|
Experts are valued in the engineering and business world.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines expert as "having or showing special
skill or knowledge derived from training or experience." A second definition
includes the word 'training' instead of 'having been taught.' So the question
is: how much training do you need to be considered an expert?
In 2008 Malcolm Gladwell talked about the "10,000-hour
rule" in his book Outliers: The Story of
Success. This rule claims that the key to success in any field is, to a
large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around
10,000 hours. For years, that was held as the standard for expert level
training and experience. But a new study looks at the truth of this rule.
A study countering this rule was published last May by psychologist
David Zachary Hambrick of Michigan State University in East Lansing. The study,
titled "Deliberate
practice: is that all it takes to become an expert?", suggests that
practice explains only about a third of success among musicians and chess masters.
The article caused quite a stir and prompted many replies from other
psychologists including, K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University in
Tallahassee who is best known for the research touted in Gladwell's book. Image Credit
Hambrick and his team looked at case studies of master
musicians and chess players as well as quizzing the players on the number of
hours they spend in deliberate practice (as opposed to performances or play).
The data concluded that practice accounted for only 30 percent of success in
music and 34 percent in chess.
The variability in practice hours devalues the
10,000-hour rule. Chess grand masters had put in an average of 10,530 hours
with practice times ranging from 832 to 24,284. Musicians' efforts ranged from
10,000 to 30,000 hours.
The battle
between Ericsson and Hambrick continued when Ericsson replied to the
report, commenting that this kind of critique inappropriately mixes data about
less-skilled folks into the analysis. Hambrick's retort is that Ericsson relied
on only a few supreme performers for his studies.
Regardless of the studies done, the 10,000-hour rule is
haunted by the nature verses nurture argument. "Plenty of studies suggest that
aside from practice hours, individual differences help explain success",
Georgia Tech's Phillip Ackerman says in Intelligence.
"Such differences range from socioeconomics to coaching to I.Q."
What do you think it takes to be an expert?
Resources
Are
Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Hours of Practice Really All You Need?
Scientists
Debunk The Myth That 10,000 Hours of Practice Makes You an Expert
| 
2
Re: What Does it Take to be an Expert?
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: