10,000 hour rules

is problematic in that it is based on a study averaging of a very wide range of mastery taking between 3,000 to 25,000 hours, a range which, at least in sports, is largely determined by genetic advantages.

Epstein told Outside that Gladwell's mistake came in averaging. Say it took one NBA player 15,000 hours to make it to the pros but it only took Michael Jordan 5,000. Together that makes 10,000, but it's not that simple. Epstein uses chess masters as an example: 'Researchers found it takes 11,053 hours on average to achieve international master status. But the range there is what's important. One guy takes 3,000 hours to become a master and another takes 25,000 and he's still not there. So you can average those and come up with some rule, but it doesn't tell you anything. You can always average individual differences and come up with some sort of a rule. Gladwell does leave more room for elite talent. He says, 'Michael Jordan has more talent than me, but he also put in the work.' And that's uncontroversial, that someone is talented and put in work. Beyond the chess players, genetics is continually finding now that one person's hour of practice isn't as good as the next person's hour. Talent isn't something preceding you trying something, but your biological setup that allows you to benefit more than the next guy.'

David FeldmanThinkers

David Feldman