I'm tired of seeing the 10,000 hours everywhere, there are so many counter-examples I have no idea why anyone buys it.
It doesn't take 10,000 hours to become a master striker in football, they are all young and the older you get, the worse you get. Does it take 10,000 hours to write master songs? No. Look at virtually any modern band. Not many people go through the same gruelling tours as the Beatles did before success.
Also, to pretend the complexity of the task has no bearing on the hours it will take to master it is nonsense.
You don't need 10,000 hours in virtually anything to be an expert. 10,000 hours to be a master of tic-tac-toe? No. Does it take 10,000 hours to become an expert coin-flipper? No. An expert dish washer? An expert waiter?
I also have take umbrage with the word expert. I think if anything it should be something like virtuoso, an exceptional ability, not just an expert. All of the examples I've seen used are people with exceptional abilities, not mere experts.
Ach, I don't know why I get so annoyed at it, it just seems to me that it's trotted out for totally inane lists like this one all the time.
> You don't need 10,000 hours in virtually anything to be an expert. 10,000 hours to be a master of tic-tac-toe? No. Does it take 10,000 hours to become an expert coin-flipper? No. An expert dish washer? An expert waiter?
I agree with your point, but these examples are flawed. The "fields" of tic-tac-toe, coin-flipping and dish washing are insufficiently complicated that it makes sense to talk about being an expert in them.
Waitering, on the other hand, is definitely an art. Sure, anyone can, with a minimum of training, take an order and put a plate of food in front of a customer. Knowing all details about all dishes on the menu in a fine a-la-carte restaurant, being able to remember an entire tables orders, deducing taste and matching wines from a huge wine list, keeping an eye on everything and understand the timing, so dishes are served and glasses filled exactly when the customer expects it -- and, by the way, doing this for maybe 5-6 tables simultaneously for 6-8 hours straight, on your feet, without missing a beat -- that takes years and years of hard practice.
> It doesn't take 10,000 hours to become a master striker in football
Wrong. 25 hrs / week * 50 weeks / year = 1250 hours. So 8 years of football = 10k hours. Most pro strikers have been playing since they were 8y/o; by 16y/o, they have acquired their 10k hours.
I think it's the other way around - 10k hours doesn't really get you to true mastery - it's more like 50-100k hours.
As Mas Oyama, founder of Kyokushin Karate, once said: "After 1000 days (=10k hours), you are a beginner. After 10,000 days (=100k hours), you are a master."
Wow, a single post where football, the Beatles, coin-flipping, dish-washing, waitering and the implied programming ... appear together.
> Look at virtually any modern band
If modern bands don't have to practice so much to be famous, that says so much more about their quality and the record labels that promote them.
And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that they can write high quality songs at the beginning of their career as well as at the end. They didn't need 10,000 hours to come up with a great song, an expert quality song. I bet many had only written 20-30 songs before getting famous, certainly nowhere near 10,000 hours of song writing. You even get bands which then fall into mediocrity after a fantastic debut.
I have no doubt they put in hours beforehand, but they've been at school, certainly not playing for 3 hours a day for 10 years.
Not only that they have some mastery of the instruments, song writing, stage charisma, all distinct skills. Many great guitarists write crap songs.
So where did they get the 30 years to get all 3 skills?
I think the Beatles example is bad because they had an extra skill, the ability to morph their music with the times that many other bands don't (Bowie is another example of someone who was able to do this). They are eternal because they constantly changed, put out great albums, which has nothing to do with the 10,000 hours of practice they put in in Germany.
I'd agree with you. You can be talented and create a hit early on. I think one of the points of the 10,000 hours thing, is that you have to be really dedicated to a pursuit to become an expert/top percentile in your field.
Innate talent is another requirement and will slow you down or speed you up, but I would doubt that you find any experts who are not greatly committed to their field (even if they hadn't dedicated 10,000 hours to it yet, they fully expect to).
And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
Michael Jackson was more than just close, he achieved it.
The Beatles sold more albums than Michael Jackson, they had more successfully released albums to begin with (eight vs five), they had more nr. 1 singles in the US/UK, their hits stayed longer in the #1 position ... and the Beatles were active for eight years, certainly shorter than Jackson's career which is longer than 20 years.
Not that it matters much ... Michael Jackson's albums are here to stay.
I was just saying that to be great (instead of just acceptable) ... you have to put a whole lot of effort into it. For instance I haven't heard of a single great gymnast who hasn't practiced until every muscle in his/her body was pushed well beyond limits. I actually heard of a few cases where people have passed out, out of sheer exhaustion.
So you're born with a natural talent ... but so are many other people. What makes you stand out is the effort you're putting in achieving your goals.
First, to be clear, I agree with your main point ... I'm just arguing off-topic about Jackson vs. The Beatles. :)
Second, these minor differences between the two are not relevant ... they amount to nit-picking. My point is that they Michael Jackson and The Beatles are in the same equivalence class. Who sold more records or whatever really isn't particularly important.
Actually, I do agree that this number is kinda arbitrary and it of course depends on the field you want to become master in.
But that doesn't matter, the important point is that you perform deliberate practice.
If you look at any expert/master/virtuoso in a given field, you will notice that they did just that, the more complicated the field the more hours they put into it to master.
You seem to tend to believe that virtuosos aren't made but born, ie nature vs. nurture. I think that practice plays a much more important role. That is, a natural disposition maybe be a necessary but not the sufficient condition.
Really, read that book "Talent Code" I think it's better suited to get that point across. :)
It doesn't take 10,000 hours to become a master striker in football, they are all young and the older you get, the worse you get. Does it take 10,000 hours to write master songs? No. Look at virtually any modern band. Not many people go through the same gruelling tours as the Beatles did before success.
Also, to pretend the complexity of the task has no bearing on the hours it will take to master it is nonsense.
You don't need 10,000 hours in virtually anything to be an expert. 10,000 hours to be a master of tic-tac-toe? No. Does it take 10,000 hours to become an expert coin-flipper? No. An expert dish washer? An expert waiter?
I also have take umbrage with the word expert. I think if anything it should be something like virtuoso, an exceptional ability, not just an expert. All of the examples I've seen used are people with exceptional abilities, not mere experts.
Ach, I don't know why I get so annoyed at it, it just seems to me that it's trotted out for totally inane lists like this one all the time.