There's a "100 hour rule" now

[jerwin]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-38723-Neo-I-know-kung-fu-gif-Imgur-bUjp.gif

[anon29631895]

@beschizza

Yes another perfectly good thread hijacked by the “Aikido and COBOL” crowd.

Is there a 5 hr rule on thread hijacking?

[renke]

5 hours. The time Heston Blumenthal estimates for his slow-roasted rib of beef.

[enso]

@anon29631895

Is there a 5 hr rule on thread hijacking?

Morihei’s Law of Aikidokas

[Phaseshifter]

I think he’s onto something with the idea of there being a threshold of competence where egregious mistakes stop being made, and that it generally takes more than two weeks but less than a month to train someone past it.

Possibly.
But if you believe those numbers, I think you need to watch the Engineering Disasters episodes of Modern Marvels.

[DevinC]

I don’t care if you’re any good. If you can devote this much of your life to something day in, day out, you are an ISO 9000 Certified Badass.

[anon34812172]

@albill

Morihei’s Law of Aikidokas

Gracie’s Law of BJJers will kick Morihei’s Law of Aikidokas’ ass!

(that was farrrrr too complicated of a damn joke.)

[anon75430791]

I believe we call that “unpaid internships”

[anon33466019]

Or an ISO 9000 certified dumbass but I sincerely appreciate the comment. (Music keeps me out of too much trouble)

[Papasan]

Bingo!

[DevinC]

I’m the opposite. I have the attention span of a flashcube. I’ve got a few hundred hours in a lot of different skills, all of which are just enough to convince someone with 0 hours I’m an expert, and convince someone with 1000 hours I’m an idiot.

[smulder]

I was guessing “100 hour rule” was the current mean time between mass shootings.

[beep54orama]

Eggytoast has good suggestions. Mine is, learn classical guitar. You’ll also learn to read music (and you’ve absolutely NO idea how much fun it can be to be able to actually read a score while hearing the piece. When I was a teen I saw Horowitz play Chopin on PBS and actually had the scores for most of the pieces. Was able to go: "Hey, he made a mistake there ) and you can’t help but learn actual songs. Also, scales are WAY good. Don’t give up.

[kupfernigk]

@redesigned

sure practice helps you improve any skill, that is obvious, but there is something called NATURAL APTITUDE that has a multiplier effect where someone can be as good at 10hrs as someone else would be at 1000hrs.

I simply don’t believe this.

True story; years ago when I was teaching, the parents of one of my pupils were very keen for him to learn the violin. He was not so keen…anyway, his parents took him to hear the Amadeus String Quartet, at the time one of the leading UK groups, and to go backstage after the performance.
So he asked the violinist how long a day he spent practising. And the violinist said “Well, when I was younger I used to do about 8 hours a day but nowadays I keep it down to 5”.

There are people who lack the innate intelligence, muscle coordination or persistence to learn certain skills, that’s true. But the 10 000 hour rule is based on real research, and I have to say my own experience bears it out. 10 000 hours is about 5 years or so of working at something. When acquiring a signifcant skill, the brain itself has to adapt - research has shown that parts of the brain actually grow during the skill acquisition process and we now know that neurons are continually being created in people who are actively learning. That process takes a long time. Ten hours is not enough to get newly acquired knowledge into long term memory, let alone muscle memory.

[anon68939300]

Ok, sure it can happen. It’s also possible that a monkey at a typewriter is talking to you right now.

I’m just saying that there is a foundation of easily obtained knowledge that gives one an enormous head start and lets you communicate with others. Take a caveman, dump him into a modern kitchen, show him a loaf of bread and tell him to replicate it. He probably won’t succeed at that task in his lifetime.

OTOH, he probably would figure out a piano.

[anon50609448]

Yes, but with the Pareto Principle applied as I described above, so 20 hours.

[redesigned]

@kupfernigk

I simply don’t believe this.

Awwww did your parents tell you that you could be anything you want to be? I hope your career as an astronaut and professional basketball star are going well for you! congratulations! I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but the cold hard reality is no, you cannot master any skill, and the number of hours it takes to progress in any skill varies as widely as the people trying it. There is no rule. Not even remotely close.

@kupfernigk

But the 10 000 hour rule is based on real research

hahahaha. No, no it isn’t. the mastery of many skills is based on physical and mental characteristics that cannot be taught, period. Like I said everyone has a natural range that they can progress within, but that range has limitations and the number of hours required to progress varies in many cases by at least a factor of 10.

you can never be a contortionist, or likely ever be a star dunker on a basketball team, or a chess grandmaster. some people are those things with very little effort. there are people who can play on the piano any song they hear first time, with no practice. Some people don’t even have fingers or can’t hear. Sure those are extreme examples, but you’d have to be daft to think that those same variation don’t exist to a degree in all people.

These X number of hour rules are absolute rubbish psudo science self help feel good garbage.

@kupfernigk

research has shown that parts of the brain actually grow during the skill acquisition process and we now know that neurons are continually being created in people who are actively learning.

also, you are confusing synaptic connections with neurons. CNS was one of my majors.

I do think practice will improve any skill, that is a no brainer. The range you can achieve and how quickly you progress vary widely based on natural aptitudes. there are a few skills that most people could master, but they are the exceptions, and even so the time required to master them is so different as to make any rule meaningless.

[kupfernigk]

@redesigned

CNS was one of my majors.

Spelling and punctuation weren’t, though.

I venture to doubt you. For instance

@redesigned

Like I said everyone has a natural range that they can progress within, but that range has limitations and the number of hours required to progress varies in many cases by at least a factor of 10.

“varies in many cases by at least a factor of 10” - versus your ten hours against ten thousand, which is a 1000 factor. But in any case the sentence is garbled.

@redesigned

absolute rubbish psudo[sic] science self help feel good garbage.

Piling on the abuse isn’t an argument.

@redesigned

Awwww did your parents tell you that you could be anything you want to be? I hope your carrier[sic] as an astronaut and professional basketball star are going well for you! congratulations!

That’s a bit of a straw man since I do actually point out that people’s innate aptitudes do vary.

@redesigned

but the cold hard reality is no, you cannot master any skill

Well, it’s nice of you to say so (assuming you mean what you just wrote there). I probably can’t now because I doubt I have enough life expectancy left, but obviously I was deluded as to what skills I thought I had.

@redesigned

and the number of hours it takes to progress in any skill varies as widely as the people trying it.

If you really did a science degree at a proper university I am surprised you cannot formulate a statistical function any better than than that. A distribution in which sigma = sample size is not one we commonly find in nature.

In short, whether or not you are correct in what you say, your inability to construct grammatical sentences reliably, your inability to counter-argue without rudeness and abusive terms, and your completely cavalier way with numbers all combine to reduce your credibility in print.

[enso]

@kupfernigk

But the 10 000 hour rule is based on real research

which was debunked but which Malcolm Gladwell handwaved for his populist tripe.

[redesigned]

@kupfernigk

If you really did a science degree at a proper university I am surprised you cannot formulate a statistical function any better than than that.

yep, 3 degrees. i’ll try and do better on my comments, i didn’t realize that this message board was a peer reviewed journal, here i thought it was just casual informal conversation.

@kupfernigk

I venture to doubt you.

fair enough. i’ll get over it.

@kupfernigk

Spelling and punctuation weren’t, though.

but i’ve spent over 10,000 hrs writing (email, comments, texts), shouldn’t i be at mastery level? LOL.

WOW I obviously offended you with my informal writing style, so much so that you only focused on that and missed every single point. geeze.

you’ll never be able to a master contortionist, it requires you be genetically double jointed. you’ll never be a mater lever sprinter, it requires a genetic physiology combination of fast twitch muscles and tendon length. You’ll never be able to master dunking unless you are of a certain height and/or have achilles tendons and hamstrings of a length to compensate.

there are tons of documented examples of individuals who can play any song they hear on the piano, without ever having taken a lesson, one guy got this ability after a concussion. take the russian and chinese chess academies, the students there all put in the same number of hours yet some of them are playing at master level within a very short time, some never get even close, ever.

how can you account for any of those things?
how can you not acknowledge that natural aptitude plays a huge role in how quickly or slowly an individual progresses in learning a skill?
how can you not acknowledge that natural aptitude determines if one is even able to master many skills at all?
how can you not acknowledge physical/mental/genetic limiters?
haven’t you ever heard anyone referred to as “a natural” at something?

seriously, this stuff should be obvious with even a modicum of critical examination.

humans have highly varied abilities, and that is a good thing.
there are no rules that anyone can master any skill, they can’t. only a small percentage of the population is ever able to master most skills regardless of time spent.
there are no rules about how quickly or slowly anyone can master a skill, this varies so widely as to make any rule meaningless.

these are all good things.

there are natural abilities and disabilities. the are aptitudes and barriers. that is life.