The 1,000-hour rule (2009)

Re:The 1,000-hour rule (2009) by noahl on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:20AM (#8197389)

If we combine your rules of thumb with the original essay and the 10,000 hour rule, we get a rough order-of-magnitude scale of work and levels of ability:

  * 10 hours: familiar
  * 100 hours: proficient
  * 1000 hours: good
  * 10000 hours: expert

Not perfect, of course, but it's sort of intriguing in its simplicity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 1,000-hour rule (2009) by 001sky on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:31AM (#8197853)

Ha. The marketing/consultant's version.

1 hour = familiar (heard of it) 10 hours = proficient (1 day) 100 Hours = "good" (2 weeks) 1000 Hours = "expert" (6 months)

Although a general rule of thumb (that is true) is 3 months of full time work on a topic makes you "conversant"--good enough to pass yourself off as an expert to the unsuspecting. OF course, YMMV.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 1,000-hour rule (2009) by NickPollard on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:36AM (#8197485)

I like this, I think as an aphorism it actually has a good bit of descriptive power.

A while back I started learning the guitar - having learnt drums and (some) piano as a child with a teacher and structured learning, I decided to teach myself at a much slower process for 'fun'. I'm probably somewhere between the proficient and good categories now and I think this trajectory matches my experiences.

What is an important take away for people is that you can learn something, and it doesn't take that long for you to get to a point where it is useful, enjoyable and satisfying. So many adults shy away from learning new skills unnecessarily. Learn to play guitar. Learn to code. Learn to paint, learn to speak Dutch, learn to write poetry, learn to bake, learn to woodwork. Your life will be richer for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The 1,000-hour rule (2009) by harrisreynolds on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:14AM (#8197723)

Yeah... I really like this too!

[ Parent | on HN ]