The source of the 10,000 hour rule

[RickMatz]

This paper, The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf), is the source of the 10,000 rule.

[jdhowland]

Good article. Thanks for posting this.

[ryanh]

Thank you for posting, great article.

[bawang]

false. only 300 to 500 reps is neccesary.

its not how many times you do, its how familiar you are.

[MightyB]

Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years.

Just like the article, my TCMA instructor always said that it was a minimum of 10 years of hard practice to be proficient with Kung Fu.

[jdhowland]

false. only 300 to 500 reps is neccesary.

its not how many times you do, its how familiar you are.

I think this is probably true for single techniques. A few hundred times to get the basic structure down and a couple hundred more against a resisting partner should lead to some level of expertise.

But RickMatz' post was regarding the source of an oft-repeated idea that it takes a certain number of years and repetitions of a constellation of skills to be proficient in an art form.

I would say one to two years to be able to spar effectively. Ten to fifteen years to learn a system of kung fu.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Something here to really think about. Any fighting art that requires 10 years to learn, or 10,000 hours to perfect, is something you need to pass up on. There are a few fighting arts that do not require a great deal of time to learn with great skill. Any technique that requires you to have great strength or youth to perform is a waste of time. Given that each day you age you are going to be less and less able to perform them. Eventually you will lose it all together. My system can be used as long as you can move about. I am 67 years old, and I can do it as well as I could when I was 21, and maybe even better on some things. I certainly have a better understanding of it all. I don't force myself to work out really hard in an effort to make myself stronger either. I simply do a daily workout that keeps me limber and toned up. I did all the muscle building as a young man, and only perform maintanence now.

[pazman]

The 10,000 hour rule applies to mastery, not a basic proficiency.

[David Jamieson]

Socrates/Plato/Aristotle advocated 10 years to mastery.

It was Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers" where he uses this resource to explain the 10,000 hour requirement who brought it into the common phraseology.

It's a good paper and I agree with it's findings. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Scientific studies have shown that for quick "mastery" of a technique you need to do it daily 100's of times BUT for long term mastery you don't need anything like that.
I don't recall the exact numbers though, sorry.
But the point was that for "quick learning" then excessive repetition was needed (short term muscle memory) but for long term learning a more paced and "regimented" way was best.
Probably because one can't sustain an excessive regime for very long so, for "best of both worlds" it makes since to drill a new technique excessively for a short period and then back off to a "maintenance' pace.
Which I think most here would agree.

[pazman]

I think you also have to adjust for the activity. Guitar playing, painting, computer programming etc are all solo activities. People I've known who I feel have "mastered" activities like these go through intense periods of self-study where they might hide themselves away for days or weeks and practice on their own.

Learning a new language and martial arts are a bit different in that they require partner or group interaction. In many cases, it is either inconvenient or harmful to engage in partner work all the time, so you have to choose your supplementary exercises carefully.

[YouKnowWho]

false. only 300 to 500 reps is neccesary.

Some skill will take far more than 500 reps to develop it. The "twist and spring" throw requires 3 different forces,

1. straight line spring,
2. circular twisting, and
3. downward pullling.

In the following clip, the instructor only mentioned the 1st and 2nd forces. The 3rd force was not mentioned.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDkyMTI1Mjg4.html

For the 1st 500 reps, you may not even be able to learn how to integrate all 3 forces yet.

Some techniques are easy to learn. Some techniques are not.

[jdhowland]

sanjuro_ronin;1208398]Scientific studies have shown that for quick "mastery" of a technique you need to do it daily 100's of times BUT for long term mastery you don't need anything like that.
I don't recall the exact numbers though, sorry.


I recall a professional musician telling me about a study that claimed 70 repetitions are required for learning a basic skill--but I don't know what study the information was based on.




But the point was that for "quick learning" then excessive repetition was needed (short term muscle memory) but for long term learning a more paced and "regimented" way was best.
Probably because one can't sustain an excessive regime for very long so, for "best of both worlds" it makes since to drill a new technique excessively for a short period and then back off to a "maintenance' pace.
Which I think most here would agree.


This makes sense. I was surprised to see how little time for daily training was set aside for "master" musicians. Consistency over time seems to be more important than duration of each practice.

And burnout is bad. That's what I got from it.

.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I recall a professional musician telling me about a study that claimed 70 repetitions are required for learning a basic skill--but I don't know what study the information was based on.






This makes sense. I was surprised to see how little time for daily training was set aside for "master" musicians. Consistency over time seems to be more important than duration of each practice.

And burnout is bad. That's what I got from it.

.


Pretty much yes.
I think the number is gonna be different from one person to another of course but the point is what are you focusing on RIGHT now?
If you want short term gains then excessive repetitions is the way to go, if you want long term then a lower and more steady pace is preferable.

[bawang]

I would say one to two years to be able to spar effectively. Ten to fifteen years to learn a system of kung fu.

it takes 1 year to learn a system of kung fu. if you dont want to make any money.

Some skill will take far more than 500 reps to develop it. The "twist and spring" throw requires 3 different forces,


its hard to learn because its a flowery technique. it looks good for the crowd.

[YouKnowWho]

its hard to learn because its a flowery technique. it looks good for the crowd.

The "twist and spring" is not a flowery technique. It requires to twisting power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavVtBdDo44

The 10,000 hours rule also apply to the ability development as well. You may learn how to execute a "twist and spring" throw but you will need to spend the rest of your life time to develop your "twisting" power.

[bawang]

The 10,000 hours rule also apply to the ability development as well. You may learn how to execute a "twist and spring" throw but you will need to spend the rest of your life time to develop your "twisting" power.


if you train for 10000 hours and stop training, your abilities will be ruined, you will go back to square one.
its about consistency and martial readiness.


training the same thing for 100000 hours is rediculous. you will plateau and your progress will stop, even reverse. thats why shaolin kung fu has over 72 exercises. when your progress stalls, switch exercise.