One concept that has been floating around is the idea that if you practice something for 10000 hours, then you will become an expert at it no matter where you are starting out from. This idea was created by the journalist Malcom Gladwell in the book Outliers, based on the success of the Beatles, who had played for more than 10000 hours and Bill Gates who had programmed for 10000 hours at the age of 13.
Recently there are many sources arguing against it, for a number of reasons, such as people who had practiced for much less than 10000 hours being more talented than those who had practiced more and the idea that if you are good at something you are more likely to find it enjoyable and practice it, so the talent was innate rather than being a result of effort.
A 2014 Princeton study disproves the 10000 hour rule. In a meta-analysis of 88 studies on deliberate practice, the researchers found that practice accounted for just a 12% difference in performance in various domains. The percentages varied considerably between different areas. In games, practice made for a 26% difference, In music, it was a 21% difference, In sports, an 18% difference In education, a 4% difference. In professions, just a 1% difference.
The most interesting thing about this data is that performance in areas which are considered the most valuable in modern society, most people aren't expected to be great at games, music or sports, doing so is considered a rare talent, whereas most people are expected to perform decently in education and employment, are the hardest to change with deliberate effort. Basically your ability to make a decent wage through education and employment, is pretty much set by your genetic intelligence, and practice makes little to no difference in improving it.
Recently there are many sources arguing against it, for a number of reasons, such as people who had practiced for much less than 10000 hours being more talented than those who had practiced more and the idea that if you are good at something you are more likely to find it enjoyable and practice it, so the talent was innate rather than being a result of effort.
A 2014 Princeton study disproves the 10000 hour rule. In a meta-analysis of 88 studies on deliberate practice, the researchers found that practice accounted for just a 12% difference in performance in various domains. The percentages varied considerably between different areas. In games, practice made for a 26% difference, In music, it was a 21% difference, In sports, an 18% difference In education, a 4% difference. In professions, just a 1% difference.
The most interesting thing about this data is that performance in areas which are considered the most valuable in modern society, most people aren't expected to be great at games, music or sports, doing so is considered a rare talent, whereas most people are expected to perform decently in education and employment, are the hardest to change with deliberate effort. Basically your ability to make a decent wage through education and employment, is pretty much set by your genetic intelligence, and practice makes little to no difference in improving it.
Last edited:
