The 10k hr Rule - Another Perspective

Why the Famous Finding May Not Mean What You Think

By now, everyone knows this one: On average performers must put in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in order to attain expertise.

Not to split hairs, but, the average number is actually closer to 11,000.  But, that's less critical.  The 10k-hours-or-10-year-rule sounds catchier anyway.  What's more critical, and more striking--yet hardly, if ever, mentioned--is the range of hours.  

In one study of chess experts, one player reached master level in 3,000 hours while another took 23,000 hours.  The true working range for attaining mastery in many domains may be even wider, perhaps 5,000 to 45,000 hours. Who knows.  Sure, the average may settle on a nice quotable number --10 years or 10,000 hours-- but that doesn't tell us much.  It certainly doesn't buttress the rabidly pro-nurture conclusion that typically accompanies the 10k hour discussion.  

When we read about the 10k-hour rule, we eagerly latch onto two comforting takeaways: 

1. "Anyone, even I, can attain world-class skills;" and 
2. "Given the findings, I now know what's needed to do so: commit to a uniform practice regiment of about 10k hours!" 

Unfortunately, that's not quite true. The sheer range behind that average effectively undercuts both of those takeaways.

Look at it this way.  If a thousand hours works out to be about a year of practice, the range discussed above represents a difference of several decades!  Hardly a uniform practice regiment. And here's another way to look at it: Some people need to practice 8-9 times as much as others to reach the very same level of proficiency.  (Talk about injustice!) 

Why would this be? What explains that vast difference in training requirements?  Most likely it's what experts call The Matthew Effect: People innately more gifted in a given dimension respond better to training.*  As David Epstein points out in his book, The Sports Gene , the participants initial traits and  conditions matter-

"If one person learns each chunk in nine seconds and the other person eleven seconds, those small differences are going to be amplified.  [sic] It's a sort of butterfly effect of expertise.  If two practitioners start with slightly different initial conditions [...] it can lead to dramatically different outcomes, or at least to drastically different amounts of practice that will be required for similar outcomes." 

And people always have different initial conditions.  Always.  So, to say that environmental factors fully explain expertise is misleading. If we mean that given enough time engaged in the right or "deliberate" practice, most people can attain a given threshold of performance…ok, maybe. But, in most worthwhile pursuits, it's not the absolute performance level that matters--it's the relative performance that matters.  It's not enough to practice a bunch and get good at, say, hitting a baseball. You have to hit better than the other guys (many other guys).  

Certainly in any field where people compete for a finite number of slots--say professional athletics or medical surgery-- those who start out with an innate advantage will dominate those slots. If you're just a little faster or a little smarter, you'll respond better to training.  Perhaps just a tad better; but as Epstein points out those small difference amplify over time. In other words, innate factors make all the difference. While time in the practice arena will determine our fate, it's often our genes that serve as the ticket to the practice arena.

----

*Or to paraphrase Matthew in the New Testament, “The rich get richer…”