- The question of what it takes to excel — to reach genius-level acumen at a chosen endeavor — has occupied psychologists for decades and philosophers for centuries. Groundbreaking research has pointed to “grit” as a better predictor of success than IQ, while psychologists have admonished against the dangers of slipping into autopilot in the quest for skill improvement. In recent years, one of the most persistent pop-psychology claims has been the myth of the “10,000-hour rule” — the idea that this is the amount of time one must invest in practice in order to reach meaningful success in any field
"Groundbreaking research has pointed to “grit” as a better predictor of success than IQ, while psychologists have admonished against the dangers of slipping into autopilot in the quest for skill improvement." So true. "Grit" being the dogged pursuit of continued improvement, is a necessity for success. As an educator, I see that this "grit" is more valuable than ever for my students. With a shift from a manufacturing economy to a service based economy in the U.S., our upcoming workforce will need to stay flexible, reflective, and growth minded to continually improve their area of expertise.
As a teacher, do you think there is ever a point at which students can continue to achieve success and improve using mostly self-directed learning? in other words, yes, a mentor and/or teacher is definitely necessary during the beginning years of any practice. But, is there a point where in some practices, you can eventually rely on yourself to continue your development? I think it's interesting that in some areas you can self-teach, and in other areas, it's at minimum not as easy to do so. For instance for someone who is learning to play an instrument, especially if they want to play it really well, I think a teacher is essential. There is a lot going on behind the production of music that a novice will not even notice or be aware of. And the teacher helps guide the path; says "Learn these scales" and "memorize these keys," and so on. The teacher shows you technique. But for instance I self-taught myself knitting. I had hiccups along the way and I definitely did some things wrong for a long time, much longer than I would have if I had had a mentor. But I didn't mind, I was having fun, and in the meantime I got pretty damn good at knitting. Then I taught myself how to spin and dye and, well, at this point, give me a sheep's fleece and six months and I'll give you a sweater (or I could, if I was willing to invest the time and could borrow a spinning wheel from someone). You want colors? I'll give ya colors. You want lace? I'll give ya lace. I'd say 90% of my knitting education was self-taught. I'm not a knitting genius but I am absolutely proficient. So when is that teacher necessary? Is there a point where your teacher can become like training wheels and you can take flight off into the world, still getting better at what you are doing, without the instruction of another? - Driving is another skill like knitting. Except I had a tutor for the first part. I am asking because I need someone to reassure me I can keep getting better at poetry without a guru :) I do have a guru, but she is very far removed and seems to think that's a better approach. Sometimes I get feedback from people, but mostly, for years now, it's been about steering my own ship.
Excellent question. I really enjoy attempting to answer it for the sake that I have to reflect on my teaching and my experiences as a teacher to answer it. I think I could write a book on the subject. I can say that I don't think there's ever a point where any student is completely self-directed. Or at least, I'm not sure how learning can continue if one is devoid of mentors, role-models, or even a competitor. My most motivated math students are close to being self-directed. Much of the time my motivated students need me to provide some direction toward our next skill or concept of mastery. They'll need me to provide them with practice opportunities and answers to their insightful questions. By insightful questions, I mean questions that show they are very close to mastery of the new concept and have explored it at length, or at least have mastery of the prerequisites of the new concepts on which we are focusing. I guess basically, my best learners have "grit". Fortunately for my employment, and my personal need for feeling useful, they still do need me around.
Well, I really appreciate your response. Teaching was a career I thought I wanted to go into for a long time, until I started reading about the state of higher education and the pitfalls of such a career. Now I have decided I shall just get famous first, so they shall have to pay me a living wage. ;) Anyway I find teaching fascinating and I admire people like you. Also, I'm sorry for what you (probably) have to go through on a day-to-day basis; parents, Common Core standards, mandatory overtime, and the general frustrations of the system. This assuming you teach in a public US school, of course. Ah. I'm glad you say this. I ask because I'm a student of poetry and writing and, after college, I've largely found myself un-menteed. However, there are plenty of role models and competitors out there for me! I read plenty and try to stay on top of my field. It's really just a lack of frequent, detailed feedback that I lack - I have my "guru," who is an active poet I admire greatly and whose advice I trust, but what with the Real World, her grandson, the classes she teaches, the readings and writing she does - I don't seek or receive her feedback very often. It's not to the same level of my college critiques. I also have some friends I have developed or stayed in contact with and we workshop from time-to-time, but it is not super frequent. I try to do different things to challenge myself and force myself to attempt new techniques or styles. I read as much as I can and if I like what I read I'll echo it, imitate it, in order to get a handle on the style. Poetry is not as delineated as math, I think, where you can say "Yes this is algebra, and the next step is pre-calc, and the next is calc, and we know all the steps we need to take to get you from a to b." It seems to be like there is a more clear progression in math or science or even in the study of literature (as opposed to the creation of it). You must learn the quadratic formula before sin, cos, tan, which you must learn before cosecant, secant, and cotangent, and so on. For me it is harder to recognize what steps I should take next because, you know, it's not math or science, there isn't necessarily a clear progression and a lot of it can be based off of personal taste or style. Sometimes it really feels like "sifting through the madness for the word, the line, the way" (Bukowski) like a blind person. Plus I am faced with the dilemma of "no right answer;" poetry can be very subjective. Am I really getting better? Or am I egotistical and self-important? Anyway, sorry about my ramblings. I really appreciated your answer. It made me feel better. I don't write in a vacuum. I just don't have a direct teacher anymore.Or at least, I'm not sure how learning can continue if one is devoid of mentors, role-models, or even a competitor.
Here's a letter by K. Anders Ericsson who produced the study of musicians about which Gladwell popularised the concept of 10,000 hours. It's not entirely complementary about either Eric Jaffe who reiterated the misunderstanding of the 'rule', nor Gladwell who popularised it. This is another thoughtful examination of the 'rule'.
Thanks for the link, it was a good read. I've not read Gladwell's book but if the worse thing to come of this 10k hour rule is that people become focused and more disciplined in a pursuit that they are passionate about, then so be it.
I always assumed that the 10k hour rule was made under the assumption that you were actively trying to improve. That means seeking greater challenges and better mentors. That what Dan of The Dan Plan is doing. With ~5200 hours left, his handicap is down to 4.1. I doubt he'll ever be a Tiger Woods, but at 10k hours I bet he'll be able to compete in a pro tournament.
It's all talk. I'd say that anyone willing to put in 10,000 hours probably will develop "grit" along the way. Also, there's a lot of handwaving there. What's "good enough"? Playing an instrument, for example. When is that "good enough" and when is it "expert"? It's hard to say. I think any sort of metric is really bullshit for this. But it pretty much requires one thing: continuous practice. Do something long enough (while paying attention and focusing on it) and you're sure to get it eventually. Hell, that's basically the core essence of my learning method as well as computer science itself..
The article reference "the Dan plan" (http://thedanplan.com/) : A guy deciding to begin Golf from scratch. Last time I checked he was 3000+ hour in, and began tournament. The point is, nobody advocated just "repeating" the same task. Dan has a coach and is still learning. He never intended to just throw golf ball aimlessly for 10000 hours. The guy from eastern Europe who teach his 3 daughter chess for 10 000+ hour when they were toddler. Still gave them coach when they grew older. It always was about learning for 10 000 hours. (the 3 daughter went chess champion, one was even number 1 or 2 and competed with dude) It's not a debunking it's bullshit: giving your target false pretense (repeat a task for 10000) and proving it's stupid. I'm a bit bitter, cause I like debunking. That's why I clicked that link. I would like the 10 000 hours theory to be debunked. I would like anything to be debunked. It's kind of fun. This is a stupid click bait article for guys like me !!