> It takes 10,000 hours to become an “expert in an ultra
> competitive field” but to go from “knowing nothing to being
> pretty good”, actually takes 20 hours.
Let's discount fields where it takes less than 10'000 hours to become a master, i.e. we're gonna concentrate on things like playing violin, computer programming, writing literature, etc.
Let's also discount genius and extreme neurodiversity, i.e. within a factor of 1-2 everybody is about equally cognitively abled.
> pretty good
Complete utter bunk. There's no violin player you'd listen to voluntarily after 20 hours of exercise. There's no programmer you'd hire, for anything, after he's gone trough 20 hours of programming. There's no author you'd read after he's written literature for 20 hours of his life. And in most cases, you wouldn't sit into a car with somebody who's got 20 hours of driving exercise.
Yes, it doesn't take you 10'000 hours to become somewhat able at something. But in most serious endevours, it takes you more than 20 hours, way more, to pass even the lowest standard of qualification.
I disagree. Personal experience suggest you're missing something.
I don't know much about learning instruments generally, but his Uke song at the end was pretty decent. Having futzed around with a few I can certainly believe that some are harder than others, but he sure makes it look plausible. I'd listen to that voluntarily, although I'd pass on a concert of it.
I've taught several people to drive, some from having never been behind the wheel before. 20 hours is a lot. In many US states, Drivers Ed requires 6. The biggest issue with driving is people who don't realize that there's actually a skill that they're practicing and don't pay proper attention; get past that, and I'm confident that 20 hours is plenty for any neurologically-normal young adult.
I'm not sure "programming" is a fair comparison. It's a bit like saying "playing musical instruments". Having run several rounds of hiring for a few different organizations, it's absolutely true that I'd hire a programmer for a project who's never written in the language in question before. These were senior-level positions, too. 20 hours from first introduction to programming? Hrm. It'd be a fun experiment.
I suspect this doesn't really cover things driven by creativity. That is: 20 hours might be plenty for playing Ukelele, but not for composing on it. I think your literature example falls in there.
Let's discount fields where it takes less than 10'000 hours to become a master, i.e. we're gonna concentrate on things like playing violin, computer programming, writing literature, etc.
Let's also discount genius and extreme neurodiversity, i.e. within a factor of 1-2 everybody is about equally cognitively abled.
> pretty good
Complete utter bunk. There's no violin player you'd listen to voluntarily after 20 hours of exercise. There's no programmer you'd hire, for anything, after he's gone trough 20 hours of programming. There's no author you'd read after he's written literature for 20 hours of his life. And in most cases, you wouldn't sit into a car with somebody who's got 20 hours of driving exercise.
Yes, it doesn't take you 10'000 hours to become somewhat able at something. But in most serious endevours, it takes you more than 20 hours, way more, to pass even the lowest standard of qualification.