Challenging the 10 000 hours theory

Challenging the 10 000 hours theory ( Light series part 1)
How Malcolm Gladwell got it wrong?
The question is , what does it take to reach the top 1% of any chosen field or profession?
Malcolm Gladwell says if you commit yourself to 10 000 hours of practice , diligence and study, you have a better chance of reaching the top 1%.
The principle of 10 000 hours is true but Malcolm Gladwell made one underlying assumption, that the set of skill you require to succeed don't change.
And if they change it means that you got really good at doing something that is not of value to the consumer.
In the modern day, speed is more important than time spent.

[@mhlabuthinisibiya8454]

I believe that the 10K theory has to be used in association with meany other theories. One needs to keep in mind that nothing is made out of a single element. Thus we should refrain from teaching a single theory as the key element. I can brake down the 10K hour theory to say its made up of law of attraction and law of averages, its powered by law of association. i.e. I can play tennis for more then 10K hours but if I dont see myself being the best, I wont (law of attraction). I have to play as many people as I can and win or lose (law of averages). I need to have a strong team of coaches, manager, family and friends (law of association) just to better my chances of being the best.

[@sarasonsalas3472]

I doubt Vusi would argue about the external factors that you referring to, but the 10k hour theory itself talks about investing 10k hours in "deliberate practice" to become the best at what you do (Time). The factors you referred to can either be part of the equation or be excluded for eg. Coaching stuff which you referred to as "Law of association" is the CORE of "Deliberate Practice" in this context investing 10k hours and using an excellent coaching team can and usually does co-exist, so it can not be used to disprove the theory, which by the way only talks about "TIME SPENT PRACTICING " as an indicator...in essence to disprove this theory I would be more interested in "TIME" related factors not other independent variables.

[@sarasonsalas3472]

Where I have a problem with Vusi's argument is the assumption that 'Speed" has no relation to "Time spent" when in fact I personally believe the more you practice the better are your chances at performing faster.

[@fernandob2275]

@@sarasonsalas3472he did address this when he said all someone has to do is “learn at a faster rate” and deliver better value than someone whom spent longer time doing the same

[@ernestmathebula5609]

Just reminded me of the late Diamante that developed Tyson, he used to whisper in his ear that he should be quick cause "speed kills". Speed is the order of the day. Incredibly delivered , Thank you.

[@mellanypaynter3299]

Excellent argument considering the times we now live in.

[@UncommonLeadership777]

I admire you Mr. Thembekwayo, but I gently disagree with your premise that speed is more important than time spent. The context of Gladwells book in its entirety suggests gains (value) attained through an array of outlying factors. Gladwell offers many factors that contribute to outcomes; timing, chance, opportunity, even date of birth. Read the book in its entirety-and be careful not to use your faulty assumptions in the context of business only. That said, keep building a legacy of thinkers, and business owners!!! You are appreciated.

[@brianndegwa1612]

A automobile mechanic once said, "i spent 5 years mastering my craft and as such, i am able to fix your car in 2 hours because now i am good at it, which allows me to be fast". As such, you won't pay me less because i spend 2 hours fixing your car, you will pay me more because i spent 5 years mastering how to fix your car in 2 hours. That's the premise of the 10,000 hours which Mr. Thembekwayo does not reiterate..

[@031globaltv4]

Motivational speakers have a tendency to contradict themselves though

[@calebspiff4420]

I agree with what Mr V is saying, with the way the world is evolving learning faster is the best way to always be on top. Let's take IT for example if you say taking your time on learning about a software before you know it another one is out maybe an upgrade or a better one. The faster you can learn now the better for you

[@schallabeer]

I agree and disagree. I would not necessary say speed, rather timing. Timing the market is one of the key factors in success according to Bill Gross (especially associated with start-ups). Timing can be the difference of impacting the market at the right time. It is as the saying goes: At the right place at the right time. But I definitely agree that in today`s paced life speed can be a decisive factor. The person who learns the fastest can stay ahead, because we live in the information overload era. The faster you can learn and adapt the better of you are.

[@andilem7885]

Amazing, I am inspired by your passion for raising young entrepreneurs. You really are doing a great work

[@nanak120]

Speed is even more critical in the network marketing industry. In some professions, slow and steady may win the race but certainly not in network marketing. However, in terms of skill acquisition, time spent is still critical. The more time you spend developing the skill set, the better your chances of being at the top. In a nutshell, CONSISTENCY is the key to success

[@oranecole8302]

Speed and execution are definitely essential, that's why I love startups, it's all about the speed of light. Awesome perspective Vusi. Cheers, Orane

[@animal_life_]

Point on! That theory can only be true if everything remains constant, without which it doesn't hold.

[@freddyhlupheka3936]

Mr Thembekwayo. I agree with you that the 10000 rule has flaws but speed yhoo. Malcolm was referring to skills development for example ten years ago what you would say about business is not the same. What makes you a great speaker it is not the speed at which you learnt public speaking but the hours you spent talking. The topics may change that does not reverse the hours isn't it? The more you speak the better you become. I bet there are some presentations that you did long ago that you wander why people even listened to you.Neuroplasticity , some people will learn some skills faster than others . By the way even in that 10000 hours if you don't increase the difficulty it still might not get you results.To move the lines in tennis doesn't require a new skill but a shift in target.

[@mmakomokumo4263]

You have just intrigued me to go re-read an email from James Clear. He talks about the 1% rule in that email. Keep up the insightful work.

[@janellenelson8120]

People are over thinking and making his case complicated what he said applied to me very profoundly as a budding entrepreneur. This is addressing the traditionalist mindset where you spend time developing a product/service especially as start ups, believing you will make exponential profits only to realize that consumers don't want it and if they do, bigger competition runs with your concept globally, faster than you have taken time to figure it out and make massive profits. There are people who teach and apply this concept to business, time = value. I have come to the glaring reality that expending efforts into research, filing patents, seeking government assistance. will not equate to profit. 1. It's tricky to test new products on the market given patent/design restrictions. 2. The government agency contacts are huge business people that can steal your idea and develop it in 2 months while you take 2 year. My advice some people can still go through to learn the inner workings of the system, in spite of failure, once they have a Plan B.

[@thabomosala2452]

Mr Vusi, Gladwell did't get it wrong at all. At a superficial level your argument is ok . At an abstract level it's questionable. The skill any expert build during the 10k hours of practice is "Adaptability" itself. That's one quality anyone who is deemed to be an expert in whatever field possess. Tiger Woods became the best golfer not because he spend 10k hours hitting balls from a single spot. He spent those hours honing in on adapting to the ever changing environment. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to hit low trajectory shots when there is a lot of wind. Or putt with a driver etc. As a speaker you may have already done your 10k, I can bet you, the one thing you have had to deal with is "adapting" to different types of audiences and speaking conditions not speaking itself. Give me an example of an "Expert" whose skill became obsolete please. Expert.

[@karabomothupi9759]

smart argument

[@blessingsungai3472]

I am sure the 10 000 hour rule is based on value, his elaborations are really of no value in this case ... It would be ludicrous to expend 10 000 hours into something unless you have not only seen the value, but understood it and understood it on the premise of time ... And if we are going to look at the 10 000 hour rule in a modern setting, then it becomes a metaphor and it still applies ... Which still stands to reason that whoever expends themselves more, is more likely to deliver value ...

[@fatboyRAY24]

Gladwell misinterpreted the research of Anders Ericsson who is the experts on experts. 10k hours is B.S. it's just a pattern Ericsson noticed when he was conducting a study on talented violinist. A majority of the best ones in his study had accumulated about an average of 10k hours of practice each. But the main point of his research is Deliberate Practice. Setting a specific objective outside of your current range of abilities and attempting to achieve it while getting feedback and making adjustments. How you practice is more important than how long you practice.

[@Sombra_Azul_]

Fair argument!

[@ollyonearth]

I agree with you as the 10k hours is not just spent doing the same thing over and over, the same way. Part of the 10k hours is spent finding the new and better way of doing the same thing to yield better result is. The professional transcriber may have failed because he/she failed fail to adapt to the technological innovation in his/her field. few years ago, we save our data on floppy disk/diskette. Today, data hasn't really changed, but the way and rate at which consumers want access to data has change, therefore the need for innovative way to do the same thing, better and faster.

[@percymabasa1161]

One has to READ - The Dip by Seth Godin in order to understand Gladwell's theory. I think they are both beneficial read together.

[@DuminguMphande]

But that doesn't disprove the theory, if I spent 10000 hour's kneating I will be a master kneater but who's going to buy kneating in this day and age. I think this is sad attempt at a critical conversation but it's out of his league. Using the presumption that everyone is out there to get into the 1percent is where he got it wrong and sadly it goes down hill from there. Here's an example the guy who invented Android is Worth 100mil but the guy's that bought and made it to work for profit are worth in the billion's, so the question is who is the master the inventer or the guy that capitalised on the invention.... ?! same thing with Linux, ford, Edison, the guy who invented the internet, not everyone does things primarily for money. profits or becoming a 1 percenter that's not the point of the book.... it's mastery not money

[@kbutireyi]

I can totally agree to the thoughts that you have shared but lets not forget that accuracy is equally important.

[@SportsCy]

Well said...i saw a TED video that used this analogy...If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a metaphor is worth a thousand pictures and your learning rate can be that much faster. granted you do need to put in hours of experience to better come up with metaphors that apply to what you wish to learn. But i am glad there's other people challenging a great discovery but also testing ...other ways to skin the cat so to speak...

[@tinasheshumba4189]

I agree with you 100% but I think what Malcolm was emphasizing was commitment to something rather than the hours themselves.

[@FavoriteTEDvideos]

Ive never heard of this study of gymnasts and tennis players in the 1910s to the 1940s. Ericsson's research who was the reference research, studied violinists in the 1990s.

[@privacywanted434]

I think the takeaway is not speed but quality in the lessons learned. For a highly focused person who is attentive, their 10,000 hours worth of learning could manifest in 2 years, for some, they need 10 years if their learning is passive.

[@emmanuelmuniu4637]

Insightful. I concur with your argument Mr Thembekwayo.

[@mef536]

I am a huge Gladwell supporter, but you hit the nail on the head. Business is changes drastically on a daily bases. I found with myself, I can not run our family business the same way my parents or grand parents did. The market has changed and almost changes on a yearly bases. If I continued to do what my family did we would have been closed now. Time teaches does help you to be street wise, but adapting to the market quickly makes sure that you survive.

[@GanJinLan]

The moment pandemic comes, the way of doing business has change..... 10000 hours theory work for sports.....

[@quizzydizzy]

Colorful insight into the 10,000 hrs theory;i get where he's approaching from considering he's in Private equity,i mean these guys are looking to acquire startups & early stage companies hopefully turn them around (speedily) and exit early (speed). So innately speed is key for him. However in Gladwell's theory he's taking about complex cognitive tasks eg chess grand master,pianist,artists,programmers,some sports etc. Not to denigrate totally what he's saying there will be some instances where speed is rewarded/punished and vice versa leading to the hare/tortoise mindset argument all over again.

[@mzwandilengodwana3536]

Quantity does not always give us Quality

[@Similo_D]

is it Antifragile by Nassim Taleb who also says the 10k hours is valid if rules don't change? I think so. I like the speed idea, fantastic!

[@turischool]

awesome video speed is important than time spent

[@bonnymathebula007]

That’s apples and oranges comparison. 10k is more applicable on Sports or talent related fields. Business doesn’t require daily practices like most sports does. You can reach the top in two years or after 10 years or 100 years. Like retail business for instance. You may need 10k hours to become the best speaker. But to build a business model around that talent, maybe such a a coaching/training company, it will take more than 10k hours. Coz the are other people/employees involved & the market & demand is forever changing as you put it. You could have made your point without making reference to or disputing Malcolm’s theory. Perhaps you wanted to gain the Attention of his audience, which would be brilliant. Be that as it may, you remain an inspiration to us. Respect

[@lindabenton1436]

Super insightful that I ended up subscribing. I discovered your channel just now and you have yourself a follower

[@alissaht]

Thanks for sharing, Vusi,. However, I think Kodak's expert engineers' work was only undermined by KodaK's marketing strategy team who did not redefine Kodak;s value proposition fast enough as an expert would...So maybe that strategy team has worked on their hours elsewhere by now :)

[@Margineers]

Totally agree, I believe technology has contributed to the speed factor being important now.

[@iggydjayh]

the cinematography here

[@MajorShot]

Read 'Mastery' by Robert Greene, this theories that to become a master in your field you need to put in 10 000 hours and becoming a master isn't meaning great at it while the rules remain constant but devolping creativity and having access to solutions many other can't see, hence still gaining the ability to adapt to rule changes.

[@nzungu7773]

I have been too lazy to read book. I guess this is a sign. #Mastery

[@axeglobaledunetwork5877]

Value Value " timing & speed "

[@Kyle-hq2rm]

Gladwell is not the source of the 10,000 hours argument. The source is a Swedish psychologist named Ericsson

[@thatomagagula4663]

The faster you learn, the more you’ll earn.

[@tabokamoalosi1494]

okay. so here's my opinion. i believe the 10 000 rule is still relevant. just that now you have to be flexible in your approach because like he said, the market changes, consumers want better things as such the goal must stay the same yes, and you only change your approach.

[@elmuszhakata7277]

Good thinker you are Sir. Interesting.

[@puleletshwiti-jones7705]

Good Day Mr Thembekwayo. We have an online radio platform that educates students. Therefore are we permitted to use this video clip, convert it to a soundbite and use it for our radio show? on condition we credit you?

[@drfranklin5638]

"In the modern-day speed is important..." Thank you sir!

[@rendanimamphiswana6969]

I guess it is a strategic approach to challenge theories of others, my issue is that you are picky on what Malcolm spoke about to push your point. From the original work of cognitive psychologist Prof Anders Ericsson, it is made clear that: the 10k hours is only an average; and it is not more of the same thing, it is keeping up with changes in the field, including entrance, to get better against competition. Another thing, to simply exist for more than 10k is excluded from the theory - example about Kodak is irrelevant. They lost track of the industry's trajectory. Anyway, good attempt to make a point about new entrance toppling over giants. If you have not read Built to Last and Good to Great by Jim Collins, please read. The idea of speed is flawed in the long term - sustainability of the business. Another book is Angela Duckworth's Grit.

[@Shubham-ph2ww]

Thanks Vusi

[@siphelelemhlongo5020]

you just got a new subscriber, i do not completely agree but you argued your point well

[@kaidouchekaidoucha7723]

Nice speed is more important then time consuming

[@pahanin2480]

I know people who put in far greater than 10,000 hours at the casino and they’ve become great at getting closer to bankruptcy

[@winstonk400]

I agree!

[@calebmthokozisinkosi679]

Yes it applies to business and no you misunderstood his point: Let us look at the Bill Gates example; he started learning about programming and software development in high-school which eventually led to him dropping out of tertiary. My question, was Bill Gate one dimensional in his thinking? In other words did he not develop beyond the initial 10 000 hours? The 10 000 hours was the base of Bill Gate's success and its important to acknowledge; had he not done those hours he would never have been the great entrepreneur we know him to be now think of it more as his Research and Development phase without R&D you don't often get a great end product he didn't certainly imply the intial 10 000 hours should be taken as the alpha & omega of being in business, ofcourse business changes at rapid pace in modern times if there's new technology that affects how you do business for example eCommerce is a huge consideration for any modern business you will have to do research and development to factor in these new requirements of the times but in the case of Microsoft they still haven't lost their core of software programming despite having a lot of new modern product offerings if you take the 10 000 hours as the base you will understand the point he was making hence I disagree with your line of thinking on this one.

[@malikrumi1206]

That's funny. Speed is not at all where I was expecting you to go with this. Given your examples, isn't adaptability the key asset? Even speed of adaptation isn't necessarily correct, if it means not taking the time to truly read the tea leaves and understand which adaptation will be best for the long term.

[@kikianasahmad2328]

Very true indeed.

[@iteitsmeok]

what is there to challenge the more you do something the better you get at it simples

[@soultouchin]

Whilst this is a great argument, the book talks of many other factors that affect success like luck and timing etc.

[@emmanuelr710]

Very interesting

[@themeditatingmonkeya.k.agu7004]

that taken from Robert Greene Matery book right?

[@callingdrjones6976]

Quite simplistic reasoning I would say. Your argument is flawed in assuming that the 10,000 hours do not include practicing how to be adaptable/creative. Both skills that are learnable. Secondly, the issue of speed vs time. Of course if you learn faster then you don't need 10000 hours. Increasing intensity of learning, quicker access to information (internet), mentors etc all can reduce the speed with which to reduce time required to acquire a skill. But this doesn't mean that "Malcom got it wrong". He actually addresses the issue mentioning extra gifted people like Beethoven who roughly got it in 8yrs (80,000hrs approx).

[@terryghinya]

Dude it took 6 mins for you to simply introduce that 6 mins is more important. Where's the speed vele?

[@Studio39DesignStudio]

Well. i won't get more precis than that...

[@ocubex]

Wow...

[@vamsikrishnacinematicvlogs]

but how to increase the speed vusi!!!!??

[@samuelmureithi5002]

vamsi krishna exactly!!!

[@ipeeonyou3728]

My brain just got titilated

[@andrewkachimba7661]

damn!this guy.so right

[@cbk4137]

i love this video

[@emmanuelbamidele1976]

nice

[@caringtonmathalephahlamohl7487]

TRASH: You started off very well, but you ended up trying forcing business parameters into the 10,000 hour theory,. This theory was based on effort and mastery of a task. Hence it was studied over/mainly on athletes. Your analogy must also take into account that business is brought in terms of contexts, market etc. IN SHORT, if you want to challenge a theological theory from physics, you have to switch context, and argue from the context of the premise/basis of the theory. You are still arguing form a business perspective, but the premise of the theory is/was not that of business.

[@caringtonmathalephahlamohl7487]

In addition, speed and time are inversely proportional, and thus it would be wiser to rather use distance/progress with speed, which requires less time. That, my friend, is what would drive towards derivation of a better business model.

[@christophermichael5764]

But everything he has said has literally been proven true. It was completely objective and relates to where we are today...music, sports, education. and in business. Consumers don't care how long it took you to master something as long as you get them what they want quicker than everyone else. McDonald's, Apple Music, Amazon, electronic pay/banking... I hear what you're saying. But I also physically SEE what he is saying.

[@christophermichael5764]

respectfully

[@caringtonmathalephahlamohl7487]

He has definitely done well for himself, so has McDonalds, Amazon, etc., as you mention. However, my point was that of a conceptual image, for he is trying to come from such point of view, in which sense, he is applying/challenging a concept outside of the context he's in. Hence I acknowledge that he started well, but then brought an application of a concept into a wrong context. He shouldn't have referenced how the experiment was carried out (physical activity measures), because then it would have remained high level. Business is all about delivery, but sports is all about putting in the work. Both do adhere to time, but business has an advantage of exponential time speed-ups, while sports follows mostly a linear time model (of cause neglecting talents etc).

[@ceskehry]

you can be good at bad things... although it may take less than 10K hours :D

[@ballonbeers]

This Theory is confirmed by the career of C. Ronaldo !, However, the speed element can not be applied to the sporting world.

[@bradleyolateju551]

special

[@9144iggy]

Very challenging! Anyone out for some pizza?

[@thirteenusc]

The 10,000 hour rule doesn't exist! It's a myth. If you read the actual research by K. Anders Ericsson, you will understand this "misconception better. Or have a look at this blog article: www.passion2excellence.com/blog/the-10000-hour-rule-is-a-myth-but-the-findings-on-expert-performance-are-not

[@mbalintshingila4695]

what a beast

[@waltermoilwa]

?

[@neilarora7919]

Mbali Ntshingila have some shame

[@enlivenconsolidatedptyltd2775]

VELOCITY

[@zukomotloung6349]

I like you alot my man, big Vusi follower... But why do you speak like that? Weird accent.. goes and comes back, not natural. but hey, i digress....

[@cameron9225]

why must he sound like everyone else

[@kennethnjenga2041]

partially true partially false. when you attain 10000 hr so quickly you may not get the experience of maybe dealing with a loss or any negative result and maybe coming from a losing position eg in boxing football tennis etc in a however neutral play the one who hits 10000 hr quickly is conversant with current trends and behaviour in theindustry. i term such person as possessed with their field. such aperson is likely to succeed. inn a situation he fails he gets in a worse position then the other fellow.

[@LOUDMOUTHFLAVORS]

So..... basically spend my 10,000 hours learning how not to spend 10,000 hours on anything? did he spend 10,000 hours crafting this message? lol

[@emmanuelzhungu315]

Its always interesting to hear how people think. I enjoy riding other peoples "trains of thought" But I always end up at the source of all sources. A quote from the best selling book in the whole world... The Bible. From a book written by the wisest and richest man who ever lived, KIng Solomon. This guy defines the term "Top 1%" in wealth and in wisdom and yet no 10k hours theory. Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. As the verse states, speed is the first to be shot down, followed by strength, and even wisdom and understanding are both shot down. Skill is also pulled down. That's the 10k hours isnt it? Time and Chance.

[@moneymanincash6816]

Ronaldo spent 10million hours practicing food ball but messi still better

[@boikoboramatebele6522]

Is it me or is this dude trying too hard to sound white? His accent is so annoying

[@Burnflesh82]

i expected you to say innovation not speed. you spoke so eloquently and yet made no sense.

[@kabelonkanyane4387]

You only get to learn quickly when you invest more hours. SPEED = TIME

[@vamsikrishnacinematicvlogs]

but how to increase the speed vusi!!!!??

[@imimbunjana6754]

vamsi krishna practice

[@salannymhlanga2721]

The problem arises when when we say " If you want to the best in ANY chosen field ". This is too much of a generalisation and therefore cannot apply to everybody or every field. Let me assume that the person who pioneered this theory was an expert in a certain field, he cannot be an advocate for all fields. Sadly, there is no single book on entrepreneurship that covers "everything" because markets, industries, economies etc are different. The challenge is to identify what works or doesn't work in your own business/industry.

[@tupaicindjeke275]

I agree, with the 10K hour. I started applying it myself after reading a book by Brian Tracy. In order to succeed at what I wanted to succeed at, I worked diligently, albeit only for some 7800, I am quiet competent now.

[@kaptanashikar]

you spend years perfecting your drawing of circles and straight lines and some kid comes with photoshop and does it in two seconds.. I fear that will happen for all aspects of the art.

[@michaelkoenane]

That’s the best and simplest explanation.

[@anothrdude]

I agree good point the aim is too make money not be good

[@TonettaClay]

I always wondered this concept, but didn't know how to tackle it. I'm glad you did and it makes sense to me. I was thinking along these lines because you see others coming up in business creating massive success, but only been open for a few years. Thanks for this video.

[@YoungDen]

Well said and many will not let it soak in. Basically focus on importance and master what will matter.

[@samuelmureithi5002]

If its an idea, it should be challenged. Thank you for challenging Gladwell. However, the way I read the 10,000 hours was, in a word, obsession. The outliers were absolutely obsessed with their craft, skill, idea, etc that brought them amazing success. Also, the examples you give are very heavily slanted to corporate behavior over the individual's own effort and focus. 10,000 hours is a great point of reference for the amount of work anybody has to put in for success. However 'speed' is too abstract... It's not actionable, measurable, or time bound, at least not in the same way the 10,000 hours principle is. It isn't really teachable either to a generation that is consumed with speed (especially of access and convinience) but do not have the foundational skills of discipline and practice which are pillars to personal success.

[@emmanuelr710]

A good example of speed vs hours in the modern day is Google search. There are some industries that relied on you not knowing something that is now searchable on Google in 4 seconds. Efficiency and speed is the silver bullet for this time.

[@011azr]

Sadly this is true. Just put 10,000 hours on a skill that hardly ever change with huge value like leadership, management, and communication skills. We shouldn't put way too much emphasis on something that changes regularly. Unfortunately, I have to put way too much of effort on something that change way too often (computer) because of circumstances. Yeah, call me whatever but I'm continuing my graduate study at CS because of others:'(.

[@brawncowen2851]

Enough Said. On Point most of these critics are actually NOT in business therefore are oblivious to what its really like creating value for your customer.

[@sadiqayodeji688]

maxwell didn't get it wrong because Robert Greene said the same thing in his book mastery, he said it takes 10000 hours to reach mastery that you have gained enough capacity to bend and change the rules.

[@albertalbert7958]

Summary: in business an idea may become obsolete after you spend 10k hours in it so the speed of learning new material is more important than the hours invested. Save your time, no need to watch the video if ypu reas my summary.

[@Kevincalles]

Unless you have practiced something for 10 thousand hours, you can't say anything because other than that it's just personal opinion.,.

[@ThaboSixishe]

great observation speed matters like in F1 for example

[@Ndeikariuki]

I like Vusi ..Vusi Thembekwayo are you "Traveling"? brother

[@LVXBeats058]

Just found your channel and subscribed. Thanks for your perspective my nigga!

[@poetry221]

I believe the understanding you have on how things work is because you have done 10 000 hours 😂

[@pinny492]

The 10 000 hour rule was never accurate at all. What the data actually showed is a huge individual variation in hours required, with 10 000 hours being an average. It is abundantly clear that different people cannot reach the same standard of performance given the same amount of time, effort or training.I personally doubt very much that anybody can reach the top 1% if they apply themselves. I practiced piano for 9000 hours and probably would be in the top 50 percentile, not even remotely close to elite level.Every minute of that practice was deliberate and %100 focused using all the best established methods from the best teachers. It would take me at least 30 or 40 years of training at 4 hours per day to get anywhere near the top 10% let alone 1%. Talent is key here.Either you have it or you dont.Practice is not the answer.

[@moneymanincash6816]

Ronaldo spent 10million hours practicing food ball but messi still better

[@bamideleoluwatobi2890]

We have companies and other organizations that have existed for decades, and yet some guys will gather themselves and can easily send them off the market (the major prove of disruptive innovation that will have all around today). If I can catch up with you means I already know what you know and most especially what you don't, it's simple.

[@khulekanizuma6608]

My black powerful brother i respect u muntu omnyam its possible

[@Shubham-ph2ww]

Thanks to "Vusi & Research Team"

[@nayinayi1]

Basic physics will tell you that speed is measured by distance over time. Time has value always bcz without it, then your speed would be impossible....