You can practice something for 10,000 hours and still be a bit crap at it

I've always been sceptical about growth mindset, but I read a general summary of it recently which seemed to be saying that Dweck's point wasn't that achievement is unrelated to inherent ability, but that people are more likely to succeed at things if they believe that hard work will get them there, rather than believing that they are limited by the scope of their natural abilities.

In other words what is important is not that it's actually true, it's the can-do attitude you get from believing it's true. And that I can well believe.

I have a very academically able dd who stubbornly refuses to stick at anything she's not immediately good at (like a musical instrument). She could definitely do with some growth mindset thinking.

It's been a while since I read the Gladwell book, but my recollection is that 10,000 hours is part of understanding how some apparent geniuses have risen so far above their peers. Eg David Beckham and Jonny Wilkinson were both spot kick experts - the best in the world at the time. It's just not a coincidence (or something completely innnate) that they both also practised and practised and practised. Even by the standards of professional athletes they put in far more hours taking kick after kick after kick.

Of course they needed natural talent to start with, and it helps that spot kicking is something that can be practised on one's own with ease. But Gladwell never said that anyone who does something for 10,000 hours will be an expert, just that it's one way in which the very good can become the best

surely it depends on the activity as well. excelling at most things is surely a combination of innate ability/skill plus hard work and discipline, but in different proportions dependent on the activity. I'm happy to be told otherwise by any rowing experts out there but i think what you need to excel at rowing is height and build, general athleticism in terms of lung power, co-ordination etc and then huge grit and discipline in training, diet and just pushing on - not high amounts of skill as such, as compared with e.g. football or gymnastics. if i've understood correctly that's why you get people like helen glover and the ex-army lady (heather stewart?) taking it up late and being very successful, in a way you don't with e.g. gymnastics or diving.

I’ve always assumed it’s sheer dogged grit determination loads of practice on a daily basis circumstance facilities/equipment luck finances the right trainer/coach that gets you to the top but that you have to continue with all of the above to even have a remote chance of staying there.

I think it works for some people.
Then I'm reminded of musicians I know who still practice daily as part of their work, as you can never know it all.
These are top professionals, some leaders in their field. Practising for 4 or 5 hours a day, depending on particular pieces of work they have at that time.

Agree the Anders Ericsson research is much much more nuanced than "10,000 hours".

I prefer quotations like "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration".

In education the more and earlier testing, selection and differentiation goes on, the more we give children the impression that there is nothing they can do to counteract their "failures" to meet the test specs. Anything which works in the opposite direction like "growth mindset" seems positive although pretty much like pushing the river going the other way uphill.

I see a lot of children who are being made to train like Olympic athletes because their parents are ambitious and believe the 10,000 hour principle.

I'm interested in this as I've known it apply to a couple of people.
I believe you have to look at other things too, like the quality of that practice.
if you are going to make something your life work, it doesn't seem too many hours to become proficient.
At my dd school they are all musicians, they practice for hours a day and 2/3 of their day is devoted to music with only a third for academic work.
They are up very early and practice before school, during the day, and evening too.
It works out about 30 hours per week, that's a lot.
Then of course they are expected to do four hours daily durin the weekend and holidays.
They really hardly ever stop.

Rosie I too ride as a serious hobby have ridden since I was 3 yrs old and am now middle aged. I ride 4-5 hours a week minimum and ride better now then 20 years ago.
I always say to other horse riders the effort you put in will show in the results you get out. Without a doubt top riders and others only achieve by practising practising practising. I think it’s also a mind set I’m never complacent with how the horse is performing I analayse every stride the horse takes even if we’re just plonking down the road constantly asking myself is it right could it be better what can I do to make it better?

Scipio has it right.

If you put 1000 hours into something and you're still crap at it, you're unlikely to put in the other 9000 hours anyway.

(Unless it's something you really enjoy for some reason, in which case you keep doing it as a hobby with no expectation of ever performing particularly well like me with swimming .)

Weird that the article doesn't quote Anders Ericsson himself who has criticised the 10k hours popularisation. (And pointed out that the students they studied were not experts after 10k hours anyway!)

Really recommend reading Peak which gives a much more nuanced, more useful description of his research. He does talk about the hours of practice results, but he also comments on the effect of mental representations on improvement. It'd be interesting to see his response - an article saying "oh hey the popularisers made up an idea and ran with it" isn't that interesting.

I thought the 10,000 hours for sport got debunked years ago by The Sports Gene by David Epstein. Some people are just physically advantaged to be better at some sports because of build, muscle types etc, for example even top bascketball players thought to be "relatively short" have the arm span of a much taller person. There are also huge differences in people's trainability, some people respond much better and quicker to training than others. It also points out that the 10,000 hours was an average so it took some people 30,000 hours some 2,000 etc. In your case Rosioposy maybe another 20,000 hours in the saddle will make all the difference.

Its a really interesting book it looked at the Australian gold winning netball team a few years back, although all the girls were sporty they only averaged about 700-800 hours of actually playing netball each. It also examined the all Ethiopians are great runners myth.

Have to admit I never read the book. My understanding was that, no matter how much innate talent you had, 10,000 hours were necessary for mastery.

There is a big difference bw becoming competent at something and becoming the best of the best. If you learn and practice the violin for 10, 00 hours you may not become first violin in the New York Philharmonic but you will be able to play the violin.

Primož Roglič is a sensation in current cycling world, especially road racing in 2017.

PR was a ski jumper before that, competed in 2010 Winter Olympics. Took up cycling b/c ski jumping was too competitive.

There are loads of top cyclists with similar stories, they shifted over from another sport. Yvonne McGregor was a champ fell runner, didn't start competing at cycling until almost 30yo. Chris Hoy was an elite rower at junior level. Wikipedia has a list of multi-sport athletes.

I've improved hugely at some things, but am very crap compared to other people who have done 10,000 hours.

All you need to do to prove this is to get a bunch of 7 yr old boys to play a football game (or run a race, or try to throw something far, etc).

50% of them will sincerely think they're truly amazing & will try their best every time. Yet some immediately stand out hugely with natural talent. Give them all 10,000 hours tuition.. and guess what, the very best ones will be almost the exact same kids who were great at 7yo when only zero hours under their belt. The others will be much BETTER, but they won't be the best for 10,000 hours.

I think it would be hard to train and practice something for 10, 000 hours and still be hopeless at it. You might not be great but I don't think there are many things that are so intrinsically difficult that the average human couldn't make fair progress in that time. You'd need some good tuition in that time and guidance as to how to practise for progress (rather than endless repeating your mistakes).

I ride for a hobby. I must have spent many times in excess of 10000 hours riding over my lifetime. I am worse now than i was 20years ago and certainly not great ( bog standard average amateur). If only i had turned into mary King by default.

I have very poor hand/eye coordination. I don’t need to practise tennis for 10,000 hours to get a sense that it is unlikely I’ll ever be good at it. I think about 100 hours would be ample; 50 probably sufficient.

This doesn’t mean here’s no point in playing it and practising it - I’ll probably get better at it and if I want to do 10,000 hours because I love it anyway, the. Of course I should do it. However, the 10,000 hours nonsense that has been spouted is that I would become really good purely because of the 10,000 hours put into it, whatever my starting point. I think this is an unhelpful notion, and has nothing to do with whether you should put the time in to improve something you have to do or want to do.

*Zadie Smith

Growth mindset is not about mastery, but improvement. If you keep trying, that thing you are trying will become easier, therefor more enjoyable, therefore you will feel a bit better about keeping with it.

10,000 hours is a separate idea (ideology?) altogether.

I suppose the problem is that until you try working at something for 10,000 hours you won’t know if it is one of your things, and things like basic maths and reading are fairly essential, so it’s important to work at it even if you won’t be the next Stephen Hawkings or Sadie Smith.
I’m pretty sure (especially at 49) that I could spend 10,000 hours working at a sport and still be fairly average, if that, but I’m not going to tell my 9 year old it’s pointless practising his football skills because he might still be rubbish.