David J. Epstein
    \nTIME: 46
    \nREADS: 109
    \nIMG_URL: https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/range-cover.png
    \nBOOK_SUMMARYURL: range-summary-david-j-epstein
    \nAMZN_ID: XYZ
    \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you believe in a purely linear relationship between practice time and success, specializing at a young age and never deviating from a given path would allow humans to accomplish never-before-seen levels of greatness. Extreme devotees of the ten-thousand-hour rule apply this logic to everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For example, Epstein describes Laszlo Polgar, who deliberately raised three of his daughters to be world-class chess masters and proclaimed to the world that if more children were brought up deliberately practicing from birth, they could become skilled enough to easily cure diseases such as cancer and AIDS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even if you don\u2019t believe quite this deeply in the role of deliberate practice, it\u2019s likely that you\u2019re giving it more credit than it deserves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nature Versus Nurture<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Epstein isn\u2019t the first person to critique the traditional path to excellence. Studies have shown that genetics still play a significant role in skill acquisition.<\/a> Experiments testing twins on fundamental musical skills showed that some skills, such as the instinct to match melodies with the same rhythm, are entirely gene-dependent\u2014discrepancies in hours spent practicing had no impact. A broader study found that identical twins are far more likely to have similar levels of drawing ability than fraternal twins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, a disproportionate reliance on genetic contributions to success has its own problems. If you become convinced that your ineffective genes prevent you from succeeding, you\u2019ll give up before you\u2019ve even begun. Studies have confirmed that high self-esteem leads to increased initiative<\/a>, as well as greater ability to set and achieve goals. In this way, unrealistic beliefs\u2014such as Laszlo Polgar\u2019s faith that scientific prowess can be taught from birth\u2014can be beneficial, even if they\u2019re not true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Example: Chess Players<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Neil Charness, a psychologist, studied how chess players practice to see if different practicing methods made a difference to their skill level. Charness looked only at people who had acquired 10,000 hours of practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Of the players who had 10,000 hours of practice, some had achieved the rank of grandmaster and others were at an intermediate level. Since they all had the same amount of experience, there must have been another factor that determined who became an expert and who didn\u2019t progress and stayed intermediate.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At the time, there was a debate among chess players about which of two practice methods was most effective. The methods were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n