is the 10k hours to reach a skill mastery scientific enough or

>>8810386
Oooh finally a cool question on here

If you haven't mastered whatever thing you have been working on for 416 days worth of practice, you probably should consider what you are doing wrong.

>>8810386
Dumb frog poster.

iirc it comes from a study done on elite and mediocre violinists.

considering that it's a view advocated by the igon value man I would not consider it reliable

>>8810562
dumb dumb frog poster poster

>>8810564
This is probably right.

The ten thousand hours idea is almost always applied in the context of becoming a virtuoso on a given instrument.

Look into the empirical data on known masters. All of them were fully formed within a statistically irrelevant length of time from starting their thing, if not from birth.

>>8810386
The latter, I'm afraid.
It'll get you far, but it's not enough to really make you a master.
I did the calculations regarding the amount of piano practice I get. I'm getting close to 10k, but as good as I am currently, I would never call myself a master like Arthur Rubinstein or something like that.
Try 20k maybe, and that's just for the really gifted ones.
Everybody that claims 10k is enough, doesn't really understand what true self-devotion is and what a long way you need to go to really master something.

>>8810386
Yes, if you spend 10,000 hours on adding the numbers 2 and 2 together, I can safely and reasonably assume you will have mastered this skill

Same applies for such skills as "programming Hello World"

>>8810386

Fear not the man who practices 10,000 kicks once, but the man who has practised 1 kick 10,000 times.

>>8810587
When did you start playing the piano anon?

I played an instrument as a kid but wanted to start learning the piano this summer

>>8810587
>I fuck about on the piano playing random shit for an hour an call that practice.

No, anon, only REAL practice counts. Sitting down with a fucking metronome and concentrating. Shit that will actually make you a better musician.

>>8810386
It's pseudoscience but it's a good metric and a reminder that if you want to be good at something you have to put a lot of work in.

For example, the number 10,000 comes from a long study of violinists at a music school in Berlin. They found that the difference between the mediocre and the good players was about a 2,000 hour difference (mediocre players practiced about 2,000 hours total during their time at the school). The difference between good and great was about 6,000 hours and the average time spent by a great player was about 10,000 hours total while they were at the school. That's where the 10,000 hour rule comes from. None of these violinists went on to become Mozart, but they all became successful professional musicians and were good enough to make a living doing nothing but playing music.

The nail in the coffin for the 10,000 hour rule is how long it takes to become a chess grandmaster. The average amount of practice is somewhere around 15,000 hours but some have done it in as little as 4,000 and some have taken up to 140,000 hours to achieve the same feat. Still, no one has become a chess master without practicing.

There are a few things to take away from this. First, there is a thing called talent and if you don't have it you have a long road ahead of you.

Second, no one becomes a master in something without practicing. The 10,000 hour rule is a good target for the scale of practice required to become world class at something. To hit 10,000 hours in 10 years requires 3 hours of practice every single day. That is a serious commitment that most people are not willing to make towards anything.

Third, there is a special category of talent called genius, and we are even less close to understanding it than we are to understanding talent. Some people like Beethoven and Mozart go beyond mastery into the realm of legend and transcendence. No matter how much you practice composing you will most likely never be as good as them.

>>8813681
Are all those hours deliberate practice, though?

Very nice response btw. I don't think I'll ever have the passion or dedication to do anything for 10000 hours. How do people do it, man? How do people get that kind of drive? Even on /sci/ there are people who love math or physics and devote a tremendous amount of time to studying. I really admire these kinds of people; they're truly amazing.

>>8813681
But /sci/ told me being a true master is effortless, and he should be doing whatever he's a master of perfectly first time and every time. Why even bother trying?

You can get good at a thing with 10000 hours of practice but you cannot be a genius if you weren't born to be one. It's just another meme to make people feel special, muh equality and everybody stands a chance.

>>8813704
Thanks. Regarding your question, they should be hours where you are doing nothing but focusing intently on what your are practicing. A good analogy is working up a sweat at the gym. There is a big difference between walking on the treadmill while watching TV and working up to squatting 300 pounds with accessory work afterwards.

I used to not have the motivation to do anything for 10,000 hours either and the motivation is going to be unique to each person. For me, I realized that I had the potential to much greater things than I ever imagined possible so long as I was willing to put in the effort. I also feel that it's better to try and fail than not try at all. It's likely that if you try to become the best at something and fail what will happen is that you'll just be world class instead, and that's something to be proud of and happy about.

>>8814356
/sci/ is full of undergrads and unaccomplished people. Take that however you will.

>>8814400
I think that most people with above average skill in something can become world class with about 10,000 hours of effort put into it. A lot of people for instance excel in a particular academic discipline. I think these people could become professors with enough time invested.

Most people will never go down in history for anything, but the world is rotated by people who are merely "great" at what they do. The main point I think is just to highlight the enormous amount of effort that is required to accomplish anything significant.

File: 1491599691250.jpg (70KB, 768x435px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 768x435px

>>8813623
This poster is right. When I focus on the guitar without daydreaming and do my best to play as clean and possible in a steady rhythm, I see the difference right away. Most of the time though I play it when I'm bored.