EPTThe 10000 rule. The way to mastery - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
| ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
You can't apply the same scale to every skill? It's as simple as that... Some skills are harder to master than others. 'Mastering' something is a bit tough to define anyway. I'd say I'm a 'master' of tic-tac-toe. But who isn't? And we certainly didn't spend 10,000 hours earning that distinction. | ||
|
ionize
Ireland399 Posts
For languages I think 10000 hours is a good notion to get an idea how long it takes to get realy proficient. Listen to any language 10000 hours and be immersed in a language environment for 10000+ hours (inculding, reading, playing, eating, etc) and you will eventually be proficient. Also another gaming example: I played UT for well over 10 years, let's say 8 years raw time. If I am mild I'd average my hours spend per day to about two and a half. Which would mean 8*365*2.5=7300 hours. It's a good enough calculation. My skill level was decent and I still got beaten many times over. The simple difference was the hours spent, most of my clanmates and duel partners would've an average of 3-4 hours over 8 years which would be 8760 and 11680 hours respectively. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:39 chenchen wrote: There are lots of things that take far longer than 10,000 hours to reach the "highest levels". Piano would be the most obvious example. Most people simply aren't capable. I know from a lot of FFR and DDR/ITG experience when you come down to it people aren't actually physically capable of moving that fast. Most people aren't physically capable of hitting arrows at a speed of 12 steps per second for a full 2-3 minutes, which is what you need to be able to do to become a world class player. | ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
| ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
And to be an expert on all the knowledge in the universe all I have to do is spend 10k hours on it? Come on, man! Instead of some random number how about we say this: If you want to get better than other people at a particular skill, you'll probably have to spend a lot of time practicing. And some people will be able to practice less and still be better... | ||
|
daffodil
Australia109 Posts
| ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:57 Figgy wrote: Most people simply aren't capable. I know from a lot of FFR and DDR/ITG experience when you come down to it people aren't actually physically capable of moving that fast. Most people aren't physically capable of hitting arrows at a speed of 12 steps per second for a full 2-3 minutes, which is what you need to be able to do to become a world class player. It only requires a person to be moderately fit to pass streamy 14s or 15s, and FA comes from practice. If you're healthy and under 35, you should be able to reach the top levels of ITG without too much trouble from training alone. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
| ||
|
dapanman
United States316 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:43 feanor1 wrote: I think anyone could of deduced that if you put 10,000 hours into something [...] you are going to be pretty damn good at it. Made me laugh, thanks. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
| ||
|
dmillz
Canada270 Posts
| ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
IIRC about 600 days on that | ||
UncleOwnage
Denmark36 Posts
Do they mean focused practice? What is focused practice for games? Is it sufficient to ladder for fun in SC2 for example? I've heard of this rule before, and I wouldn't dismiss it. Also, I think people should remember that related activities contribute to each other. For example, people sitting down to play SC2 will be very different skill-wise the first time if they come from different backgrounds. Someone who's played RTS games for his entire life will automatically have what we call a "talent" for SC2, while someone who's spent his days writing poetry, most likely won't. There probably also exists a "real" concept of talent, but doing research on this is nigh impossible. In any case, when you ask if there's some way to circumvent it, the only answer I can come up with is; play other RTS games. Having played a lot of RTS games before a given RTS game is released will automatically make you better at it, because they are immensely similar. | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
Imagine a world where Starcraft was the #1 sport and 80%+ of people all literally played at least 8 hours a day. It would take a little over three and a half years for someone to reach 10,000 hours. So the number of 'master' players in the world would be astonishingly high, essentially every person over the age of 16 who began playing at 12 or younger, would be a 'master'. The odds of one 'master' player beating another would not make much difference. With a huge number of players with 20,000, 30,000, or even 40,000 hours total SC time, the line would begin to skew, and 10,000 hours might make someone an amateur, 20,000 might become the new standard for 'mastery'. Competition always makes things relative. Besides this 'theory' completely ignores talent and the occasional miraculous virtuosos who take to a sport faster than anyone else (the Bruce Lees, Michael Jordans, Tiger Woodses, Yo-yo Mas, and Lee Young Hos of the world). | ||
|
Ruyguy
Canada988 Posts
| ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
The first time I heard it used was when I was talking to a teacher about what field I wanted to go in to. He told me that if I wasn't prepared to spend 10000 hours at it, then I should probably pick something else. | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
Take just speaking English. People have probably spent 100,000 hours practicing it by the time they hit 20, yet still speak like retards. lol | ||
|
insaneMicro
Germany761 Posts
On April 09 2011 02:36 SirKibbleX wrote: + Show Spoiler + This "rule" or "theory" is completely bogus. The reason is, even if the premise of the theory is true, that 10,000 hours magically makes you 'masterful' at something, it doesn't account for the fact that competition always seems to come into play. Imagine a world where Starcraft was the #1 sport and 80%+ of people all literally played at least 8 hours a day. It would take a little over three and a half years for someone to reach 10,000 hours. So the number of 'master' players in the world would be astonishingly high, essentially every person over the age of 16 who began playing at 12 or younger, would be a 'master'. The odds of one 'master' player beating another would not make much difference. With a huge number of players with 20,000, 30,000, or even 40,000 hours total SC time, the line would begin to skew, and 10,000 hours might make someone an amateur, 20,000 might become the new standard for 'mastery'. Competition always makes things relative. Besides this 'theory' completely ignores talent and the occasional miraculous virtuosos who take to a sport faster than anyone else (the Bruce Lees, Michael Jordans, Tiger Woodses, Yo-yo Mas, and Lee Young Hos of the world). I think you're reading too much inot this. Of course exactly 10.000 hours is not magically turning you into a master, that's a figure that sells books. What I get from this is that LOTS of practice are the most important thing to become good at something, and that's true I guess. I don't have the source from last thread ready, but someone showed pretty convincingly that "talent" has yet to proven to exist. | ||
| ||
