That Time article leads with a mischaracterization of the debate. I haven't read Outliers, but I did read a bit of K. Anders Ericsson's original work. Ericsson qualified the 10,000 hours saying that it had to be a certain type of deliberative practice, and that there was a limit of about 4 hours per day which could be spent on it.

In other words, it has never been the case that 10,000 hours is all that's needed, only that that is a minimum number.

However, you reject here Ericsson's entire thesis, that being summarized in the Time article as "Ericsson doesn’t deny that genetic limitations, such as those on height and body size, can constrain expert performance in areas like athletics — and his research has shown this. However, he believes there is no good evidence so far that proves that genetic factors related to intelligence or other brain attributes matter when it comes to less physically driven pursuits."

You made a claim that "innate talent or intellectual capacity" is essential to being an expert. This is a widely held belief, first articulated (I'm told) in Vasari's "The Lives of the Artist" (1568). The debate is - where is the evidence which justifies this widely held belief?

You see a danger in promoting this "meritocracy" ideal. I have two objections to that. First, I think you are using the term incorrectly. Suppose we only have innate talents as part of our genetic nature. Under a meritocracy, those who are naturally smarter, etc. will get a better job or higher position than those who aren't. It doesn't make a difference if it was achieved through deliberative practice or innate nature. Instead, I think the better word is 'egalitarianism.'

Second, it reminds me too much of various view of "noble blood" and rusty arguments that women by nature can't do X, that black people by nature can't do Y, and that Swedes are by nature dumb squareheads. There's any number of these stereotypes once fervently held to be true, but which haven't stood up to the test of time.

Also, there shouldn't be a good argument that "people just need to try harder." Ericsson's view is that "deliberate practice requires effort and does not lead to immediate reward" (quoting from a summary by David Zach Hambrick). There are many good reasons to not become an expert on a topic, including: 1) the person could be interested in becoming an expert in another topic, 2) it can be hard to find the 10,000 hours needed for practice, especially if that time is spent making money needed for rent and food, and 3) other requirements may be missing; it's hard to be an expert surfer if one lives in Colorado, or downhill skier in Miami.

The path towards being an expert in anything is chaotic. I am one of the world experts in writing software for a certain subset of biochemistry. But had I gotten a different job just out of college, I would probably be in a completely different field. It's really hard for me to believe that I was born with this talent, given how much education and job-related experience I had through to get to this point.

Bravo for responding so clearly and accurately to such a pervasive and wrong belief. The best overview/summary I have read is The Genius in All of Us by David Shenk[1]. It would probably not add much to your understanding, but to anyone who hasn't looked extensively into these ideas, read this book.

Seriously, if you're reading right now, stop what you are doing, and read this book. It will change your understand of what you are capable of.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307387305?ie=UTF8&tag=dshe...

Your praise made me happy. Thank you.

There are plenty of people that spent 10,000 hours studying math but due to mental limitations are far from experts. However, most people don't spend anywhere near that amount of time studying math unless there reasonably intelegent in the first place which suggests that the only validity to that number is the less gifted generally give up before wasting that much time.

What really makes math stand out is there are people who became recognized experts well before that magic 10,000 hour number. EX: Srinivasa Ramanujan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Oh? He had almost no formal training, but that doesn't mean he didn't put a lot of work into it. How many hours do you think it took before he was a "recognized expert", or since this is Ramanujan, before he developed new theorems which would later be recognized as being that of an expert?

Quoting from the Wikipedia link: Ramanujan's introduction to formal mathematics began at age 10. He demonstrated a natural ability, and was given books on advanced trigonometry written by S. L. Loney that he mastered by the age of 12; he even discovered theorems of his own, and re-discovered Euler's identity independently. He demonstrated unusual mathematical skills at school, winning accolades and awards. By 17, Ramanujan had conducted his own mathematical research on Bernoulli numbers and the Euler–Mascheroni constant.

7 years at 4 hours per day = 10,000 hours.

Do you think he averaged less than two hours per day on math as a teenager? Based on what little I know about him, I don't think that's the case.

Also, your terminology is the core of the debate here. You say "the less gifted," but the debate is that there may be no "gift", but instead the dominate factor is the willingness of the person to go through a difficult learning method with delayed rewards, in order to become an expert.

I studied math, physics, and computer science as an undergraduate. I spent a lot of extra time learning and practicing software development, while I rarely did math and physics beyond what was needed for coursework. I believe most of my 'deliberate practice' went into CS. I'm now an expert in software development, especially as it relates to biomolecular structures. I firmly believe it is my interest in the topic and the lack of competition (meaning that it pays well) which led me here, and not some intrinsic gift.

> unless there reasonably intelegent

It depends on how high you set the bar for 'expert'. If you mean 'doyen', then yes, 10k isn't going to do it. If you mean 'has a solid grasp of the ins and outs, avoids common pitfalls, and can carry an informed, intelligent conversation on the topic', then 10k will do it.

When you look at what many great accomplishments, you often find a person that had a drive to succeed in his field that bordered on an obsession. When you are truly so passionate about something that it becomes your entire life, I believe it is possible to appear as if you are a genius, or maybe to even become one. In fact, I think that true genius can be attributed more to hard work than anything else.

Look at people like Bobby Fischer, he spent an unhealthy amount of time playing / studying chess (supposedly like 18 hours a day), and it destroyed every other relationship in his life. I'm sure he was intelligent, but without developing an obsession with chess, he probably wouldn't have been much of a player.

There was also a kid whose father forced him to study every waking moment, according to an IQ test, he was a super-genius (I think it was over 200), but in reality he was just a poor kid with a fucked-up, abusive father. I remember reading about it in the news, but I can't seem to find the article.

in re: the last kid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener

"he spoke several languages but could make himself understood in none"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

Those were interesting articles, but there was a much more recent example. The kid in question was interviewed on talk shows and stuff. His mom divorced his father over the insane treatment of their child, and she gained custody.

I'm not sure how the article supports your argument. Looking at its conclusion, it looks like the "10,000-hour hypothesis" is an open question (at the very least).