Drawing at the level of that book isn't a hard problem, as, say, learning organic chemistry. Or is it? some people seem to have a natural ability in some things. In fact, the idea that some children naturally fall into "try harder" vs "this is too hard" camp points to something influenced by biology.
How about creating new solutions to what are considered hard industry problems?
If it takes you 10,000 hours to learn the basics Organic chemistry, can you say you succeeded? That's almost five years learning what most people do in five or ten weeks.
The 10,000 hour thing is about mastery. Is someone who spent ten weeks learning about organic chemistry able to operate on the same level as someone who has been working in the field for decades? I suspect the answer is no.
Anyone can learn how to play golf in just a few minutes, but what does it take to become a PGA-level player? The theory is that it only takes 10,000 hours of focused practice and it is currently being put to the test: http://thedanplan.com/
- the test: learning science is done via text. no tangible tests. as opposed to the pioneer of the subject field. They didn't pop theory out of thin air. Lots of intermediate steps/theories failed, many experiences that produce hints. Education systems assume students can cut corners on this and reach the same level of intuitions as the masters ? .. seems wrong.
- 'meta': the first subject you spend 10K hours on to reach some level of mastery, the next subject won't require as much, a lot of the first 10K journey was mostly about learning yourself, teaching yourself patience with regard to the relationship between preciseness and scalability. How to keep moving smoothly cm by cm when your goal is 1M meter.. Also detaching ego,emotions and perception. Don't be angry or sadistically attached to solve the problem. Focus on .. focus, not missing data, immersing yourself. Less emotions means to me less distraction, the less you miss the faster you reach your goal. Now that you've experienced a 1M meter journey, it will probably feel a lot easier the next time.
Anyone can learn how to play golf in just a few minutes, but what does it take to become a PGA-level player?
The corollary is, what does it take different people to become a PGA-level player?
That is to say, the second question is, is being a PGA star within reach of anybody, so long as they can do 10,000 hours of golf? Or does it take Tiger 10,000 hours while it takes me 20,000 or 30,000 hours?
Couldn't tell you, but it would certainly fit with the concept of some folks having a bit of a "natural ability"; 'Everybody can become a master, but some people can get there faster'.
That's not really the point to the 10,000 hour rule though. It is about practice.
If it takes person A five weeks to learn the study and it takes person B 10,000 hours to learn the study, after the next 10,000 hours of working in the industry, can we consider both individuals masters? Or are you suggesting that mastery is somehow proportional to time to original training completion?
It is actually Anders Ericsson's[1] theory, popularized by Gladwell. Feel free to read Ericsson if you like, but he says basically the same thing, though neither he nor Gladwell ever said "put in the 10,000 hours and you will be the Tiger Woods". Ericsson has studied the realm of expert learning (for quite some time) and tries to tease apart what makes Tiger Woods, and those like him, able to attain the things they do. He has a lot of evidence that it is not some inborn talent but rather (shockingly) a shit-ton of hard work (and the quip "You'll never be Tiger Woods because your dad wasn't Earl Woods"). The book Talent is Overrated[2] is also a decent read on the topic. It also tells the somewhat humorous story of László Polgár[3], who wrote about how he was going to turn his yet to be born children into chess stars through rigorous training/practice, and then proceeded to do so.
First year: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/1998/11/18
Five years later: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/11/18