In Best Selling Author Malcom Gladwell’s book, Outliers, Gladwell states, “Researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours” (Gladwell). Could this be true? Can 10,000 hours really be all that is necessary for success? Gladwell’s claim 10,000 hours is a “magic number” for success is only half true, success is based on more than practice alone, genetic predisposition plays a heavy role as well. Gladwell based his “10,000 Hour Rule” on a 1993 paper written by Professor Anders Ericsson entitled, “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance.” The paper described the work of a group of psychologists who studied the practice habits of violin students in childhood,
…show more content…
10,000 hours of practice alone is not enough for expertise or excellence, in fact an article published in the journal Intelligence, by psychologist David Hambrick suggested that practice explains only about a third of success among musician and chess masters (Hambrick). With so many conflicting conflicting studies on the topic, what is to be believed? Gladwell says in an interview, “There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers....practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation.” Hambrick and other 10,000-hour critics see this stance as "moving the goalposts" in a scientific debate, backpedaling from an earlier strong position to a weaker one due to new conflicting research, while refusing to concede. It seems to become clearer and clearer, 10,000 hours alone is NOT enough to excel or become an expert in a field. Expertise requires a combination of natural skill, hard work, and perseverance. This debate between practice and genetic predisposition is one small facet in the long running psychologica debate of Nature vs
10,000 hours of practice alone is not enough for expertise or excellence, in fact an article published in the journal Intelligence, by psychologist David Hambrick suggested that practice explains only about a third of success among musician and chess masters (Hambrick). With so many conflicting conflicting studies on the topic, what is to be believed? Gladwell says in an interview, “There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers....practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation.” Hambrick and other 10,000-hour critics see this stance as "moving the goalposts" in a scientific debate, backpedaling from an earlier strong position to a weaker one due to new conflicting research, while refusing to concede. It seems to become clearer and clearer, 10,000 hours alone is NOT enough to excel or become an expert in a field. Expertise requires a combination of natural skill, hard work, and perseverance. This debate between practice and genetic predisposition is one small facet in the long running psychologica debate of Nature vs