First of all I'm sure that you would of heard of the 10000 hour theory, but if not here be a quick explanation:
The 10000 hour theory appears in a 1993 psychology paper and was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers and says that anyone can master a skill with 10,000 hours of practice, whether that be a sport or an instrument is can apply to most things.
Furthermore the final problem with the theory that I want to discuss is the fact that all crafts are different and so putting a certain amount of hours on all different fields/crafts means that there is a large inconsistency as some require a lot more time than others to perfect..
I came across this theory from a man called Devin Williams, who is a basketball trainer and video maker. I found out through a series he made on YouTube, where he trains players and they test out this 10000 hour theory. It originally started as a university project after he joined a media class and his grades needed to improve, but because he didn't have a external hard drive he decided to save it to YouTube and use it to show his presentation. He eventually grew his channel make multiple of these episodes and inspiring play to work hard and to test this theory all around the world.
you can watch the videos yourself on his youtube channel:
Shift Team HQ: https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialShiftTeamHQ
Now moving on I want to address this theory and discuss some points about the theory and how it is flawed just like most big theories but of course after all it is only a theory.
The first argument that I wanted to make is that people at the top of their field/hobby/interest have most of the time spent much more than 10000 hour on there chosen field. The problem is that the people at the top of most things at the top of sport ,at the top of law, at the top of classical music etc. will have put in much more than 10000 hours of work to master there craft.
examples
Muhammed Ali, Michael Jordan, George Best, Andy Murray, Usain Bolt are just a few of the people who have spent way more than 10000 hours on there craft.
Another problem with this theory is that it wouldn't take into account any natural talent and so it does not take into consideration the fact that those who have more natural ability will become at the top of there field much quicker that those who lack in natural talent more.
Furthermore the final problem wth the theory that I want to discuss is the fact that all crafts are different and so putting a certain amount of hours on all different fields/crafts means that there is a large inconsistency as som require a lot more time than others to perfect.
A study done by Princeton university showed that practise is only contributes to a small amount of someone's ability. The study found that practice accounted for just a 12% difference in performance in various domains.
Here are some examples of how much practise affects a persons ability:
• In games, practice made for a 26% difference
• In music, it was a 21% difference
• In sports, an 18% difference
• In education, a 4% difference
• In professions, just a 1% difference
I know that I am scrutinising a large theory which s not meant to be completely accurate but I just made this article to show the fact that if a theory is well known it is certainly not accurate to any extent.
