"10,000 Hour Rule" facing serious skepticism

I was particularly keen to this because I was dumbfounded in the Billy Beane article someone linked last week where Beane was quoted saying something to the effect that 10,000 hours of practice was more important than talent. I let that slide, figuring the quote had to be far removed from the actual context, since Beane is was brighter than that.

edit: no quoting was done; beane hisself wrote that article. I just re-read it, and I had to read the passage about 7 times until it actually made sane sense to me.

You don't think that practicing/studying a skill makes you better at it?

Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

People who obsess over stuff get better at it.

the was i first interpreted the Beane thing was that he was valuing practice over skill. when in fact i believe his meaning is "skill + practice > skill".

SK790 wrote:Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

Studying is fundamentally different from practicing.

Idk if his argument has anything to do with "skill" or natural ability. I thought his argument was just about mastering a skill. Even someone who is not naturally talented at something will be better than someone who is if the hours doing the thing is 10,000 to 0 in favor of the not talented person.

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

Studying is fundamentally different from practicing.

Agreed, but academia is mostly about theory, no?

What if the hours are 15,000 to 5,000 though

i disagree. in sports there are certain physical qualities where either you have them or you don't. Most could hit for 10,000 hours and still never touch a ML fastball, while there's probably a small number of folks who've never played baseball in their life and could step up and make contact with a diekman pitch.

this seems pretty true to me.

i have a friend who never played baseball, but when we go to how fast can you throw a ball thing, he can hit 80-83.

to me that is pretty high for someone who never practices. also i suck so im basing that off a comparison to me.

Bucky wrote:the was i first interpreted the Beane thing was that he was valuing practice over skill. when in fact i believe his meaning is "skill + practice > skill".

Yep. He used Gladwell's point weakly. I assume he meant roughly equally talented players can separate themselves through tons of practice.

Outliers talks about how highly talented people like Gates and Lennon also benefited from circumstances (early and obsessive access to a computer and years of seven-hour gigs in Germany) and that 10,000 hours appears to be a good benchmark

1) practice isn't one specific thing. Dicking around playing pentatonic scales ain't the same thing as blasting through your daily Hanon exercises. One criticism of this study is that it treats all forms of practice as one
2) I would wager that, even considering a narrower subset of more effective practice, to reach the zenith in a given field "natural talent" is a required attribute on top of dedicated practice.

This post brought to you by my soul crushing defeat as a music student and the death of my dream of composing modern music

SK790 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

Studying is fundamentally different from practicing.

Agreed, but academia is mostly about theory, no?

No. Studying is for accurately storing and recalling information in the brain, practicing is commiting something to muscle memory so that the steps required don't need to be handled individually. It's like the difference between creating a file tree or database and writing a macro or subroutine.

Bucky wrote:i disagree. in sports there are certain physical qualities where either you have them or you don't. Most could hit for 10,000 hours and still never touch a ML fastball, while there's probably a small number of folks who've never played baseball in their life and could step up and make contact with a diekman pitch.

I don't believe anyone is born with the ability to hit a ML fastball. There are people who are more likely to be better at it than others, but you need to practice to be good at it.

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

Studying is fundamentally different from practicing.

Agreed, but academia is mostly about theory, no?

No. Studying is for accurately storing and recalling information in the brain, practicing is commiting something to muscle memory so that the steps required don't need to be handled individually. It's like the difference between creating a file tree or database and writing a macro or subroutine.

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about academics only. Which is mostly theory. I understand there's a difference between practice and studying, I'm just citing something from the article posted I find extremely dubious.

SK790 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

SK790 wrote:Haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe studying more only makes you 4% better at academics.

Studying is fundamentally different from practicing.

Agreed, but academia is mostly about theory, no?

No. Studying is for accurately storing and recalling information in the brain, practicing is commiting something to muscle memory so that the steps required don't need to be handled individually. It's like the difference between creating a file tree or database and writing a macro or subroutine.

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about academics only. Which is mostly theory. I understand there's a difference between practice and studying, I'm just citing something from the article posted I find extremely dubious.

Where is the article talking about academics, are you referring to Outliers?

I guess it does say practicing, but I took it to mean studying in the context. Sorry.

I read the article in between posts and still fucked up citing it. I'll log off now.

It's okay, I only read the article Bucky linked in his second post :D

There was a point in my life when I was eating DQ blizzards three times a week. Had to get control of myself.