10,000 Hour Rule Debunked

If you’re familiar with Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, Outliers, you’ve probably heard about the 10000-hour rule. According to the author, it takes 10000 hours of practice to be a master at anything—be it music, business, sports, or anything else beyond and in between.

The thought that practice makes perfect could be inspiring, but it might be an overly simplistic way to look at things. We’ll look at studies that debunk the claim and look at alternative ways to look at practice and skill progress.

The Issue with Malcolm Gladwell’s 10000 Hours Theory

Before we bust the myth, let’s look at the pieces of evidence laid out by the author to conclude that 10000 hours is all it takes to be a master.

Gladwell’s 10000-hour rule roots from a 1993 study titled, “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance.” The study, authored by University of Colorado professor Anders Ericsson, says expert performance comes from prolonged efforts to improve. In support of that, elite performers are reportedly related to the amount of focused practice.

Despite Outliers citing his study, even Ericsson himself doesn’t agree with Gladwell’s claim. In fact, he launched a rebuttal paper four years after Outliers hit the market. Ericsson argued that 10000 hours was an average and that some people even put in fewer hours but still managed to be masters.

Below are three factors why experts don’t agree with the main concept of Outliers.

10000 Hours: Quantity vs. Quality

The 10000 hours rule centers on practice quantity as it offers a fixed amount of time to set aside for practice. In skills mastery, however, practice quantity may not be as crucial as practice quality. For instance, 10000 hours of casual practice may not lead to skills honed by 5000 hours of focused practice. 

According to Ericsson, it’s vital to set the generic practice apart from a deliberate practice done with a certain goal in mind. After all, doing something over and over again may make your body used to the task, but not necessarily lead to improved skills. That said, it’s required to adjust the task many times over to attain one’s goal.

Physical Factors

A person’s physical makeup poses another loophole in the 10000-hour rule. For one, Gladwell’s theory solely focuses on the time spent in practice. It assumes that all people can attain the same level of mastery without looking at factors like genes.  

Barcelona-based Biomedical, Evolutionary, and Developmental Genetics professor David Bueno says genetics is a crucial factor in learning. Bueno may have agreed that practice is key to student learning. However, he says there is high genetic heritability in most brain functions related to learning. He also mentioned that genes could affect not physical traits but also cognitive and psychological ones. And these factors all relate to skill mastery.

Feedback 

Here’s another crucial factor when it comes to honing skills: feedback, ideally from an expert in that field. Psychologist and journalist Daniel Goleman says hours and hours of practice will not let you achieve mastery if you’re doing it the wrong way. 

Goleman says there must be a “feedback loop” that will allow you to spot errors and correct them. The feedback should come from an expert who knows the ins and outs of the field for the best results.

Despite experts debunking Gladwell’s 10000 hour-rule, one can still get some value from his 2008 tome. After all, the main point of the book is to push people to work hard and make time to hone their skills if they want to be masters at what they do.