PDA

View Full Version : 10000 Hours



Bruce
4th December 2008, 02:22 PM
Apparently that is what it takes for mastery of a given skill.

Extract from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/15/malcolm-gladwell-outliers-extract)


In the early 90s, the psychologist K Anders Ericsson and two colleagues set up shop at Berlin's elite Academy of Music. With the help of the academy's professors, they divided the school's violinists into three groups. The first group were the stars, the students with the potential to become world-class soloists. The second were those judged to be merely "good". The third were students who were unlikely ever to play professionally, and intended to be music teachers in the school system. All the violinists were then asked the same question. Over the course of your career, ever since you first picked up the violin, how many hours have you practised?

Everyone, from all three groups, started playing at roughly the same time - around the age of five. In those first few years, everyone practised roughly the same amount - about two or three hours a week. But around the age of eight real differences started to emerge. The students who would end up as the best in their class began to practise more than everyone else: six hours a week by age nine, eight by age 12, 16 a week by age 14, and up and up, until by the age of 20 they were practising well over 30 hours a week. By the age of 20, the elite performers had all totalled 10,000 hours of practice over the course of their lives. The merely good students had totalled, by contrast, 8,000 hours, and the future music teachers just over 4,000 hours.

The curious thing about Ericsson's study is that he and his colleagues couldn't find any "naturals" - musicians who could float effortlessly to the top while practising a fraction of the time that their peers did. Nor could they find "grinds", people who worked harder than everyone else and yet just didn't have what it takes to break into the top ranks. Their research suggested that once you have enough ability to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works. That's it. What's more, the people at the very top don't just work much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder.

This idea - that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum level of practice - surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours.

"In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin, "this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years... No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."

I don't think I've even got to 1000 hours of golf yet. Dilettantism does not allow such concentration on a single task.

henno
4th December 2008, 02:29 PM
10 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 years?

Pass. I'll stick to being mediocre at a lot of things, rather than an expert at one.

LarryLong
4th December 2008, 02:48 PM
Does time spent looking for lost balls count?

sms316
4th December 2008, 02:51 PM
10 hours a day, 7 days a week for 4 1/2 years?
= 24,411 posts.

Golfnut
5th December 2008, 12:43 AM
Does time spent looking for lost balls count?

What about time spent on golf forums??? :smt108

razaar
5th December 2008, 06:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies

My mind is open to all possibilities.

Jarro
5th December 2008, 06:42 AM
= 24,411 posts.

smart ass :razz: