I was reading this story: Debunking
the Myth of the 10,000-Hours Rule: What It Actually Takes to Reach
Genius-Level Excellence in Brainpickings.
Familiar with this? Basically, it is a theory (no, a hypothesis) it
would take that 10,000 hours of constant practice before anyone gets good
at anything -- no let me correct that -- to become a genius! Now they are
saying that it's only half true. Half true? As much as that?On the other hand, there is the Creativity Debate which asks, "What is more important, talent or practice?" Let's talk about writing because that's where I have the most experience from the Silverfish Writing Programme (a 10-week writing workshop) that I run.
- Some participants are obviously talented. You can see this in
the way they craft their first stories. But they do not put in
enough effort to hone that talent due to distractions from the
workplace, or other
personal problems. One thought she didn't have to work since
she was already naturally talented. (She told me that she knew
everything I was going to say. Maybe she quit because I was not
dispensing pills.) Will she become a
genius, or merely another wasted talent? What do you think?
(Sometimes I get troubled young adults. It's a shame, because
they are fun to work with once you get over their initial 'I'm
bored with the world' attitude. Writing would be good therapy
for them if only they persist.)
- Then there are some who are not obviously talented, show some
aptitude, have good attitudes, and who are keen to learn and
willing to work hard. I would think that 10,000 hours would
certainly produce some good competent workhorses, and at
least some degree of success. They may not be geniuses, but they
would be way above the average. Most published writers fall into
this category anyway. Some become editors, critics and reviewers, or take up some other role in the industry.
- A third group consists of people with no talent for writing, nor aptitude for learning it, and one wonders why they are in a writing programme when their talents lie elsewhere. Maybe they like the glamour associated with writing, or they'd like to discover for themselves. 10,000 or even 20,000 hours.
- Then there are those hell-bent in picking a genre they don't
have an aptitude for.
- Now, when you meet someone who not only has talent, but who is also willing to
work hard ... not just 10,000 hours but 20,000 or even 50,000
... that's a real buzz! Makes everything you work for worthwhile.
Whatever the case maybe, psychologist and journalist Daniel Goleman (best-known for his influential 1995 book Emotional Intelligence) debunks the 10,000-hour mythology to reveal the more complex truth beneath the popular rule of thumb: he says in Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence (Harper, Oct 2013):
"Ideally that feedback comes from someone with an expert eye and so every world-class sports champion has a coach. If you practice without such feedback, you don’t get to the top ranks. The feedback matters and the concentration does, too — not just the hours."
