How many 10K hours do you have left?

I'll agree with the idea that it's harder for the older you to master something than it is for the younger you, but I don't think it has to do with physiological reasons. I think it has to do with things like time, commitments, obligations, and fears.

When you're young, you have more time, less commitments and obligations (family, job, etc.), and generally less fears (if I screw this up, it's fine because I'm 17). As you grow older, these things get added on and it becomes difficult to motivate yourself to actually spend the 10k hours.

If you're talking about something like skateboarding, I think you're right that younger people will learn it better and faster than old people, because it's inherently physical. If you're talking about a mental task, I think it's a matter of whether or not you will sit down and do the work.

Anecdotal data, admittedly not perfectly analogous.

I got serious about playing the game of go relatively late in life for a go player--I was 23 years old at the time. In 2 years of hard study (1~2h/day, and a bit more on weekends) I rose from essentially a complete beginner to dan level play. Since then, life has pulled me away from playing go as actively, but the work I do at this point does let me maintain my level of play.

I think it's fair to say that you get MORE out of your effort at a younger age, but at the same time, I think that if you're serious about learning and honest about the way you learn, you can absolutely get a LOT out of those hours--and that ultimately, you can get the same utility as you would have, by tailoring your studies to the way you learn more effectively.

Julia Child didn't learn gourmet cooking until her late 30s.

I think part of the trouble is that that the definition of "mastery" is so fluid. In chess, is "grandmaster" really the bar you want to set? Why not just "master" or even "expert?"

In another area, some percentage of medical doctors receive their degrees after age 40. Is that achievement + licensure sufficient to call it "mastery?"

True, but at least you will be the chess boss at the retirement home.

Really, finding a few examples of 7000k hour violin players discredits the 10k hour rules? It's an estimate, not a mission to mars.

Are you also offended by astronomers getting the mass of a star, or geologists measuring the amount of oil in a well wrong? They would be delighted to get the order of magnitude right.

The 10k hour rule isn't about experience, but about deliberate practice. Two very different things.

I work roughly 2000 hours a year in my field, but that includes meetings, and HR stuff, and answering client questions, creating proposals etc.. I would bet I spend right around 400-800 hours a year growing in my field. That would put mastery more like 10-25 years away.

Agreed.

I think this is where you get into mastery vs. experience. 10k hours of a task does not make you an expert unless you've spent those 10k hours deliberately attempting to gain expertise.

This is also where you get into good practice vs. bad practice. i.e., the average golf enthusiast "practices" by going to the driving range, because it's easy and fun and he's probably already decent at using a driver. Someone who wants to become a golf professional practices by hitting a hundred balls out of a sand trap or driving into the wind or any number of other difficult techniques they're not good at yet.

It's not so much the passage of time (10k hours) that matters, as it is how you spend those hours.

To your second point, "mastery" is sort of a vague term. I like your idea of "enough to achieve a certain goal". That's probably better from a mental health perspective too (experts in many fields are pretty crazy because they've devoted themselves exclusively to this one narrow area for years and years).

In addition to deliberate practice, there's also the relationship of time when practiced. Here's a good layperson's explanation - http://calnewport.com/blog/2011/11/11/if-youre-busy-youre-do...

As others have said, those 2088 hours a year in my job aren't deliberate practice, and as a software engineer, I spend about 2 hours a day or less doing software development. However, after 8 years of professional software development, I'm finally reaching a point of not only being highly skilled, but also establishing a track record of influence and communication due to my increasing confidence. The project experience and successes have been a huge help, but only when I spend the mental energy to engage in my "meetings" and "email" that relate to my new projects.

In other words, I can see the benefit of taking all aspects of my job seriously, even meetings, because they are the backbone of influencing others on your ideas/design as well as fully understanding all aspects of a project.

Hours spent doing something is not the same as hours spent in targetted time to achieve mastery of your chosen domain. Lots of kids spend hours and hours kicking footbals, few become the next Ronaldo, Messi, Beckham ...

Also, most people aren't doing only one thing while they're at work.

2 hours a day is not something completely unachievable. Hell, I spent that time everyday watching some movie or just relaxing.

That rate sounds like what many kids do who become successful adults. Kids are born learners, at a far more intense rate than that. But adults? Become a manager and wise advisor.

Clearly, we need to hack the underlying codebase to allows more time for achievements.

On a serious thought, if old people live longer, we have longer access to their knowledge and expertise. When old people die, we lost some their expertise forever. So if we cure cancer and other diseases, that would be money well spent.