In his book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the 10,000 hour rule. He says anyone can become an expert in any given field with 10,000 hours of practice. So, therefore, according this rule, I can, through hard work and dedication, become the quarterback of a professional football team. Through hard work and dedication, I can become another Mozart or Picasso or a Salvador Dali. I can become an Olympic gymnast, turn myself into the next Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud or Carl Sagan…well, maybe Carl Sagan is do-able…
What Is the 10000 Hour Rule?
“The 10000 Hour Rule is just that. This is the idea that it takes approximately 10000 hours of deliberate practice to master a skill.
“For instance, it would take 10 years of practicing 3 hours a day to become a master in your subject. It would take approximately 5 years of full-time employment to become proficient in your field. Simply work out how many hours you have already achieved and calculate how far you need to go. You should be aiming for 10000 hours.”
I disagree with Mr. Gladwell. There are obvious limiting factors: time available, age, size and physical condition, intellectual and cognitive skills.
There are other limiting factors - innate ability, or lack thereof, passion and desire.
I say this, one may be proficient, and proficiency may equal financial success, but proficiency cannot necessarily be equated with talent. Mozart was quite possibly the most talented composer ever born, yet he did not experience either appreciation or success in his lifetime and died a pauper.
Perhaps the talent in becoming proficient lies in an ability to make money at what you do. I’m not convinced that’s the same as artistic talent. I’m not saying it’s not, I’m saying I’m not convinced it is.
Both my daughters took ten years worth of piano lessons. Both practiced endlessly. Both performed in recitals. Were they proficient? Yes, very. Were they talented? No.
Let me repeat something I posted last week regarding judging a writing contest, author Jordyn Meryl, and her talent:
“If I remember correctly, I judged six entries. Of the six, five were pretty close to perfect – perfect spelling, punctuation and grammar. Each theme was the perfect theme of the moment, and yet none of those close to perfect five held my interest. Jordyn’s simple jewel of a story about a widowed teacher, hurting and alone, dipping her lukewarm feet back into the dating pool and meeting somebody completely unexpected, captured my interest and stole my heart. I was so enamored of her little romance that I emailed her.”
Of the entries I judged, five authors were proficient, yet within a few hours after reading the stories, I couldn’t remember a single word they’d written. Oh, I had a vague notion of what they’d written, but I couldn’t remember anything specific. The voices all sounded alike. Because these authors were so proficient, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to hear that any one of them, or even all of them, have been published by now.
One author was not nearly as proficient, but she had real talent and I remember her story clearly. Jordyn Meryl spoke with a singular voice and she could tell a great story. So the question remains, does proficiency = success = talent?
Or is talent an intangible quality that exists regardless of financial success and recognition?
Real talent gives me chills. Jennifer Lawrence. Heath Ledger. Abigail Breslin. Emily Blunt. Steve Buscemi. Debra Winger. James Earl Jones. Meryl Streep. Viggo Mortenson.
I’m not sure I should even mention authors, but here are a precious few who possess what I consider talent - Ken Kesey, Kurt Vonnegut, Zora Neale Hurston, Margaret Atwood, James Baldwin, Guy Gavriel Kay, Tad Williams, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jon Krakauer, and Lawrence Block - who really did a number on me with his upcoming release, Getting Off, by Lawrence Block writing as Jill Emerson.
Yes, all of the above are proficient and each author has achieved, or did achieve, success and recognition. But they are more than proficient. They possess talent and that quality not only provides them with recognition and financial success, but makes their work timeless, their themes universal.
With trepidation, I’ll mention a few authors of romance who I believe possess talent - Linda Howard, who occasionally puts out a stinker, but I have no doubt about her gifts as a storyteller. Karen Marie Moning - I’m not a fan of her Fever series, but I’m a huge fan of her writing. Julie Garwood. Megan Hart, an immensely creative romance writer who is willing to take great risks with her work. Diana Gabaldon - I predict Outlander will be read and reread for generations to come.
There are other authors I’ve downgraded from talented to proficient, and thus they’ve disappeared from my buy list. Are they bored, burnt out or simply meeting contract obligations and deadlines? Who knows? Certainly they’re still proficient and thus, I assume, financially successful, but the decreasing talent quotient has caused me to lose all interest in their work.
So, are talent and proficiency the same thing? Are they mutually exclusive? Can you be proficient without having talent? Can you be talented without being proficient?
Okay…done.
Related posts:
- Schadenfreude I’m off for three days, but I’m leaving you with...
- What’s luck got to do with it… A lot, I think. I’ve been reading lately about success...
- The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Let’s work backwards and start with the ugly. I’m taking...
- In hindsight. Since I re-entered the publishing world in 2007, I’ve learned...
- Since I’m tired, I’ll entertain… One of my favorite scenes from The Princess Bride. I’d...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Great post! I have to agree with you. I’m not sure everyone could master a skill in 10,000 hours.
I first saw this 10,000 hour rule in an article about writing more efficiently and faster. Like having that many hours at your keyboard would keep the creative juices flowing and the words churning faster and faster making it easier to get books out.
Um, yeah, NO! Not for me anyway. Not that practicing and writing every day isn’t extremely important because it is…it’s just that the more books I write the harder I’m finding to keep it “fresh”. That turn of phrase that was a beacon in book four certainly would be easy to use in book eight, but then it’s just a 25 watt lightbulb. Which goes with your whole proficient vs talent.
I do think many successful authors find “their story” and work new characters and settings around that template making them extremely efficient and very rich. But then I do think their work becomes stale making their books boring and predicatable.
10,000 hours certainly doesn’t guarantee interesting writing but it does guarantee a great habit of pounding out the words.
Whenever someone makes a sweeping statement like anyone can be an expert in any field in 10,000 hours… I have to believe they are just trying to sell me something, like a book on how to be an expert in any field in 10,000 hours…
There is a tremendous gulf between acquiring skill and information and the many subtle advantages that can never to be taught that make someone “talented”.
XXOO Kat
Although no theory, scientifically, is ever considered correct, the 10,000 hour theory flouts established significant other theory. In SO theory I could study ten thousand hours and still not be allowed to become an astronaut. It is not just one’s personal desire that gets you where you want to go. Other people have to allow or pave the way. Not for everything but for many things. Think of all the fine writers who never become published (okay not so much today). A woman can practice ballet her whole youth and because she doesn’t have the turnout she is teaching ballet at the firehouse on Saturday and not on the stage in Manhattan. SHe is an expert, bt it is not going to happen because her hips are constructed in a way that the current modus op of producers and company directors don’t think good enough.
Although in some fields, technology is erasing obstacles, in others, say becoming an astronaut, it is not going to help. Maybe the head of NASA doesn’t like you or your vision sucks.
Talent, entirely different. I can paint something to look exactly like what it is. I am proficient. But, and I am objectively analyzing my skills, that does not make me talented unless I want to be say a camera, or xerox machine. In painting not even proficiency is vital. I contend sincerity and an eye for composition, maybe a desire to communicate visually, not being derivative, are the most important factors. I don’t know it is that different for writers although grammar helps, in the same way knowing your materials is as a painter.
But, you can know everything there is to know about something and not have any talent at all. I believe talent is mostly wiring. You can teach color and drawing but you cannot teach someone to have talent. Talent is a serendipitous combination if tangible ability and intangible variable.
Off to finish my workout. Gruesome Pilates bout today.Oops lunch first, I am an expert and highly talented procrastinator.
Yes, Steph. No matter how much I want to be an astronaut - which I did want to be at one time - I would hope nobody would ever let me be an astronaut! 10,000 hours would not make me competent!
I agree with what you say about art. One can be a proficient painter, but proficiency cannot be equated with talent. I love your statement - Talent is a serendipitous combination of intangible ability and intangible variable.
Kat, LOL! I loved Galdwell’s The Tipping Point and Blink - but all his books could be considered long articles with filler. Yes, some people possess an innate ability or a set of skills that simply cannot be taught beyond the level of proficiency. That is not talent.
Yes, Nina - good work habits. Good work habits do not necessarily equal talent. I know this super talented writer whose house is a mess. He works best in a mess. Perhaps the sign of a creative mind?
Amber, there are some things I could become proficient in - like playing the piano. But singing? Hell no!
Proficiency is great, but its the artist with ‘spark’ that stand out.