skipintro wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:46 pm
Rasputin wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:47 pm
I can just about grasp the idea that after 10,000 hours of effective practice you are about as good as you are ever going to be,
at 10000 hours you should have learned the craft and be at the beginning
of your career, not the peak
That's your theory, it seems, but the tagline of the theory that has been discussed so far in this thread is '10000 hours to mastery', which is why RB is saying he has come across a new version that is appealing because it *substitutes* some lower level like 'just getting good' for 'mastery'. I think you are coming in at a tangent, which is fine and dandy with me, except that you are treating comments made in the context of the original theory as if they had been made in the context of the different theory you've just announced.
To me the idea that a fixed number of hours gets you to your personal limit in various different skills is just about intelligible, whereas the idea that a fixed number of hours gets you to a given level of competence is not...
It's an observation of the amount of time that seems to be needed by similarly demanding trades/crafts/professions to get to professional beginnings
Well, it wasn't until you came along. RB says that what is interesting about the research is that the 10,000 hours is relevant to 'such a wide range of skills'. That is the observation that I was addressing. Yours is different. Your formulation does sound more sensible, but it flirts with circularity in that 'similarly demanding' is left undefined. What makes another skill similarly demanding? Presumably the fact that it takes 10,000 hours to acquire. If so, then what you are saying is that all skills that take 10,000 hours to acquire take 10,000 hours to acquire (I agree). If not, how do we judge whether they are similarly demanding?
I am interested in the idea that a trade takes about the same amount of time to master a trade as a musical instrument, but this has a totally different thrust from the original theory, the dumbed down version of which would 'you too can be like the geniuses of old, if you just put in the time'. Your version is more like 'you too can be like the plasterers of old, if you just put in the time'. I have nothing against plasterers, but I can't see this new slant doing much for the 10,000 hour meme.
What hinders music learning is the vague belief thats it's about releasing innate talent, which some have and some do not. In fact almost everybody could become musician at some level, if they don't get discouraged too soon by bad teachers.
I haven't come across anyone who things that music learning is *only* about releasing innate talent, so I think you are tilting at windmills here. I agree that almost everybody could become a musician at some level, but don't forget that most people here are hobbyists and are not really looking to become musicians. Hence my post above to the effect that the attraction of the 10,000 hour meme (the popular version, that is) is that it stops people worrying about how talented they are, whereas that should not be a reason to worry in the first place. Better to cut out the problem at the root, I was trying to say, than patch it up with this zany theory.