The “10,000-Hour Rule” Debunked: Here’s The Right Way To Learn A New Skill!

[@timelesssuccess]

This is so true! As a musician, there's a huge difference between practicing with intention and deep focus, versus practicing in front of TV. Mindless, distracted practicing might be a good warm-up, but it won't install new skills or give you a leap in your existing skills

[@BenNielsen87]

Gladwell made a general statement about the importance of practice, and an observed general amount of experience that is common in those that he considered to have "mastered" their craft. He didn't break it down into every conceivable variation of the argument, He didn't say it was supposed to be an absolute rule or that it would make you the best in the world. Obviously, having mastered something is a subjective measure. You could say that having mastered it, you have gone as far as you will go in it. This hasn't debunked anything, it just introduced much more specific language into his claim.

[@RickKettner]

It’s been a while since I read the book, but as I recall Gladwell provided specific examples that stretched the definition of “practice” to include whatever was needed to align with his 10,000 hour claim. In the case of The Beatles, he pointed to the (roughly) 10,000 hours spent performing their music during live shows. This form of “practice” bears virtually no resemblance with the “deliberate practice” that K. Anderson Ericsson (who is responsible for the research on which Gladwell’s argument is based) described as being necessary for advancing one’s ability in a meaningful way. So, while I think it’s fair to say the book promoted the general idea that practice is good, it made specific claims that don’t align with the science and may guide someone to invest vast amounts of time in a way that leads to little improvement. TLDR - Gladwell promoted the idea that accruing practice time leads to mastery, largely ignoring (and even detouring away from) the importance of how that time is spent.

[@hassanmadonga4996]

exactly

[@andrewclarkeguitar]

Some great stuff here! Definitely makes you reconsider the mysticism of the rule. I can imagine that learning how to spend all of your practice time "deliberately" would be pretty challenging for the average person.

[@RickKettner]

Yes, it's certainly not going to be attractive to people who are only vaguely interested in a goal. But for those that are serious about developing or improving their skills, it's far superior to naive practice.

[@إبن-العربي]

You provide us with a valuable content! That's what we seek! Cheers!

[@TheTarantube]

I love the pace of his articulation. Allows us to follow and process the words upon delivery How many hours did it take you to do it this well ? 😂. Thanks for the informative vid

[@ridwanurrashidrashid6228]

I believe in theory of 10000 hrs,,don't break my trust... can you tell me please which book shoul i read for acquiring the ability to work for 100 hour work weeks,,

[@sanjitdas4220]

Very much informative ........ Love from INDIA 🇮🇳

[@RickKettner]

Thanks, I'm glad you found it informative!

[@sanjitdas4220]

Can you tell me ..... Which book I should read to start my digital marketing career ???? I am little bit confused about it ....🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@RickKettner]

It depends on what your specific goals or objectives are. You can find nine great marketing books here, with a brief description of what you can expect to learn from each one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXyoo2VqpdGcf80

[@sanjitdas4220]

@@RickKettner ok thank you so much

[@work1264]

This channel is going to blow up, at some point. This content is FAR too unique and well created.

[@RickKettner]

Thank you for the kind words, I'm glad you enjoy the content!

[@noahrodrigues693]

Very good!

[@carlosbautista2247]

The 10 thousand hour Rule does work if it’s concentrated and dedicated time. During that time you have to take lessons, play live and immerse yourself into music, with technique and creativity. That is what the 10 thousand hour rule is about 😂.

[@RickKettner]

Except it isn’t. Several of the original examples cited by Malcolm Gladwell had almost nothing to do with proper practice. For example, he pointed to The Beatles having performed live for roughly 10,000 hours (largely repeating the same songs/performances from night to night) which has almost no connection to the idea of deliberate practice as covered by K. Anders Ericsson. I agree that it SHOULD be about taking lessons, immersing oneself in a craft, mastering new techniques, etc… BUT Gladwell certainly overemphasized the QUANTITY of practice over the QUALITY, and that is the issue. Meanwhile Ericsson, the researcher who Gladwell was inspired by, was almost exclusively focused on the quality of practice and never once insinuated there was some magical target like 10k hours that would turn someone into a genius. Gladwell seems to have pulled that number out of thin air - citing inconsistent, random examples to back up the assertion - perhaps because it’s a simple, catchy number that appeals to peoples desire for a predictable target. Meanwhile, what is most important of all is how one’s time is spent (quality), not how much is spent (quantity). TLDR: A more accurate rule would be “you can master almost any skill if you’re willing to engage in deliberate practice over many years”, but it’s not very catchy or precise :). So Gladwell just landed on a random practice target and used (wildly inconsistent) examples to back it up.

[@codehere142]

Feynman is the Best learner

[@RickKettner]

He has some excellent books as well!

[@jkovert]

Awwww, I wish I had watched this five years ago. I just finished 9999 hours. On the 10 thousandth as we speak. ...BAM! DONE! 10K. I guess the joke's on me.

[@RickKettner]

Aha

[@Thereisnorules]

It really is not debunking, clickbait

[@rajareddybommareddy4456]

Hiiiiiiiiiii I am from india

[@RickKettner]

Welcome to the channel!

[@allsouth8787]

🔥

[@krownheart1978]

if the 10000 hr rule isn't true let a rookie lead a battalion vs a veteran and lets see who comes out on top or place an A.I with 10,000 hrs Xp vs a newly created A.I and witness the outcome this vlog is a garbage reach for controversy your argument is that a baby with 0 hrs of experience has a chance at out performing someone with 10000 hrs experience in the same field

[@RickKettner]

Sorry, but that's not the message of this video. Experience matters, but not all experience is the same. Someone can spend 10,000 hours repeating what they learned in the first 10 hours and gain no further benefit. Meanwhile, someone else can spend 20 hours challenging themselves to acquire new skills and be further ahead in 1/500th of the time. In short, "time spent" isn't the most important metric, and chasing an arbitrary time target is a distraction. It's far more important to focus on how the time is being spent. That is the message of the man who inspired the rule in the first place, K Anders Ericsson.