Popular Science: You may have heard of the "10,000 hour rule," popularized in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, which suggests that many people who have reached the top of their fields got there, in large part, due to practicing for 10,000 hours. The theory is most often credited to a 1993 study by K. Anders Ericsson and colleagues (which has been cited more than 4,000 times, according to Google Scholar). But a new review of that study and other research in the field came to a different conclusion: Practice is not as vital as previously thought.
2 comments:
I have heard of the 10,000 hour rule before and it seemed to make sense. This article however gives a new side to the story that it may not take 10,000 hours for every person. To me this idea is more believable, every person is different and can develop mastery skills at a different pace. Someone who is younger and does not have a lot of logical background may take more time to pick up chess then someone who has more experience thinking logically in the way chess requires. This can also be transferred over to other fields, someone who can sew the perfect seam on the first try may not be able to build the perfect flat on the first try. Depending on who you are you can learn certain things easier then others.
LIke Olivia, I'd heard of the 10,000 hour rule as well, and it definitely makes sense that practice is not the end all be all of mastering a skill, since there's rarely an absolute rule for things like this and everything can vary so much from person to person. However I believe that even in the original study, the exception to the rule was given to be people who were "naturally" talented or had some kind or pre-disposition to whatever skill was being discussed. Some people just think differently, and certain tasks come far more easily. That aside, I would be curious to see if there's something to be said about the quality of the practice as well -- how effective whatever strategies an individual uses are.
Post a Comment