logan235 wrote:
I remember hearing recently from a neuroscientist how the 10,000-hours idea was the result of incorrect statistical interpretation from the original study (about some classical musicians trying out for a group), and then unfortunately misapplied outside of the study's context by others. He went on to talk about the details of the original study, and that most reporting journalists didn't seem to check the original study themselves.
At least reasonable people understand the absurdity. When I see the "10,000 hours ______" I feel like I'm reading a tabloid headline. It seems people in general need more judicious use of their BS filter. What a joke.
{Yes the key thing here is that it takes 10, 000 hours of {proper practice} to get better}, not just 10, 000 hours of doing whatever so the language analogy doesn't work.
Each color and bracket contains something I take issue with. Wow, 5 in one, well done