We live the life of the Outlier and while that is a difficult existence in all realities, there is also a certain satiety in being able to view the mainstream from afar and learn from their mistakes in mass thinking. SuperGenius author Malcolm Gladwell argues in his "Outlier" book that the rule for finding the greatest success in life costs you 10,000 hours of practice and study.
10,000 hours in everyday terms generally means, in Gladwell's book, three hours of practice and study a day in childhood for a decade.
Musicians who start learning their craft at age ten will be proficiently successful by the age of 20 -- but, the catch, Gladwell presciently argues -- is that few of those ten-year-olds ever make it to the ten thousand hour mark and that's why there are not many musical prodigies or successes because, in the end, it isn't about genetics or talent or ability or luck. It's all about dedication and practice and 10 years of daily devotion.
Is that 10,000 hour mark arbitrary or mandatory?
Can we cheat that number down for late-blooming kids by having them practice for, say, six hours a day for five years to help them hit that golden then thousand number?
Or is the achievement of success more than just acquiring hours and the stretch of time necessarily helps form the context of mastery and understanding?
I figure I probably have well over 90,000 hours of writing mastery since my teen years -- but that number was achieved by going well beyond the three-hours-a-day rule Gladwell argues.
Is there any advanced proficiency beyond the 10,000 hour mark? Or it is everything past 10,001 just gravy on the bangers and beans?
Can we play catch up on that 10,000 hour rule as an adult? If I start my musical understanding now, can I reach proper proficiency in two years with 10 hours of daily grindstoning of fingers against a fretboard? Or am I doomed to a decade of waiting for proper proficiency to hit me?
Is it possible to cheat the rule and break into premature mastery against time?
Musicians who start learning their craft at age ten will be proficiently successful by the age of 20 -- but, the catch, Gladwell presciently argues -- is that few of those ten-year-olds ever make it to the ten thousand hour mark and that's why there are not many musical prodigies or successes because, in the end, it isn't about genetics or talent or ability or luck. It's all about dedication and practice and 10 years of daily devotion.
Is that 10,000 hour mark arbitrary or mandatory?
Can we cheat that number down for late-blooming kids by having them practice for, say, six hours a day for five years to help them hit that golden then thousand number?
Or is the achievement of success more than just acquiring hours and the stretch of time necessarily helps form the context of mastery and understanding?
I figure I probably have well over 90,000 hours of writing mastery since my teen years -- but that number was achieved by going well beyond the three-hours-a-day rule Gladwell argues.
Is there any advanced proficiency beyond the 10,000 hour mark? Or it is everything past 10,001 just gravy on the bangers and beans?
Can we play catch up on that 10,000 hour rule as an adult? If I start my musical understanding now, can I reach proper proficiency in two years with 10 hours of daily grindstoning of fingers against a fretboard? Or am I doomed to a decade of waiting for proper proficiency to hit me?
Is it possible to cheat the rule and break into premature mastery against time?
David,
I am not sure if I fully agree with the theory of 100% dedication.
Unless you have the basic foudation within you -- a 22 hrs practice a day can't really help.
But yes, with the basic sense and with the rigorous practice I believe you can cheat the 10,000 hour rule.
There are so many young prodigies, Katha, who were forced into their ultimate field of expertise by their parents even though they did not want or even like the talent that developed. It didn't seem that love or like or interest mattered -- it was only the "pressing" of the 10,000 hours into the flesh daily is what made the difference -- even if the mind was adrift and disinterested.
Last Sunday on "60 Minutes," tennis player Andre Agassi confessed his drug addiction and the fact that he hated tennis and always had hated tennis. His father forced him into becoming a tennis prodigy. The interviewer was surprised by that remark and said that without tennis Andre wouldn't have such nice things and he never would've met his wife Steffi Graff. Andre just sort of sat there and stared back at him like an inmate silently confronts his gaoler.
Hi David,
If Andre Agassi was not in tennis he would have been successful in any other kind of sports, because it is there in him - his father represented his country in Olympics in boxing.
Agassi didn't like Tennis - that's a different ballgame altogether.
I wonder if children should be allowed to follow their own bliss, Katha, or if the parents need to assign and then indoctrinate that bliss?
Hi David,
I think the world wouldn't have got an Andre Agassi if his parents (father, to be precise) didn't pressurize him.
In order to create an Agassi they have sacrificied his own desire, I am not sure whether he was given enough time to figure out what did he want...
Someone has to sacrifice something in the long run...either the kid or the parents...
I think you're right, Katha, that the parent's will was pressed into young Andre. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't because today, Agassi is a recovering meth addict and he seems lost and not his own man and uncomfortable in his own skin.
Yeah, sad for Agassi. I still miss him in the court though! And I also wonder, are his parents happy today?
Oh, I think his parents are ecstatic, Katha. They did their job. They created a superstar and gave their child a fine career. Happiness and contentment obviously have less value in the Agassi home than a strict work ethic that places devotion to an ideal above the self.
Really? You think so? They are ecstatic even after seeing Agassi suffering? Does parenting mean bulldozing your kid's wish and give him/ her a career where after retirement he confesses of drug addiction and resentment? I don't think I understand the formula...
Cruelty doesn't demand a blood relation:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=4603632
And this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/15/RV761ABKBL.DTL
His father sounds like a monster, David - I don't know how to react.
When monsters raise children -- nobody wins -- there is an internal devastation in the child that can never be repaired or truly understood. We've only heard the surface infractions from Andre. I'm certain there are much deeper wounds he suffered at the monster's hand that we may never know.
yeah, I know.
Me too.
I read that Dan Brown writes for six hours a day and has for years but many find his writing to be dull and lifeless. I wonder if there are exceptions to this rule or if the expression "practice makes consistent" bears well here. That is, that if you practice playing a song badly over and over again, you will not become perfect at playing the song but consistent at playing it badly. Hmm.
That is an interesting take, Gordon. When you learn something new -- like, say, the guitar -- you must practice slowly at first to make certain you are hitting all the notes just right. If you try to start fast you will end up sloppy and you will never know what it takes to correctly lock something down in its bare essence.