The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth

Re:The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth by CoVar on Monday March 13, 2017 @09:56AM (#13857834)

I think there is some nuance that is missed when performing studies that compares hours practiced to mastery. I'm currently reading a book called A Mind for Numbers (the companion book for the popular MOOC on Coursera called Learning How to Learn) and what I am realizing is that not everyone practices or studies the most optimal way.

"For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" status (a very high level of skill) ranged from 728 hours to 16,120 hours. This means that one player needed 22 times more deliberate practice than another player to become a master."

Maybe those 728 hours were more efficient and effective deliberate practice than the 16,120 hours.

Edit: the book is called "A Mind for Numbers", not "A Mind for Math"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth by spdionis on Monday March 13, 2017 @09:57AM (#13857846)

So we can accept this as probably true but we are not willing to accept that 10x programmers exist?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth by Eridrus on Monday March 13, 2017 @10:32AM (#13858074)

Even if someone is 10X better in the abstract, real world problems may not show much of a difference. It doesn't matter who is 10X better if you're playing football against toddlers. And most programming falls into this category.

It sort of shows through all the complaints about interviews, most programming work is just not difficult enough to separate people, so anything that does needs to be scorned.

[ Parent | on HN ]