Response to Gladwell's 10,000 Hour Rule

In Best Selling Author Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers, Gladwell states, “Researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours” (Gladwell). Can 10,000 hours really be all that is necessary for success? Gladwell’s claim 10,000 hours is a “magic number” for success is only half true, success is based on more than practice alone, genetic predisposition plays a heavy role as well. Gladwell based his “10,000 Hour Rule” on a 1993 paper written by Professor Anders Ericsson entitled, “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance.” The paper described the work of a group of psychologists who studied the practice habits of violin students in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. In the study, by age 20 the elite performers had averaged more than 10,000 hours of practice each, while the less able performers had only done 4,000 hours of practice (Carter). The “magic” 10,000 hours Gladwell describes is based mainly on the conclusion Ericsson draws in his paper, “Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years” (Ericsson). However, Ericsson himself disagrees with Gladwell’s statement and published a rebuttal paper in 2012, called “The Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists.” In this rebuttal, Ericsson points out that 10,000 hours was merely an average, and the majority of the most talented performers discussed in his study had accumulated "substantially fewer" hours of practice. Ericsson also emphasized the quality of the practice was important, "Gladwell does not even mention the concept of deliberate practice," Ericsson writes. 10,000 hours of practice alone is not enough for expertise or excellence, in fact, an article published in the journal Intelligence, by psychologist David Hambrick suggested that practice explains only about a third of success among musician and chess masters (Hambrick). With so many conflicting studies on the topic, what is to be believed? Gladwell says in an interview, “There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers....practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation.” Hambrick and other 10,000-hour critics see this stance as "moving the goalposts" in a scientific debate, backpedaling from an earlier strong position to a weaker one due to new conflicting research while refusing to concede. It seems to become clearer and clearer, 10,000 hours alone is NOT enough to excel or become an expert in a field. Expertise requires a combination of natural skill, hard work, and perseverance. This debate between practice and genetic predisposition is one small facet of the long running psychological debate of Nature vs Nurture. Georgia Institute of Technology Professor, Phillip Ackerman, believes in a middle ground between practice and predisposition. Ackerman says, “The odds are pretty good, but not impossible, that if you have an I.Q. of 70, you're probably not going to get a Ph.D. in particle physics. There aren't innate abilities. Aside from our reflexes, everything is learned in one way or the other.” In conclusion 10,000 hours may not be the “magic number” Gladwell describes in Outliers, however, natural talent does not always lead to success either. Instead, the key to success lies in the middle ground between genetics and hard work- practice is needed to cultivate and perfect skills and talents which are predisposed by genetics.