10,000 hours rule

[NCBaker]

The idea certainly pre-dates Gladwell, though it appears he was the guy that brought it from dry academia into pop-culture or whatever. A 1993 article by psychologist Anders Ericsson and others discuss the 10,000 hour rule, as well as the "ten year" rule (basically the same concept), citing research mostly on the latter that goes back a hundred years.

The main thing to keep in mind, and something that is included in Ericsson's article, is that this rule is descriptive, not prescriptive. The rule isn't "practice this long and you'll be an expert," it's "experts generally have this amount of deliberate practice behind them."

For those interested in the dry academia of it all, from the authors' conclusion:

"We view elite performance as the product of a decade or more of maximal efforts to improve performance in a domain through an optimal distribution of deliberate practice."

The authors acknowledge that practice alone doesn't cut it, and elite performers in any field also have advantages not related to length of practice alone:

"Contemporary elite performers have overcome a number of constraints. They have obtained early access to instructors, maintained high levels of deliberate practice throughout development, received continued parental and environmental support, and avoided disease and injury. When one considers in addition the prerequisite motivation necessary to engage in deliberate practice every day for years and decades, when most children and adolescents of similar ages engage in play and leisure, the real constraints on the acquisition of expert performance become apparent."

-Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363.

 

[Blackjac97]

I’ve heard many stupid things in my life, and that’s one of them.

This is one of the best replies on talkbass, ever. Instant classic. Well done.

 

[Topkat13]

To me it means you have to play/practice your ass off for a long before you become a pro. Practicing IMO is essential to improving one's skill level but it in no way takes the place of live gig time.

 

[FDR Jones]

Well, goddammit.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I was reading an interview with the original Elvis Costello bassist who mentioned this rule, and said that he was a firm believer in it.

Basically the rule is saying that any good musician will have spent at least this much time on playing/practicing his instrument before he becomes a good player.

What do you think?

Being former military, this rule is highly regarded. Hands-on as much as possible, even if it's just carrying it everywhere you go.

 

[JoshS]

Where did I say he didn't enjoy it?

Not to put words into your mouth at all, wasn't sure if "spark" was meant for that. Got the impression he didn't like when you said find something to like (and have talent for). But if he does enjoy it, why encourage him to find something else, even if he does suck?

 

[millbaars]

I used to think great musicians possessed some sort of magic. But by now I've seen some great ones up close and have seen how much of it is the hours they have put in. And continue to put in.

That's not to say there aren't true outliers that take significantly less time to blow by us regulars. But for all but the best of the best talent-wise, it takes a lot of time and focused effort. So in that way I think the 10K hour *rule of thumb* is useful. For setting expectations if nothing else.

 

[SunByrne]

Extremely well-said, @NCBaker!

<professor mode on>
I read that article when it came out in 1993 and I was a graduate student working on a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology. Super-interesting paper. This "rule" (which is not a rule at all) does indeed come out of Ericsson's research. Gladwell is usually credited with its spread into pop culture. Gladwell has made a nice career from himself in taking results of psychological research and repackaging them for consumption by non-academics. Unfortunately, while a gifted writer, Gladwell is not a scientist and he sometimes misinterprets (more often he just oversimplifies) the research.

I will make a couple additions:

[1] Ericsson draws a strong distinction between "practice" and "deliberate practice." Simply putting in a large number of hours doing an activity is not sufficient. As many people here have noted, they've played extensively and don't consider themselves expert, or even very good. Deliberate practice is practice in which there is substantial effort directed specifically at eliminating discrepancies between current performance and desired performance. It is difficult to do. Ericsson got to the 10-year idea based on the notion that, due to the effort required, it is unusual (not impossible, but unusual) for someone to be able to put in more than 1000 hours/year of deliberate practice.

Think of it like driving. There are a lot of people out there who, despite having driven around a great deal, are still terrible drivers. It's because what they are doing when they are driving is not deliberate practice, so there's little skill development.

Anyway, if you're interested in reading a summary of this line research that is aimed at a non-academic audience but also sticks close to the research findings (as opposed to Gladwell's take), including more recent results from neuroscience, I recommend this book:

Ericsson & Pool (2017). Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. ISBN 978-0544947221.

Or, if you just want to hear a capsule version of that, including Ericsson and Gladwell arguing with each other about Gladwell's slightly wrong take, check out Invalid Link Removed I assign this to one of my classes; it's a lot more fun than a dry journal article.

[2] Ericsson's general idea has not been "debunked" by subsequent research. In an effort to make a point, Ericsson took the extreme position that, in many (but not all) domains of skill acquisition, amount of deliberate practice was the *only* measure necessary to predict performance among experts. (This does not apply to novices and less so to intermediates.) What subsequent research has shown is that this isn't quite right: amount of deliberate practice only predicts *most* of the variance, not all of it. One of the people who has been part of that effort is a colleague in my department (Fred Oswald), who will tell you that if you have to bet on who's the better expert, and you only get one piece of information to know about them, amount of deliberate practice is your best bet—but you still won't win the bet all the time.

One of the biggest challenges with this kind of research is that amount of deliberate practice is difficult to track. While some people meticulously log their time and are good about logging only the time they spent doing deliberate practice, most people don't, and people are not always good at estimating this.
<professor mode off>

 

[Pings Bass]

If Malcolm Gladwell practiced writing for 10,000 hours he'd still be an insufferable hack

 

[NCBaker]

Thanks @SunByrne, I appreciate the professor mode input; I only did my undergrad in Psych, so I didn't want to sound like TOO much of a know it all

 

[DwaynieAD]

I’ve heard many stupid things in my life, and that’s one of them.

Qft

 

[lfmn16]

Not to put words into your mouth at all, wasn't sure if "spark" was meant for that. Got the impression he didn't like when you said find something to like (and have talent for). But if he does enjoy it, why encourage him to find something else, even if he does suck?

Let me start again. He didn't have whatever it is that makes some people great musicians, I just called it the spark. He loved to play; I don't know what he though about his skill level. The "tell people they suck" was a general comment. I never said he sucked. He just was average at best. The "you suck" speech should come from someone that loves the person and is honestly trying to help them.

My comment was in support of the "I’ve always been firmly against the idea that anyone can be great at anything if they work hard." post. He wasn't great. Worked his assets off to no avail. I'd hate to work that hard just to get to average.

 

[knumbskull]

What about 10,000 posts on Talkbass?

 

[J-Bassomatic]

I was reading an interview with the original Elvis Costello bassist who mentioned this rule, and said that he was a firm believer in it.

Basically the rule is saying that any good musician will have spent at least this much time on playing/practicing his instrument before he becomes a good player.

What do you think?

Well, they let you fly a jet airliner with less hours than that.
Don't flame me, I'm being facetious.

 

[JoshS]

Let me start again. He didn't have whatever it is that makes some people great musicians, I just called it the spark. He loved to play; I don't know what he though about his skill level. The "tell people they suck" was a general comment. I never said he sucked. He just was average at best. The "you suck" speech should come from someone that loves the person and is honestly trying to help them.

My comment was in support of the "I’ve always been firmly against the idea that anyone can be great at anything if they work hard." post. He wasn't great. Worked his assets off to no avail. I'd hate to work that hard just to get to average.

Gotcha, I'm following.
I might as well be him. I haven't put that kind of time, money, or effort in...but I mostly agree. 99% of us will never be world class, or even truly great at anything.

 

[Rottie Roo Roo]

Tons of respect for Bruce Thomas, but yeah, this idea seems bogus to me. I'd bet Jaco didn't need 10,000 hours, and I've probably spent at least that much and gotten nearly nowhere.

mate you've spent that much time on talkbass

 

[Jack Butler]

It's a general rule, not ironclad in any way. An of course things require different levels of complexity. Becoming reasonably competent to play in a rock band in a bar will likely take less hours than becoming a competent brain surgeon. I think the idea being conveyed is that unless you are a TRUE prodigy(which is rare), it's gonna take a lot of hours to master something. Honestly 2 things I'd considered but haven't done(yet) in life, I bet 10,000 hours might be close. I considered being a lawyer, which you could probably become reasonably good at in that amount of time. Also, I've played maybe 10 times in my entire life. I did OK, I can drive the ball pretty straight naturally so maybe I have a bit of natural ability, or maybe it's a carryover skill from baseball. I feel like 10,000 hours of diligent practice would get me to a pretty good level. Obviously I wouldn't be Tiger Woods in his prime(or even his worst day probably), but maybe some locals would be concerned about me lol. The things I have put in the hours I feel pretty good about. I can play guitar or bass quite well for most band situations. I play a lot of baseball and at over 50 years old, I only know about half a dozen people that are obviously better than me around my age, and 3 of them played at least some amount of time in the majors. Not saying that to brag in any way, but I put in the 10,000 hours there. I'm interested in woodworking. I have not put the time in, and it's obvious!

 

[ElectroVibe]

I can't believe so many people are taking this number literally.

It's really about the DESIRE to play the instrument.

 

[Jazz Ad]

I don't know how it came about but at some point after years of practice I realized playing bass was something I knew how to do without much effort.
As in, if I think about a line I can play it. I know how it goes. I may have physical difficulties to do it or timing issues but I know what do to do get what I want to hear.
If I don't play for a couple weeks or even months (which rarely happened), I may lose a bit of dexterity but the notes, patterns and fingerings still are obvious.
I think it is what the 10000 hour is about. Things become built in, a part of you like walking or speaking.

 

[Volker Kirstein]

... The rule isn't "practice this long and you'll be an expert," it's "experts generally have this amount of deliberate practice behind them." ...

This.

My friend has well over 50 years driving a car, but still can't drive worth poop. (I'm honestly shocked they haven't had a serious accident.)