10,000 Hour Rule

yea, there's something fishy here, I can understand how 10k hours of doing something will make you really good even if you sucked at it at first, but why should you not be able to become really good in less time? there are people with extreme capabilities that become very good at what they do in much less time, but as fame grows they keep on doing what they do best with obsession until they hit the 10k mark, even if they are already "world class". they keep on getting better but as their rivals get better it's less recognizable.

This has certainly stirred up a lot of controversy. You are correct that somewhere along the line talent and hard work have to be combined.

I will also look at some of the criticism of Gladwell's book. I suspect that some of the ideas in Outliers are not popular with those on the political left and others are not popular with those on the political right.

Does this 10k theory apply only to mental pursuits, or are the physical included too?

And why would a doctor advise someone to not play too much chess?

Good questions. One of Gladwell's best examples in support of the 10,000 hour rule involved world class violinist. That is both a mental and a physical skill.

Why would a doctor advise someone not to play too much chess is a good question.

Fncll was correct that Outliers has been subject to some withering criticism but there were ideas in it that made sense to me including the 10,000 hour rule and the long section on Korean Air Lines. My wife is Korean and everything she tells me about Korea fits. So, despite the legitimate criticism of Gladwell in some quarters, I haven't rejected all of his ideas either. For criticism of the book see:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/book-of-the-week-outliers-by-malcolm-gladwell-1027343.html

As someone who has studied learning (and practicing it from both ends daily), I need to add to the discussion that it's very important to recognize the distinction between a process called "effortful study" (as referred in the literature) and what we would otherwise categorize as casual spending of time. 

Only through "effortful study" -- i.e., constantly and consciously working to stretch your horizons -- will you ever become better than you are at whatever domain you're engaged in.  The alternative -- of casual time passing -- would not yield almost any qualitative results despite amassing huge chunks of time in the respective endeavor.  In our situation with chess, simply moving pieces around won't teach you much at all, if you never analyze your games and those of others, or put in time to learn new techniques and tactics.  Just ask any amateur who has played for decades -- they'll tell you they are just as strong as they once were.

In addition to Gladwell's 10,000 hours, there is also another interesting threshold -- that of early competence.  It is typically passed around just 100 hours with the subject.  But again, those are hours of effortful, directed study toward a goal.  The results there are very pronounced and even easily recognizable by the person -- since just 100 hours before that this person used to not know anything at all about that subject/skill.

This is what annoys me about the topic so much.  If some people need far less than 10000 hours to master a skill, and some people will never reach that no matter how many hours they put in -- and that's absolutely the case -- what value is there in a 10000 hours figure?  Everyone's mileage will vary; everyone's skill is a complex product of talent x practice/study.  A nice round number sounds good in a magazine article, but it's not really worth repeating as the gospel so many people take it to be.  It's a junk conclusion.

Spiffe:  I believe I have an answer (partial, at least) to your question in my previous post.  It takes 10,000 hours of "effortful study" to achieve mastery of a subject; what "mastery" means is of course subjective and highly dependent on the person and the area of study.  But -- and this is the critical point -- if it's not effortful study, then the number (or presence of raw talent) doesn't matter -- you'll never get to the level of mastery that you otherwise could have reached.

And you're right -- 10,000 is just a round, memorable number which is equally good as 9,042, for instance.