Being an expert is a good thing - but how to get the 10.000 hour practise in a field that is in constant change?
Maybe this rule is partly wrong today? Think of all the blindness concerning web 2.0 in traditional industries (food? retail?). Most of them are still very web 1.0! But why? Perhaps becauce the rule of 10.000 hours as at work, where things can only be good, when there is a long (tradition of) practise. And this practise and expertise overlooks newer developments and innovations.
vincentvw
· 2 years ago
You should read the HBR-article, or check out Malcolm's speech. Basically it's not about practicing the same thing for 10,000 hours. It's about constantly pushing the boundaries and working with many mentors/teachers/partners.
Exactly because a field (and I think this applies to anything from tech to art) is in constant change, people have to train their brain to take in new information quickly, and to have an arsenals of tools ready to deal with that information.
If practice, at work or anywhere else, overlooks new developments, it can be both good and bad. For instance, in strategy, I consider Sun Tsu's The Art of War much more relevant than much of the "new" strategy today. Of course that doesn't mean that all new things are bad, but that people should be careful to build up the basics and not follow all the new trends too much. I don't want to generalise this point however.
Other than this new idea of quantifying the number of hours it takes to become some level of expert in a chosen field, dont we already know that "practice maketh perfect"!
Obviously again, an expert is not a genius. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the bomb man, although an expert physicist is not Albert Einstein.
This whole discussion seems like "Duh!".
vincentvw
· 7 months ago
Yeah man, since I wrote this essay and Gladwell's new book came out, I've kind of felt that everything he says these days seems like "Duh!"
Then again, I did enjoy "The Tipping Point," kind of.
All Comments
Maybe this rule is partly wrong today? Think of all the blindness concerning web 2.0 in traditional industries (food? retail?). Most of them are still very web 1.0! But why? Perhaps becauce the rule of 10.000 hours as at work, where things can only be good, when there is a long (tradition of) practise. And this practise and expertise overlooks newer developments and innovations.
Exactly because a field (and I think this applies to anything from tech to art) is in constant change, people have to train their brain to take in new information quickly, and to have an arsenals of tools ready to deal with that information.
If practice, at work or anywhere else, overlooks new developments, it can be both good and bad. For instance, in strategy, I consider Sun Tsu's The Art of War much more relevant than much of the "new" strategy today. Of course that doesn't mean that all new things are bad, but that people should be careful to build up the basics and not follow all the new trends too much. I don't want to generalise this point however.
Anyway, thanks for your comment!
Regards,
Felicia Pizzonia
Obviously again, an expert is not a genius. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the bomb man, although an expert physicist is not Albert Einstein.
This whole discussion seems like "Duh!".
Then again, I did enjoy "The Tipping Point," kind of.