If you work 40 hours a week in your job for 5 years, that’s 10k hours, then everybody would be a master in their field. This is so much more than just time spent on an activity. It is about time doing an activity intently at your best performance, being coached and doing constant aggregated improvement for 10k hours.
It's more like 10 000 hours of practicing something in which you aren't as good yet. I.e. if you're asked to do something repeatedly for many times, you aren't really learning anything because you already know everything about that one certain thing.
@@_________________404 yes very true - it does depend on what one is doing working on a factory "line" is not the same as learning to fly small planes to larger planes over 10K hours
Well if you do the same EXACT job for 5 years straight every single working day and you AREN'T effectively a master at it, you've probably been slacking
I’m a huge Malcolm Gladwell fan, so thank you for uploading! I totally agree on focused deliberate practice. This will result in 10,000 hours of practice rather than 1 hour of practice repeated 10,000 times.
When interviewing him we sensed that he was exhausted from answering this question all over the world wherever he goes. Perhaps Gladwell needs to write a sequel to Outliers about 'quality practice' as an addendum to 'deliberate practice'.
Heavy Chef I'm sure he does get tired of answering the same question over and over. But he seems like the kind if guy who really doesn't mind because knows people won't benefit from his ides if they don't understand them.
He actually mentioned that exact point, off camera, that he gets asked the same question at every interview. He was so cool though, super polite and very accommodating. A proper legend.
None of this takes into account the millions of people who have spent 10,000 making music, singing, playing chess, playing sports and are not very good at it.
If you read the book Outliers you will find that he actually mentions that the environment and specific coincidences make some people who practice ten thousand hours much more successful than others.
I'm a great Malcom Gladwell supporter so I want to state my two cents here: > It't not that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice will take you to world class, it's that you'll hardly find anyone world class having much less than 10,000 > In all cases 10,000 hours is the road to "one of the best in the field". In his examples he puts The Beatles, Bill Gates or aclaimed violinist. The book doesn't state you need 10,000 hours to be able to do something. You may think of Messi or Federer to have 10,000 hours of deliberate practice > 10,000 hours won't come from only intention, it probably comes from some kind of luck early on. He talks about Bill Gates' time and place born (where his school was the only one with access to computer at the time and he would sneak in at night, and if he was born only a couple of years later that would have already more security) and The Beatles "luck" of being hired to play in hamburg (where they had to play for 4 up to 10 hours every night and that forced them to develop a massive repertoire and even improvise as a group)
@@pinny492 no, you don't need to be a world class performer to be success, and you don't need talent to be great at something. you only need a direction, mentoring, and sufficient amount of practice. you should stop living in a dog eat dog world where only the Top win
@@jensenraylight8011 No, you do actually need talent.There is nothing outside of inborn talent which can make you great at something.Thats 100% certain.
@@pinny492 here is the thing, you could make ton of money just by becoming an average software engineers or other boring job that paid stupid amount of money. That alone is considered a success too. Success come in all shapes. Why restrict yourself to be an olympian or the best performers, when you could achieve success even though you're just an average? Even if you're only 60% of the top performer, you still can do so many thing with that skill alone. It's about what you contribute with your skill that matter.
@@jensenraylight8011 sometimes 60% of the top performers can't even get work. Like in music you have to be top 10% before anyone will listen to your work. I know what your saying, but this doesn't change the reality of talent. To really get anywhere close to the top, you have to be talented. You can't do it through work or striving.
“The thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works. That’s it. What’s more, the people at the very top don’t just work much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder.”
@pin ny True. Natural born talent, intelligence level and one's circumstances should also be considered. Some success is due to hard work, some because of Talent and some purely by luck. In many people's lives there is a little but of each that leads them to a certain degree of success.
That's it. Thanks Malcolm for explaining it. The 10,000 hours is the minimum. For reaching that minimum, you need deliberate practice. If you want deliberate practice you need a mentor.
I do think that 10k hours is a good baseline. One thing that speeds this up or slows this down is intellectual predisposition to the task at hand. For instance, if you are naturally strong in language skills, you might learn a language faster than someone who is stronger in math skills. Richard Feynman is a good example here, where he scored extremely high in mathematics yet his spelling wasn't that great. Someone like him obviously would master a mathematical field much faster than if he were trying to become a playwright. The same goes for those with "sports intelligence": Michael Jordan was a basketball genius and likely mastered the game faster than 10k hours, whereas he might master another sport slower than he did basketball. The quality/efficiency of work put in does have an impact, as well as your interest and focus on the subject at hand. The higher you score in these attributes, the faster you will likely master something.
In theoretical studies, intuition is developed after a lot of time. Once your brain short-codes the easy, repetitive stuff, than it opens up computation and analysis with information that is only accessible in THOSE time-sensitive instances, which layfolk (regardless of IQ level), in principle, could not have accessed.
The 10,000 hour rule was never based on any sound science. What The data Gladwell himself presented showed, was that there is no predictable amount, or type of practice that leads to excellence.Nothing Gladwell presented indicated excellence in a given field is something anybody can achieve either. The long and the short of it is that if you are gifted enough, you can excell with a fair bit of practice, or a hell of a lot, or if you keep practicing deliberately untill you die of old age, depending on the level of inherited suitability for the task at hand.
One thing he failed to mention is that while 10000 hours is the minimum, the study that he sourced the numbers from has data points going to 16 years and even 22 years. The 10 years seems to be the minimum, but it's not a definite tipping point.
Right here, at about 8500 hours. Just got into a world class residency for poetry, the same one Plath got into before she wrote her first book (Yaddo.) It's produced 42 Pulitzer Prize Winners. Thank you Malcolm! Read your book in college and decided to dedicate my 10k hours to poetry. It worked!
I always thought this was relating to physical skill sets. mental skill sets (chess) are very different. also, practice only makes permanent. perfect practice makes perfect.
In theses 10k hours, you shouldn't count the hours where you don't see any new results (when you are stuck). If you suck, go to school to learn basics ! If you don't want to go to school : take/pay a mentor or a coach ... Because you will never achieve anything in life without the help of teachers/mentors/coaches/knowledgable friends/etc. We don't know what we don't know ; Learn -> fail a lot -> repeat 1,2 until you get your 10k hours done ! Having said that, AI is there, we are doomed ! :/
if you practice piano 6 hours a day for 4.5 years it's around 10k hours lolol. you better be doing the right exercises tho and have the right technique. get a good teacher. so this is true for piano in this sense, and guitar or violin or any musical instrument. and there is always more to learn in and field of study
Oh what a cop out Malcom...grow some balls will you! Anyone who read Outliers knows that the critiques of the 10,000 hour rule were not over stating anything that Gladwell had not claimed himself. He clearly states in the book that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is enough to master anything (master defined as reaching international level accomplishment at a minimum) and that talent is an insignificant factor compared to the magical 10,000 hours. We all know, as he now clearly acknowledges here, that you can never attain international standard in any competitive endeavor without tonnes of practice AND innate talent, simply because if you don't have talent, you are competing against people that have done at least the same amount of practice as you but also have the talent on top of that. Part of the reason is that innate talent itself will speed up the learning process, making a talented individual's 10,000 hours much more productive and skill enhancing than an untalented person. Can an untalented person just do 20,000 and be internationally competitive then? No, because there are too many talented people also doing 20,000 hours. Thus, untalented people will never attain greatness in an internationally competitive (ie lots of players) endeavor...it's impossible. And that's not even mentioning the inescapable role of luck in deciding which people from the talented pool get to attain mastery. The reason he's looking rather sheepish here is that he knows he's on flimsy ground by trying to retract the basis of his initial premise when he has already printed the bloody thing on millions of books. Maybe he should do 10,000 hours of apology practice though I fear his ego would suppress any innate talent needed to succeed even with 10,000 of his hours! I honestly don't know why Gladwell gets such acclaim. Heavy Chef, why do you think he's 'great'? If anything, his book shows that most people are incapable of thinking for themselves in an area that is outside their realm of knowledge and will buy into any idea that sounds half credible.
He’s humbled and backtracking here. The 10,000 hour rule for things like musical and athletic achievement, which he chose to emphasize, is clearly ridiculous.
I don't think he meant for you to put on your stopwatch. There is much wisdom in the observation that high achievement comes from practice more than it does from any unique or exclusive giftedness in the person pursuing it. I wish other theorists would be humble enough to "backtrack" their views when their understanding and insight increase. But if you MUST get an exact time, try 9,088 hours
@@pinny492 Once again you too missed the point. There are literally some jobs you can not get unless you have demostrated XX # of hours. Does that mean the moment you cross from 9,999 hours 10,000 hours one is now an expert but not 65an expert when he was on the otherside of 10,000? Of course not, the same as every older person is not a wise sage with all knowledge, but most folks understand the difference in getting advice from a 13 yr old and a 65 yr old just saying
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
If you work 40 hours a week in your job for 5 years, that’s 10k hours, then everybody would be a master in their field. This is so much more than just time spent on an activity. It is about time doing an activity intently at your best performance, being coached and doing constant aggregated improvement for 10k hours.
It's more like 10 000 hours of practicing something in which you aren't as good yet. I.e. if you're asked to do something repeatedly for many times, you aren't really learning anything because you already know everything about that one certain thing.
@@_________________404 yes very true - it does depend on what one is doing
working on a factory "line" is not the same as learning to fly small planes to larger planes over 10K hours
I honestly believe if you're passionate enough, and practice intently, it doesnt take 10k hours, anyway. Its all about FOCUS and intent.
@@Polygonlin It could take way longer than 10k hours, even with focus.It just depends upon inborn ability. Theres lots of genetic factors involved.
Well if you do the same EXACT job for 5 years straight every single working day and you AREN'T effectively a master at it, you've probably been slacking
I’m a huge Malcolm Gladwell fan, so thank you for uploading!
I totally agree on focused deliberate practice. This will result in 10,000 hours of practice rather than 1 hour of practice repeated 10,000 times.
When interviewing him we sensed that he was exhausted from answering this question all over the world wherever he goes. Perhaps Gladwell needs to write a sequel to Outliers about 'quality practice' as an addendum to 'deliberate practice'.
Heavy Chef I'm sure he does get tired of answering the same question over and over. But he seems like the kind if guy who really doesn't mind because knows people won't benefit from his ides if they don't understand them.
He actually mentioned that exact point, off camera, that he gets asked the same question at every interview. He was so cool though, super polite and very accommodating. A proper legend.
Heavy Chef yes, he seems infinitely cool and laid back. I have recently become an avid reader and a fan of his! 😊
Get this man a more comfortable chair xD
None of this takes into account the millions of people who have spent 10,000 making music, singing, playing chess, playing sports and are not very good at it.
He did mention at the beginning talent plays a role
if anyone does that for 10000 hours even if he doesn't put in the attention and focus he will be pretty good at it .if not an expert
have the right teacher is what helps the most. youtube is making it very good. i have 20 to 30 piano teachers. all free.
If you read the book Outliers you will find that he actually mentions that the environment and specific coincidences make some people who practice ten thousand hours much more successful than others.
I'm a great Malcom Gladwell supporter so I want to state my two cents here:
> It't not that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice will take you to world class, it's that you'll hardly find anyone world class having much less than 10,000
> In all cases 10,000 hours is the road to "one of the best in the field". In his examples he puts The Beatles, Bill Gates or aclaimed violinist. The book doesn't state you need 10,000 hours to be able to do something. You may think of Messi or Federer to have 10,000 hours of deliberate practice
> 10,000 hours won't come from only intention, it probably comes from some kind of luck early on. He talks about Bill Gates' time and place born (where his school was the only one with access to computer at the time and he would sneak in at night, and if he was born only a couple of years later that would have already more security) and The Beatles "luck" of being hired to play in hamburg (where they had to play for 4 up to 10 hours every night and that forced them to develop a massive repertoire and even improvise as a group)
Yeah, you actually need talent too because without it, no amount of practice will make you world class.
@@pinny492 no, you don't need to be a world class performer to be success,
and you don't need talent to be great at something.
you only need a direction, mentoring, and sufficient amount of practice.
you should stop living in a dog eat dog world where only the Top win
@@jensenraylight8011 No, you do actually need talent.There is nothing outside of inborn talent which can make you great at something.Thats 100% certain.
@@pinny492 here is the thing, you could make ton of money just by becoming an average software engineers or other boring job that paid stupid amount of money.
That alone is considered a success too.
Success come in all shapes.
Why restrict yourself to be an olympian or the best performers, when you could achieve success even though you're just an average?
Even if you're only 60% of the top performer, you still can do so many thing with that skill alone.
It's about what you contribute with your skill that matter.
@@jensenraylight8011 sometimes 60% of the top performers can't even get work. Like in music you have to be top 10% before anyone will listen to your work. I know what your saying, but this doesn't change the reality of talent. To really get anywhere close to the top, you have to be talented. You can't do it through work or striving.
“The thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works. That’s it. What’s more, the people at the very top don’t just work much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder.”
Thats not true.There are many top performers who dont work very hard, but who are better than those who work 3 times harder.
@pin ny True. Natural born talent, intelligence level and one's circumstances should also be considered. Some success is due to hard work, some because of Talent and some purely by luck. In many people's lives there is a little but of each that leads them to a certain degree of success.
The things I would give to have this kind of a conversation with Malcolm Gladwell
There's no one quite like him - a true outlier.
you are right sir
That's it. Thanks Malcolm for explaining it. The 10,000 hours is the minimum. For reaching that minimum, you need deliberate practice. If you want deliberate practice you need a mentor.
I do think that 10k hours is a good baseline. One thing that speeds this up or slows this down is intellectual predisposition to the task at hand. For instance, if you are naturally strong in language skills, you might learn a language faster than someone who is stronger in math skills. Richard Feynman is a good example here, where he scored extremely high in mathematics yet his spelling wasn't that great. Someone like him obviously would master a mathematical field much faster than if he were trying to become a playwright. The same goes for those with "sports intelligence": Michael Jordan was a basketball genius and likely mastered the game faster than 10k hours, whereas he might master another sport slower than he did basketball. The quality/efficiency of work put in does have an impact, as well as your interest and focus on the subject at hand. The higher you score in these attributes, the faster you will likely master something.
It seems to be an okay baseline if you're average at the skill though
In theoretical studies, intuition is developed after a lot of time. Once your brain short-codes the easy, repetitive stuff, than it opens up computation and analysis with information that is only accessible in THOSE time-sensitive instances, which layfolk (regardless of IQ level), in principle, could not have accessed.
Thought-provoking...
The 10,000 hour rule was never based on any sound science. What The data Gladwell himself presented showed, was that there is no predictable amount, or type of practice that leads to excellence.Nothing Gladwell presented indicated excellence in a given field is something anybody can achieve either. The long and the short of it is that if you are gifted enough, you can excell with a fair bit of practice, or a hell of a lot, or if you keep practicing deliberately untill you die of old age, depending on the level of inherited suitability for the task at hand.
One thing he failed to mention is that while 10000 hours is the minimum, the study that he sourced the numbers from has data points going to 16 years and even 22 years. The 10 years seems to be the minimum, but it's not a definite tipping point.
Punnamaraju Vinayaka Tejas ‘do your 10000 hours’ probably sounded catchier than ‘do your 32960 hours’ in a literary sense :)
The average was 10000 hours, meaning that alot of data points were also less than that. 10 years was the average in the study, not the minimum.
Have u practiced anything consistently 10k hrs ?
Do have what it takes to practice any thing
I thought so too! The lesson is: it takes thousands of hours to succeed!
Isn't it ten thousand hours of learning and practice....work defined
If they misunderstood it that's because they didn't want to understand it. I thought you were pretty clear.
Cool so... has anyone tested the 10,000 hour theory...?
Right here, at about 8500 hours. Just got into a world class residency for poetry, the same one Plath got into before she wrote her first book (Yaddo.) It's produced 42 Pulitzer Prize Winners. Thank you Malcolm! Read your book in college and decided to dedicate my 10k hours to poetry. It worked!
I am starting this rule
Still 4 years and 9months
I always thought this was relating to physical skill sets. mental skill sets (chess) are very different.
also, practice only makes permanent. perfect practice makes perfect.
This 10k rule makes me not like my life it feels like I’m wasting time instead of focusing on hobbies that make me happy
In theses 10k hours, you shouldn't count the hours where you don't see any new results (when you are stuck). If you suck, go to school to learn basics ! If you don't want to go to school : take/pay a mentor or a coach ... Because you will never achieve anything in life without the help of teachers/mentors/coaches/knowledgable friends/etc. We don't know what we don't know ; Learn -> fail a lot -> repeat 1,2 until you get your 10k hours done ! Having said that, AI is there, we are doomed ! :/
if you practice piano 6 hours a day for 4.5 years it's around 10k hours lolol. you better be doing the right exercises tho and have the right technique. get a good teacher. so this is true for piano in this sense, and guitar or violin or any musical instrument. and there is always more to learn in and field of study
Oh what a cop out Malcom...grow some balls will you! Anyone who read Outliers knows that the critiques of the 10,000 hour rule were not over stating anything that Gladwell had not claimed himself. He clearly states in the book that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is enough to master anything (master defined as reaching international level accomplishment at a minimum) and that talent is an insignificant factor compared to the magical 10,000 hours. We all know, as he now clearly acknowledges here, that you can never attain international standard in any competitive endeavor without tonnes of practice AND innate talent, simply because if you don't have talent, you are competing against people that have done at least the same amount of practice as you but also have the talent on top of that.
Part of the reason is that innate talent itself will speed up the learning process, making a talented individual's 10,000 hours much more productive and skill enhancing than an untalented person. Can an untalented person just do 20,000 and be internationally competitive then? No, because there are too many talented people also doing 20,000 hours. Thus, untalented people will never attain greatness in an internationally competitive (ie lots of players) endeavor...it's impossible. And that's not even mentioning the inescapable role of luck in deciding which people from the talented pool get to attain mastery.
The reason he's looking rather sheepish here is that he knows he's on flimsy ground by trying to retract the basis of his initial premise when he has already printed the bloody thing on millions of books. Maybe he should do 10,000 hours of apology practice though I fear his ego would suppress any innate talent needed to succeed even with 10,000 of his hours! I honestly don't know why Gladwell gets such acclaim. Heavy Chef, why do you think he's 'great'? If anything, his book shows that most people are incapable of thinking for themselves in an area that is outside their realm of knowledge and will buy into any idea that sounds half credible.
😂😂😂 Poor Malcolm
He’s humbled and backtracking here. The 10,000 hour rule for things like musical and athletic achievement, which he chose to emphasize, is clearly ridiculous.
I don't think he meant for you to put on your stopwatch. There is much wisdom in the observation that high achievement comes from practice more than it does from any unique or exclusive giftedness in the person pursuing it. I wish other theorists would be humble enough to "backtrack" their views when their understanding and insight increase. But if you MUST get an exact time, try 9,088 hours
FJ HAYDN bingo
Folks missed the point
The poster would get upset if he practiced golf for 10,003 hours and could not qualify for The Masters
@@WJTM88 What if he practised for 11000 hours and couldn't even play at some state tounament.Wouldn't that debunk the 10k rule?
@@pinny492 Once again you too missed the point. There are literally some jobs you can not get unless you have demostrated XX # of hours. Does that mean the moment you cross from 9,999 hours 10,000 hours one is now an expert but not 65an expert when he was on the otherside of 10,000?
Of course not, the same as every older person is not a wise sage with all knowledge, but most folks understand the difference in getting advice from a 13 yr old and a 65 yr old
just saying