Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

A "classroom" environment for exchanging Technical Questions & Answers, How-To's, music theory concepts, etc.
skipintro
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:18 pm
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by skipintro » 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
but the idea that any fixed number of hours corresponds to any given level of competence makes no sense to me at all, whether it's "mastery" or "just getting good".
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
The idea that the same number would apply to different skills strikes me as especially daft. If it takes 10,000 hours to become a master sculptor or orator or violinist, how can it also take 10,000 hours to become a master shoeshiner?
Yes daft. Nobody said that in the first place.
Trade apprenticeships were often 7 years = 14000 hours, but this was with work experience thrown in.
Playing music is a craft skill and learning processes are similar in different crafts and professions.
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.

Rasputin
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by Rasputin » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:53 pm

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.

skipintro
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:18 pm
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by skipintro » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:15 pm

Rasputin wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:53 pm
...
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'......
The original theory started from studying musicians and got expanded to other areas with the idea that to be top of the trade whatever it is you seem to need 10000 hours i.e. 5 years full time engagement with a good learning process. Obviously its a sweeping generalisation but you can see the sense of it. Shoe shine a lot less, brain surgeon a lot more.
The point is they weren't 'geniuses' they were just very good at their craft
I'm a woodworker in real life and it's possible to do things which are apparently difficult - such that it looks like genius, but it's really about knowing how to pull off various tricks of the trade and having put in enough practice to be good at it. Music ditto.

Rasputin
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by Rasputin » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:20 pm

I think it would take me a lot more than 10000 hours to do any woodwork that wouldn't make people burst out laughing, but I'm not prepared to drop everything and put in 5 years just to prove it...

skipintro
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:18 pm
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by skipintro » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:18 am

Rasputin wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:20 pm
I think it would take me a lot more than 10000 hours to do any woodwork that wouldn't make people burst out laughing, but I'm not prepared to drop everything and put in 5 years just to prove it...
No you could do it - you just need positive mental attitudes!!

User avatar
Eberhard Mueller
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Can an Old Guy make it to 10,000 Hours? A rhetorical question

Post by Eberhard Mueller » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:12 am

Rasputin wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:40 pm
...
Yes it can, but for me a much more important consideration is that we don't have to be brilliant at something to justify spending our spare time doing it. It's our time to spend as we like, and why wouldn't we spend it playing guitar when even inexpert playing can be such a pleasure? I think what I am uncomfortable with is the idea that this needs to be justified by saying that it is mastery in the making. That is the idea that this 10,000 hour theory is insidiously reinforcing. It is inviting us to say 'OK I'm not that good now, but you wait and see - I will be one day', when we should be saying 'I do it for pleasure, it doesn't matter how good I am or how good I am going to get - it's not a competition'.

People were saying 'genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration' decades ago, so that magic 10,000 hours is really the only thing that makes the newer stuff at all interesting. I don't think calling the figure 'nominal' makes much difference here. If it means we should read it as 10,000 hours, more or less, that's still a magic number and still makes the whole thing dodgy, and if it means that we should read it as 'a long time', we already knew that.
"...even inexpert playing can be such a pleasure," is the best line I've heard about CG playing, (for old guys,) on this thread! At least it makes me feel good, at an age where making progress is so painful in many ways. One step forward and one, or two, steps backward is the new normal, but you got to love it! :lol:
Neil Douglas 2001 (German Spruce / German Maple)
Neil Douglas 1992 (Engelmann Spruce / Brazilian Rosewood)
La Patrie Motif
Cordoba Mini M

Return to “Classical Guitar Classes”