Is The 10,000 Hour Rule Myth or Reality?

In his 2008 book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell argues that success is tightly married to opportunity and time on task. He states that it takes approximately 10,000 hours to master something. In this episode I examine whether there is any truth to this.

GET THE BEATO YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPTIONS VOL.1 HERE →

——————————————————————————————————————

My Links to Follow:

Follow On Twitter - @rickbeato

[mrbobu]

First Rule: Have passion for what you do. Second Rule: Practice, Practice, Practice. Third Rule: Pray it all works out.

[joepascual]

I would argue that being successful does not always equate to mastery. Or vice versa.

[mas_]

Doesnt matter if I dont master guitar, I'll still have had fun playing for those 10, 000 hours

[kenthawley]

The whole point of the 10, 000-hour argument is that to master something (not necessarily be famous) you need continuous practice while seeking out advice from experts and new experiences and reflecting on your work so you can adjust. One cannot blindly work at something incorrectly and become great at it. One must care and allow that care to guide you.

[Leo_Inclan]

The problem with the 10k hr rule is that it's severely misunderstood and taken out of context.
In Outliers, Gladwell mentions the rule as part of an exploration of "what makes the greats great". He doesn't state it as an absolute or isolated fact.
Also, the rule actually says it takes 10k hrs of DELIBERATE PRACTICE to master A SKILL.
People ignore the deliberate practice part and think it just means "if I play the guitar for 10k hrs, I'll be a master!" and that's far from true.
I'd also say it's hard to define what "a skill" means. I, for one, think songwriting is not just a skill. It is a very complex activity that requires a series of skills.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that having a number one song means you've mastered songwriting. I'm not trying to diminish the merit of your achievement, which I admire and respect (hey, who am I to question you?), but we must consider there are some very crappy songs that have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and reached #1, and I wouldn't say they're all masterpieces, as much as they have commercial success.

Anyways, the rule is debatable and almost impossible to conclusively confirm or deny, but it makes much more sense when it's well explained, well understood and not taken out of context.

[CbznLsc]

What counts it's what you do within each hour. You can mindlessly practice excercises for 3 hours, and just half an hour being fully dedicated, concious about what you're doing; and it will be worlds of difference.
And luck within this also, maybe you meet some teacher that changes your perspective on things, or guides you in some way that will take you less time for some things.

Past experiences also help a lot. Before studying music, I've was a software programmer, and I went 2 years to Math college. The logical thinking I've develop over the years helped me understand and analyze sheet music, and a lot of theory concepts, patterns. And I've noticed with my mates at music school, some things I find easy to understand and conceptualize, find "the math", the logic, behind it. And I see my friends struggle, like they don't see some of the patterns, or really think about them at all.

[strokerace]

So my 30 minute guitar lesson once a week is not enough to master the guitar?

[paulconnah]

I had worked in a bookstore for about 18, 000 hours when Gladwell's third book, Outliers, arrived and a stack was immediately placed on the bestseller table due to the success of his previous books, The Tipping Point(2000) and Blink (2005). Each of those had a stack in permanent residence on our paperback bestsellers table. I had sampled them way back when, but had not been drawn in. One of my colleagues and I were stocking the table the day Outliers arrived. We had never discussed these perennial sellers. I pointed to The Tipping Point and Blink, and asked her, "What do you think these?" Her two word reply: "Mental popcorn."

[Soldano]

I stopped playing for a couple of years. When i started playing again, my level started to increase radically. I found that what i learned in the past i assimilated and digested and i could see things more clearly and analyse what i was doing.

[cliverichards]

Mastering a skill does not automatically mean success!
Hard work does not automatically mean success!

Having the right skill, at the right level, at the right time and in the right place and be willing to work hard, together with the confidence to take a risk, will probably result in success of some sort.

[zorkan]

It's not just 10, 000 hours of doing the activity. It's 10, 000 hours of DELIBERATE practice. That's the word which is often left out when people quote the 10k hour rule. Deliberate practice is purposeful, systematic. A deliberate practice session has a specific purpose. It means you strategically choose what you do to tackle your weaknesses, you practice out of your comfort zone, you practice at the edge of your abilities in order to push your skills a step further.
And of course, 10k hours is just a rule of thumb. It gives you a rough idea of what it actually takes to become really really good at something.

[dragoncomosaics]

Probably easiest skill to master: procrastination.

[NahreSol]

Great video Rick!!! I really liked your references and your point about mastery being hard to define. :)

[mikesharpsongs]

I've had very similar experiences, albeit in some different fields. Playing guitar started as a passion with zero foresight or vision. In the beginning I just wanted to experience creating certain tones, which meant endlessly repeating riffs and tweeking knobs. This drove my dad nuts and he finally said: "maybe you should learn to play songs". I took it to heart and started working on chords and changes. Then a new friend taught me the minor pentatonic scale and I suddenly "saw" the connection between riffs/soloing and chord progressions and began to learn songs and write; that seemed to happen overnight. Next up, my wife got tired of me experiementing with bands in basements and told me to get out and play, even if it meant solo shows. When I did, I realized three things very quickly: 1) I needed to learn a lot more songs 2) I needed to change how I play (mostly right hand technique) in order to sound "bigger" than just one guy. 3) I needed to learn more about singing technique/s. This also seemed to happen relatively quickly. For me, each improvement came with a kind of compulsive desire to practice (sometimes orderly and/or with guidance, often without either), some type of imagined larger context or vision, and access to technology and/or information that enhanced my experience. Each of these elements were present when substantial gains were made in my experience.

[laudarevsonhunt]

I'm close to spending 10k hours watching Rick Beato videos.

[thebetbetunderground]

On the other hand, there's also that thing about the beginner's hunger. It is commonly associated with the energy, drive and intensity of youth. You see how often it is that the debut album or first batch of albums by a band hapens to be their best? Later on in their careers they would only try to revive that power but very few succeed. It is the sort of thing that happens in the moment and cannot be replicated even if one later on tries to redo it with presumably more experience/ skill. For some reason nothing can beat the first shot.

Yes, practicing a good long time to the point that you become very well-versed in your craft is perhaps a very logical way of looking at how virtuosity is developed -- but there's also that something else, that other domain which does not necessarily correlate with how much time was put into doing something. Furthermore, there is that issue of getting "past your prime". You see, there will always be a point of decline even if you continue to practice hard. This leads me to surmise that time spent in honing skills as a prerequisite for becoming really accomplished perhaps only tells a fraction of the story...

[metakatana]

You work at your own pace. Some of the top virtuoso musicians reported practicing for 10 hours and others for 2 hours. It really depends on the individual. Some people are faster learners than others. Find your own pace and work at it and practice and you’ll get there! It’s not about talent but hard work and dedication. Of course there are people that learn really fast and are way better than you in far less time but if you work 10x as hard as they do you’ll exceed them. And remember there’s always gonna be someone better than you so don’t get discouraged and give up.

[NorwegianUke]

10.000 hours of effective practice. Not just practice.
I play my instrument about 4 hours a day, but i don't think that I get any more than 1.30 hours of hyperfocused, effective practice a day. I have goals and practice towards them, but some goals I reach before others. I think this is because those are the goals I was truly focused on while practising.
My point is that I think it's a stretch to just count all the hours spent on an activity as good practice, you have to take in to consideration that a lot of those hours were spent not as effectively as they could have been.

[bobboitt]

I agree with you. The 10, 000 hour rule is bogus. I have played guitar since I was 8 years old. Im 64 now and haven't mastered the instrument.Can I play well? YES Can I play like the best of the best Hell no. Yet I have seen young children in their early teens who can shred on guitar and sing too!!! They just have that special thing. "Talent" is real.

[TamaraLeaMusic]

Learning how to practice deeply and efficiently is the key. You can play a song for 10, 000 hours but if you continually make the same mistakes you are only mastering mistakes. Great video! Love it!