A piece of research carried out in 1993 and cited more than 4,200 times asked a range of 20 year-old violinists to estimate the amount of time they spent on deliberate practice throughout their careers. The average estimated hours for the least accomplished violinists was about 4,600 hours, whereas the average estimated hours for the most accomplished violinists was more than 10,000 hours.
The researchers concluded that “individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.”
Cue coverage in books such as Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success and David Shenk’s The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genes, Talent and Intelligence is Wrong, and the “10,000 Hour Rule” became a thing.
In this article in Scientific American, leading creativity researcher Scott Barry Kaufman picks apart the “10,000 hour rule”, and argues that there is no such thing as innate talent.
Read the full post:
Publisher: Scientific American
Author: Scott Barry Kaufman
Talent vs. Practice: Why Are We Still Debating This?
Photo Credit: pbkwee