The 10,000 hour rule? This is strange when looking at the math

[nec209]

I read on the internet the 10,000 hour rule to be expert on some thing normally they use examples of playing chess, baseball, basketball, swimming or martial arts so on the 10,000 hour rule. So I did the math of 10 year period is 1,000 hours per year and that is 2.7 hours a day.

When you look at other areas of study it is normally to be medical doctor, phd in physics or phd in philosophy or phd in economics or phd in biology is normally 10 hours a day of studying that is 3,650 hours of studying in one year and in 10 years that is 36,500 hours. As it normally takes 10 years to get phd in physics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, economics, biology or medical doctor.

As it is 4 years to get a bachelor, 2 years to get master and 4 years to get phd that is 10 years being in university.

That is more than the 10,000 hour rule.

This means the word is very complex and there is nothing you can learn in two or three years.

And getting bachelor in physics or bachelor in psychology means you only know 20% of it. This is very discouraging to students.

 And when you look at learning new language it even worse.

 

[exchemist]

34 minutes ago, nec209 said:

I read on the internet the 10,000 hour rule to be expert on some thing normally they use examples of playing chess, baseball, basketball, swimming or martial arts so on the 10,000 hour rule. So I did the math of 10 year period is 1,000 hours per year and that is 2.7 hours a day.

When you look at other areas of study it is normally to be medical doctor, phd in physics or phd in philosophy or phd in economics or phd in biology is normally 10 hours a day of studying that is 3,650 hours of studying in one year and in 10 years that is 36,500 hours. As it normally takes 10 years to get phd in physics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, economics, biology or medical doctor.

As it is 4 years to get a bachelor, 2 years to get master and 4 years to get phd that is 10 years being in university.

That is more than the 10,000 hour rule.

This means the word is very complex and there is nothing you can learn in two or three years.

And getting bachelor in physics or bachelor in psychology means you only know 20% of it. This is very discouraging to students.

 And when you look at learning new language it even worse.

 

It just means that intellectual disciplines are a bit more complicated to master than sport, doesn't it? Why would everything be the same, just because some klutz pulls a  "rule" out of his arse? 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

When you look at other areas of study it is normally to be medical doctor, phd in physics or phd in philosophy or phd in economics or phd in biology is normally 10 hours a day of studying

10 hours a day studying for my PhD in physics? Depends on what counts as studying. Taking physics classes? Going to seminars? Working in the lab, doing research? Those should count. But TA-ing the undergrad classes (which is how I got tuition remission until I got on a research grant) Taking gym classes? Playing hall golf, or real golf, or basketball, or poker? (our popular activities) Not. You have to blow off steam and relax. And eat, do laundry, etc.

 

Quote

that is 3,650 hours of studying in one year

If the 10 is an average. I took days off, or at least half-days, plus vacation time. For me it was probably 60 hours a week - 3000 hours.

And remember this is partly BS. I agree with exchemist - the number is made up. The concept being it takes a lot of work to be good at something.

[zapatos]

17 hours ago, nec209 said:

That is more than the 10,000 hour rule.

 

I hate that I have to pick up the pot roast I dropped on the floor in less than three seconds so that it can still be served to my guests without fear of passing on any dirt or germs.

Makes me wonder just how useful these "rules" are. Ten seconds would be a lot easier.

[Intoscience]

I would not take too much notice of these sorts of made up rules!!

Sure you can do a study across a number of disciplines and get some kind of figure. But in truth how can you do this with any real detail and comparatively? How can you compare becoming an expert soccer player to an astrophysicist?

You also have to define what you mean by "expert" someone who is highly skilled but lacks experience may still be defined as an expert. On the flip someone who may not be highly skilled but has vast knowledge and experience could also be defined as an "expert".   

I have seen some kids learn exceedingly quickly and become "experts" in a sport within a couple of years, where some more mature people have taken 20 + to get even close to the same level. 

The individual levels of learning can also vary from one extreme to another, the tortoise and hare situation... 

The point is,

20 hours ago, swansont said:

The concept being it takes a lot of work to be good at something

 I would add to this and say - it also takes desire, dedication, commitment, focus and a will to achieve goals.   

Edited August 11, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I would add to this and say - it also takes desire, dedication, commitment, focus and a will to achieve goals. 

I spent 20 year's as a paint sprayer with none of those, but I was still considered a master paint sprayer; the problem with the OP is, it conflates a skill with understanding, you can spend a lifetime spraying car's and never understand why the paint sticks...

[Intoscience]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I spent 20 year's as a paint sprayer with none of those, but I was still considered a master paint sprayer; the problem with the OP is, it conflates a skill with understanding, you can spend a lifetime spraying car's and never understand why the paint sticks...

Yeah partly agreed, that was sort of my point with this;

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You also have to define what you mean by "expert" someone who is highly skilled but lacks experience may still be defined as an expert. On the flip someone who may not be highly skilled but has vast knowledge and experience could also be defined as an "expert". 

However, you may not have been aware or have the inner desire to be a master paint sprayer, but you were dedicated, committed and must have had some pride/focus in your job even if you didn't consciously feel it considering you did it for 20 years. Paint spraying is a skilful task, not something all people would have an aptitude or desire for. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

However, you may not have been aware or have the inner desire to be a master paint sprayer, but you were dedicated, committed and must have had some pride/focus in your job even if you didn't consciously feel it considering you did it for 20 years.

I was employed to spray paint and it paid enough to live...

[Sensei]

On 8/11/2022 at 3:28 PM, dimreepr said:

I was employed to spray paint and it paid enough to live...

Banksy..

 

[sethoflagos]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:39 AM, nec209 said:

I read on the internet the 10,000 hour rule to be expert on some thing normally they use examples of playing chess, baseball, basketball, swimming or martial arts so on the 10,000 hour rule.

You're paraphrasing the core message of Malcolm Gladwin's 'Outliers: The Story of Success'. Gladwin's background is in journalism.

His work heavily borrows from and grossly distorts the work of K. Anders Ericsson, a Swedish Professor of Psychology, particularly his research on deliberate practice as presented in such books as 'Towards a General Theory of Expertise' (1991).

This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method) highlights a major discrepancy in Gladwin's 'motivational' interpretation: 

Quote

Malcolm Gladwell developed the highly popular 10,000 hour rule. This rule states that if an individual spends 10,000 hours of full concentration and intense effort in their certain skill, they will become an expert at it. However, Anders Ericsson's article focuses on how the amount of time does not affect the elite status but how deliberate the practice is. Ericsson states "it is now quite clear that the number of hours of merely engaging in activities, such as playing music, chess and soccer, or engaging in professional work activities has a much lower benefit for improving performance than deliberate practice".

And by 'deliberate practice', the implication is total engagement a highly structured programme of skills development with regular feedback from an expert tutor.

Clearly reading a book on the subject would not count as deliberate practice for example.  

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

You're paraphrasing the core message of Malcolm Gladwin's 'Outliers: The Story of Success'. Gladwin's background is in journalism.

etc

Useful background. Thanks +1

[sethoflagos]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Useful background. Thanks +1

You're welcome. Some years ago we went over all this with a fine toothcomb on a trumpeter's forum I drop into from time to time. There was a general concensus in support of Ericsson's conclusions. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Banksy..

 

Shhh, it's a secret... 😉