10,000 Hour Argument
Practice makes perfect, or so they say, but is that really true? There are conflicting opinions on how much practice it takes to master a skill. In the novel Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. In the article “Your Genes Don’t Fit: Why 10,000 Hours of Practice Won’t Make You an Expert” the author says that 10,000 hours of practice is not the only thing that it takes to master a skill. I agree with the author who says 10,000 hours of practice is not the only factor to consider when it comes to mastering a skill.
Obviously, some people may disagree with this argument because there is some evidence that 10,000 hours will make some people masters of their skill. In Gladwell’s novel the example …show more content…
When you have unnecessarily high hopes for success but lack the ability to pursue that success, then the smallest mishaps during the learning process and practice can lead to excessive amounts of distress, which almost inevitably leads to failure.The 10,000 hour rule encourages this hope of practice being able to give people abilities that they have no way to achieve. I strongly disagree with this rule because of this false hope that it gives. In the article, the author says this about the 10,000 hour rule: “It raises hopes to an unrealistic level. All the hard work won’t overcome a brain-based deficit.” This quote is a great explanation of the problems with the 10,000 hour rule.
In conclusion, the “10,000 hour” rule is an inaccurate way to gauge the mastery of a skill for multiple reasons. If one were to find a way to calculate an appropriate amount of hours of practice in a different way that would include those untalented or exceptionally gifted people and make the “10,000 hour” rule more fitting for those groups of people as well as the average people for which the 10,000 hours may work in making them masters of
Practice makes perfect, or so they say, but is that really true? There are conflicting opinions on how much practice it takes to master a skill. In the novel Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. In the article “Your Genes Don’t Fit: Why 10,000 Hours of Practice Won’t Make You an Expert” the author says that 10,000 hours of practice is not the only thing that it takes to master a skill. I agree with the author who says 10,000 hours of practice is not the only factor to consider when it comes to mastering a skill.
Obviously, some people may disagree with this argument because there is some evidence that 10,000 hours will make some people masters of their skill. In Gladwell’s novel the example …show more content…
When you have unnecessarily high hopes for success but lack the ability to pursue that success, then the smallest mishaps during the learning process and practice can lead to excessive amounts of distress, which almost inevitably leads to failure.The 10,000 hour rule encourages this hope of practice being able to give people abilities that they have no way to achieve. I strongly disagree with this rule because of this false hope that it gives. In the article, the author says this about the 10,000 hour rule: “It raises hopes to an unrealistic level. All the hard work won’t overcome a brain-based deficit.” This quote is a great explanation of the problems with the 10,000 hour rule.
In conclusion, the “10,000 hour” rule is an inaccurate way to gauge the mastery of a skill for multiple reasons. If one were to find a way to calculate an appropriate amount of hours of practice in a different way that would include those untalented or exceptionally gifted people and make the “10,000 hour” rule more fitting for those groups of people as well as the average people for which the 10,000 hours may work in making them masters of