Re:The 10,000 Hour Rule for deliberate practice is wrong
by lifeisstillgood on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @06:41PM
(#8398271)
I am trying to wrap my head round this debate.
I think that underneath it we all hope that there is one thing everyone can be truly world class at. And we hope we will find that thing for us. And that it will be cool.
And yet with 7 billion of us, we shall have to niche down a lot to get good. To be in the top 1000 globally, we will have to choose between 7 million skill sets. And with only 27,000 of job types in Soc2010 ( for example "
9244 Warden, patrol, crossing, school") I think we are going to have some problems.
Look at athletics. Here genetics plays an enormous part (Usain Bolt was born to excel at sport) but deliberate practise also makes him fast. Yet there are millions of people each year who complete intensive running regiemes, either for formal marathons or just as "jogging".
These people achieve "mastery" of running - improved aerobic fitness, stretched and improved muscles, an understanding of race conditions, of weather and environment, awareness of traffic, a better understanding of their own body as well. I have experienced all these things as runner and cyclist.
I am not "world class". But I am easily beyond merely competent in cycling.
And so I think we are setting the wrong goals. 10,000 hours of deliberate practise sounds too pat too simplistic, but the idea that you can be world class in anything without years of practise is almost oxymoronic.
So is "world class" what we mean by "mastery of a skill"? Perhaps we would be better off with "beyond competent". The multiplication of genes and practise is a powerful formula - but to be the very best is a near psychotic desire. To be in the peloton is a good aim - but I simply think completing the course without shame is a skill we can all learn with practise and one to be proud of.
I think that underneath it we all hope that there is one thing everyone can be truly world class at. And we hope we will find that thing for us. And that it will be cool.
And yet with 7 billion of us, we shall have to niche down a lot to get good. To be in the top 1000 globally, we will have to choose between 7 million skill sets. And with only 27,000 of job types in Soc2010 ( for example " 9244 Warden, patrol, crossing, school") I think we are going to have some problems.
Look at athletics. Here genetics plays an enormous part (Usain Bolt was born to excel at sport) but deliberate practise also makes him fast. Yet there are millions of people each year who complete intensive running regiemes, either for formal marathons or just as "jogging".
These people achieve "mastery" of running - improved aerobic fitness, stretched and improved muscles, an understanding of race conditions, of weather and environment, awareness of traffic, a better understanding of their own body as well. I have experienced all these things as runner and cyclist.
I am not "world class". But I am easily beyond merely competent in cycling.
And so I think we are setting the wrong goals. 10,000 hours of deliberate practise sounds too pat too simplistic, but the idea that you can be world class in anything without years of practise is almost oxymoronic.
So is "world class" what we mean by "mastery of a skill"? Perhaps we would be better off with "beyond competent". The multiplication of genes and practise is a powerful formula - but to be the very best is a near psychotic desire. To be in the peloton is a good aim - but I simply think completing the course without shame is a skill we can all learn with practise and one to be proud of.