10,000 hour rules

is a bit deceptive in that the original study, which focuses on violin students, suggests that the best students have logged the nice round number of 10,000 hours by the time they were precisely twenty years old, a time at which they proved to be 'very good' but a long way to go from top in their field.

First, there is nothing special or magical about ten thousand hours. Gladwell could just as easily have mentioned the average amount of time the best violin students had practiced by the time they were eighteen (approximately seventy-four hundred hours) but he chose to refer to the total practice time they had accumulated by the time they were twenty, because it was a nice round number. And, either way, at eighteen or twenty, these students were nowhere near masters of the violin. They were very good, promising students who were likely headed to the top of their field, but they still had a long way to go when at the time of the study. Pianist who win international piano competitions tend to do so when they're around thirty years old, and thus they've probably put in about twenty thousand to twenty-five thousand hours of practice by then... ten thousand hours is only halfway down that path. ANDERS ERICSSON AND ROBERT POOL

is a rule of thumb stipulating that 10,000 of deliberate practice are required for world-class proficiency in any given field.

is TEST TEST is is is a rule stating that the key to achieving world class expertise in any skill, is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing the correct way, for a total of around 10,000 hours.

10,000-Hour Rule', claiming that the key to achieving world class expertise in any skill, is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing the correct way, for a total of around 10,000 hours. (wiki)

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.'

is a rule that not seem to apply to neatness in handwriting.

10,000 hour rules, n.All

10,000 hour rules