[codeslush]

The part that struck me was when he said something along the lines of: It takes 10,000 (or 15,000) hours just to get the necessary knowledge. Then, you are at step one. You may or may not be good, but don't know until you've put in the required time.

Also, the immediate authenticity I felt by this man and this story is something amazing. Great way to start my day.

[marisela_arias]

"10,000 hours of training, according to Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers. Gladwell based this assertion on the work of Anders Ericsson, who studied classical violinists and found that, in every case, it had taken a regimen of 2-3 hours a day for 10 years to develop their abilities. Later research by Ericsson and others confirmed similar results in other fields."

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/on-luck-success-a...

[jeira]

I don't think it is as straightforward as that. Imagine you're learning chess and you have a chess master as your teacher, you are going to annihilate someone who has putted the same amount of time, even more, but who doesn't have such a good teacher.

[bricestacey]

Yeah, the original states that the practice must be deliberate. Of course, generally better practice would prevail.

[pegasus]

And that little side-note unravels the whole argument: how much better can practice be? Can it be so focused that one reaches mastery in 5k hours? 1k? To what degree is being a fast learner in a field a talent?

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-1000...